<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Wisdom89</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Wisdom89"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Wisdom89"/>
	<updated>2026-10-20T16:26:23Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christopher_Hitchens&amp;diff=999321</id>
		<title>Christopher Hitchens</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Christopher_Hitchens&amp;diff=999321"/>
		<updated>2012-08-09T23:44:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: removing nonsense speculation&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:Hitchens,_Stanford.jpg‎ |right|thumb|200px|Christopher Hitchens]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Christopher Eric Hitchens''' (April 13, 1949 - December 15, 2011) was a [[Journalism|journalist]], [[author]] and literary critic. Hitchens received a degree in PPE ([[philosophy]], [[politics]] and [[economics]]) from [[Oxford University|Balliol College]], [[Oxford]], in 1970. From 1971-1981, he worked in [[Britain]] as book reviewer for ''The Times'' newspaper.  He emigrated to the [[United States of America|United States]] in 1981, and has written regularly, or been a contributing editor for ''Harper's'', ''Vanity Fair'' and [[Nation (magazine)|''The Nation'']]. He was an avowed [[Marxist]], [[Atheism|atheist]] and [[Antitheism|antitheist]]. Hitchens has a younger brother, [[Peter Hitchens]], who is also a journalist, author and critic. Mr. Hitchens was one of the more prominent spokesperson for the [[New Atheism]] movement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Hitchens was a member of the International Socialists and an active [[Trotskyist]] during his youth.  Before his death he claimed to be &amp;quot;on the same side as the [[Neoconservatism|neo-conservatives]],&amp;quot; but did not consider himself a [[conservative]].  He supported [[George W. Bush|George W. Bush's]] foreign policy, but has a negative attitude towards Bush's support of [[intelligent design]]. Hitchens made himself unpopular, even among fellow atheists for his support of the Iraq War, which was motivated by his hatred of religion - in his own words, he supported the [[Operation Iraqi Freedom|Iraq War]] simply because [[Iraq|Iraqis]] were [[Islam|Muslim]], which has been compared to endorsement of racially-motivated [[genocide]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He was a harsh critic of [[Ronald Reagan]], and considered [[Henry Kissinger]] a [[war criminal]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Unhealthy lifestyle and premature death ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:'' [[Atheism and health]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Hitchens was known for having a history of heavy drinking and chain-smoking.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.counterpunch.org/mccarthy02212003.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html Christopher Hitchens: Despite Cancer, I'd Drink &amp;amp; Smoke Again]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Christopher Hitchens was being treated for esophageal cancer which was likely caused by [[alcoholism|drinking]] and [[smoking]] up until his death on December 15, 2011.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/07/video-extended-interview-hitchens-on-cancer-and-atheism/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://healthblog.ctv.ca/post/Why-did-Hitchens-continue-to-smoke-during-his-treatment.aspx Why did Hitchens continue to smoke &amp;amp; drink during treatment? -CTV News]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Despite his esophageal cancer, when asked by interviewer Charlie Rose if in retrospect he would have engaged in heavy drinking and smoking knowing his present cancer condition, Hitchens said he think he would have done things the same.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/17/christopher-hitchens-desp_n_685021.html Christopher Hitchens: Despite Cancer, I'd Drink &amp;amp; Smoke Again]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Hitchens also had problems with being overweight during his life (see: [[Atheism and obesity]] and [[New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_3UXl0oMYPLs/SXgxH_-MgFI/AAAAAAAAAF4/EU-wzxEjOmc/s1600-h/atheist-reason.jpg Picture of an overweight Christopher Hitchens smoking a cigarette]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; According to the [[National Cancer Institute]], &amp;quot;[[obesity]] is associated with increased risks of cancers of the esophagus.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/obesity National Institute of Health - Obesity and Cancer Risk]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hitchens on bestiality ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''See also:''  [[Christopher Hitchens on bestiality]] and [[Atheism and bestiality]] and [[Evolutionary belief and bestiality]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Bestiality]] is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of a [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologist]] [[William Lane Craig]] vs. atheist Christopher Hitchens debate there was an audience question and answer period.[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU VIDEO]  Around an hour and 54 minutes into the aforementioned video, the first audience member to ask a question asked Christopher Hitchens twice whether it is &amp;quot;good that the Bible prohibits humans from having sex with animals.&amp;quot; Hitchens answered the question essentially by saying the Bible is not needed to stop humans from doing that, since we are genetically inclined against it and societies that do engage in such harmful behavior tend to die out, citing the example of cannibalistic societies that get kuru.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Dr. Craig said the question posed to Hitchens was a good one and it helped illustrate that atheism cannot offer objective moral standards (see: [[Atheism and morality]]).&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FofDChlSILU Christopher Hitchens vs William Lane Craig - Does God Exist Debate] &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Hitchen's self-refutation of his irrational atheistic claims ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Vox Day]] wrote:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|In ''The Irrational Atheist'', I noted that Christopher Hitchens had committed a marvelous exercise in self-evisceration when he declared that “what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence”, then proceeded to pronounce no fewer than 52 different declarations, each of which was presented completely without evidence.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/05/sam-harris-and-epic-self-evisceration.html Sam Harris and the epic self-evisceration]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Opposition to Islam and Support of the War on Terror==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Hitchens became an activist against [[Islam]] when Ayatullah Kohmeini declared a [[fatwa]] against his personal friend [[Salman Rushdie]]. The event has led him to become very vocal in his support of the war in Iraq and heavily critical of Muslim society and ethics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Insults toward Jerry Falwell==&lt;br /&gt;
In a TV interview with Hannity and Colmes a day after [[Jerry Falwell]]'s death, Christopher Hitchens expressed his anger over Falwell's legacy, calling the media coverage of his death uniform in its &amp;quot;stupidity&amp;quot; and calling Falwell himself a &amp;quot;vulgar fraud and crook&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref name=FAL&amp;gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doKkOSMaTk4&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Hitchens went on to state such comments as &amp;quot;we have been rid of an extremely dangerous demagogue who lived by hatred of others and prejudice&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;that it's a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;the evil he did will live after him&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;and I think his death is a deliverance&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref name=FAL/&amp;gt;.  [[Hannity]] said that such comments were &amp;quot;crude&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;thoughtless&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;mean&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;hateful.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Death==&lt;br /&gt;
Christopher Hitchens died on December 15, 2011. The media has reported that the cause of his death was pneumonia, a complication of oesophageal cancer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Minzesheimer, Bob. &amp;quot;Writer Christopher Hitchens dies at age 62.&amp;quot; USA Today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2011-12-16/obit-hitchens/51999910/1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; The cancer was likely caused by his heavy drinking and smoking.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Select bibliography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*''Callaghan: The Road to Number Ten'' (Cassell, 1976) &lt;br /&gt;
*''Hostage to History: Cyprus From the Ottomans to Kissinger'' (Farrar, Straus &amp;amp; Giroux, 1989) &lt;br /&gt;
*''Imperial Spoils: The Case of the Parthenon Marbles'' (Hill and Wang, 1989) &lt;br /&gt;
*''Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies'' (Farrar, Straus &amp;amp; Giroux, 1990)  &lt;br /&gt;
*''The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice'' (Verso, 1995)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Prepared for the Worst'' (Hill and Wang, 1989)  &lt;br /&gt;
*''For the Sake of Argument: Essays &amp;amp; Minority Reports'' (Verso, 1993) &lt;br /&gt;
*''No One Left to Lie To: The Values of the Worst Family'' (Verso, 2000)&lt;br /&gt;
*''God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything'' - outside the US, published with the alternate subtitle ''The Case Against Religion'' (Atlantic, 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some other titles include: “Letters to a Young Contrarian,” “The Trial of Henry Kissinger (2001)” and his memoir, “Hitch-22. [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/12/christopher-hitchens-a-reading-list.html#ixzz1gi8RBrKh]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
“Stranger in a Strange Land”: In this piece that The Atlantic published two months after the attacks of 9/11, Hitchens summed up his break from the establishment left over the attacks and the war on terror that was then only beginning. [[Ibidem]]&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1662757,00.html &amp;quot;Why Christopher Hitchens Is Wrong About Billy Graham&amp;quot;], Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy, ''[[Time magazine]]'' Tuesday, Sep. 18, 2007&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Hitchens, Christopher}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Authors|Hitchens, Christopher]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Journalists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolutionists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:New Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Communists]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serotonin&amp;diff=489724</id>
		<title>Serotonin</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serotonin&amp;diff=489724"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T22:35:30Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: {{fact}} tags&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{jargon}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Serotonin''' or '''5-Hydroxytryptamine''' (5-HT) is a [[neurotransmitter]] synthesized from the [[amino acid]] [[tryptophan]] and found in the [[central nervous system]], the gastrointestinal tract and [[platelets]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Serotonin is thought to play an important role in a number of physiological and psychological functions, including regulation of [[mood]], vomiting, aggression, appetite, body temperature, sleep, and sexuality. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the body's serotonin is found within the gastrointestinal tract (roughly 90%) and is secreted from enterochromaffin cells. The source of serotonin within the central nervous system is the [[Raphe Nuclei]] in the [[brainstem]]. It is posited that individuals deficient in serotonin are vulnerable to disorders such as clinical [[depression]], [[Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder]], [[anxiety|anxiety disorders]], [[bipolar disorder]], [[irritable bowel syndrome]], ear infections, and [[migraine]]s.{{fact}}  Consequently, medications that increase serotonergic activity in the brain are often used to treat these disorders. Examples include antidepressants such as [[monoamine oxidase inhibitors]] (MAOIs), [[Tricyclic anti-depressants]], and [[Selective-Serotonin-Reuptake-Inhibitors]] (SSRIs).{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hyperglycemia&amp;diff=489656</id>
		<title>Hyperglycemia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hyperglycemia&amp;diff=489656"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T17:14:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: adding&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Hyperglycemia''' is the state of an abnormally high [[glucose]] concentration in the [[blood]]. It generally arises in patients afflicted with [[Diabetes mellitus]]. It is the opposite of [[hypoglycemia]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medicine]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489653</id>
		<title>Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489653"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T17:10:21Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cmt&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which &amp;quot;two other&amp;quot; experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the &amp;quot;historical contingency&amp;quot; is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself.  A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced.  If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself.  If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; of course.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the &amp;quot;Historical contingency&amp;quot; hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment.  The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the &amp;quot;shoddiness&amp;quot; please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Please try harder then.  I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: At least now i can recongnize your statements more or less clearly. Yet i think (cite from the paper) ''We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and the result is extremely significant (P &amp;lt; 0.0001) whether or not the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.'' has to be addressed more specifically than you do in order to discredit the statistics used --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 11:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Just for comparative purposes and a frame of reference, a P value that is less than the significance level of 0.05 is considered  significant. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 13:10, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the [[Lenski]] paper.  You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: &amp;quot;Wisdom89&amp;quot;, your claim that you &amp;quot;have expertise&amp;quot; and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim.  Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before.  We're not fooled by it here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(removed silly comment by person who has since been blocked for [[90/10 talk]] violation)&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen.  That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague &amp;quot;give us all the data &amp;quot; demands.  Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I don't know if PNAS would embarrass itself by printing a rebuttal, or whether it has the integrity to retract Lenski's paper.  Conservapedia's audience is probably bigger than PNAS's, and we're certainly not going to suspend our exposure of the truth here in order to await correction by PNAS.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: In addition, Lenski has already demonstrated how he reads this site and he can certainly correct his own paper, and he should do so.  Indeed, professionalism might support giving Lenski the time to correct it himself first.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I understand what you're saying, but there's nothing improper or unprofessional in submitting a formal request to PNAS to have the points in this article addressed by Professor Lenski and his team.  To be frank, you've been adamant in your insistence that PNAS has been less than rigorous in the review of Lenski's paper, so if one of your intentions is to demonstrate this then having PNAS respond to a formally submitted response to the paper in public would serve that purpose.  This can be done in addition to publishing these objections on Conservapedia--[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:21, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::If not PNAS, then perhaps some other public forum? I know Andy Schlafly has appeared on television, effectively arguing against gardisal and other dangerous vaccines. Perhaps if a TV program were interested you could argue against Lenski? You could be the spokesperson against these false claims of evolution.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:24, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: I'm not opposed to the above suggestions, but the future is here, folks.  Lenski, PNAS editors and television producers have free will to reject or ignore the truth, and I'm more interested in getting the truth out here than trying to persuade someone in dying media like print or television.  Lenski and his defenders can see the truth here, and they can decide for themselves whether to reject or admit it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:30, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I agree with you about the dying nature of print (I don't think television is dying, merely changing). The problem is that information about the flaws in Lenski's study are not registering outside of sites like Conservapedia. In effect, Conservapedia is an echo chamber. People that come to this site already agree with its point of view. I encourage you to attempt to attract the attention of other forms of media, or Lenski's false claims will simply be accepted as fact by the public and even worse, by educators.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 12:36, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::While there's nothing wrong with taking one's message to various forums or outlets, I believe there's a specific value in submitting these objections as a formal response to PNAS.  Conservapedia was established as a trustworthy resource for students, and in my mind all of it's actions should be done with the goal of informing and educating.  The Lenski debate is over the findings published in a scientific journal after undergoing a peer-review process.  The objections to this paper by the CP leadership are not just about its content, but to the process by which it was reviewed and published in the timeframe it was.  Talking about these objections is fine, but it's more instructional to the students using Conservapedia, and a better example of the scientific method in action, to respond to a scientific paper published in a journal through the formal process by which such papers are either defended or corrected.  In the end, Lenksi's work will either stand up as good science, or any errors will be addressed and the paper's conclusions modified accordingly, which is also good science.  Seeing this process in action regarding a such a significant paper is a great learning opportunity, and the Conservapedia leadership would be remiss in not standing by their conviction in these objections and submitting them formally to PNAS. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 12:38, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489587</id>
		<title>Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489587"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T05:02:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: grammar&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which &amp;quot;two other&amp;quot; experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the &amp;quot;historical contingency&amp;quot; is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself.  A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced.  If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself.  If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; of course.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the &amp;quot;Historical contingency&amp;quot; hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment.  The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489586</id>
		<title>Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489586"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T05:01:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cmt&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which &amp;quot;two other&amp;quot; experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the &amp;quot;historical contingency&amp;quot; is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself.  A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced.  If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself.  If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; of course.&lt;br /&gt;
[[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: The &amp;quot;peer reviewers&amp;quot; who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the &amp;quot;Historical contingency&amp;quot; hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment.  The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get someone a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=489571</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=489571"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T04:36:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: be more specific.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College, but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Lenksi's biographical sketch does not exhibit any background or experience in mathematics or statistics.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old E. coli experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days, sparking obvious questions regarding potential problems &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; about the thoroughness of the review.  The statistical analysis in Lenski's paper has been criticized by Conservapedia for having serious flaws.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Flaws in Lenski Study]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded and even though the request was made in part to enable review of the data by students of the requestor.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489569</id>
		<title>Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=489569"/>
		<updated>2008-07-13T04:34:24Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cmt&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which &amp;quot;two other&amp;quot; experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the &amp;quot;historical contingency&amp;quot; is not true. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=489024</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=489024"/>
		<updated>2008-07-10T02:17:33Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: not supported by citation..it's just a dialog with multiple interpretations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems about the thoroughness of the review. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged by Schafly, Lenski refered to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Lenski received a request from  non-biologist Andrew Schafly for the [[data]], he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling. Lenski makes it clear that only scientist with enough experience to handle the bacteria properly will get access to the original cultures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscure data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serotonin&amp;diff=489023</id>
		<title>Serotonin</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serotonin&amp;diff=489023"/>
		<updated>2008-07-10T02:15:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: removed unnecessary jargon&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{jargon}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Serotonin''' or '''5-Hydroxytryptamine''' (5-HT) is a [[neurotransmitter]] synthesized from the [[amino acid]] [[tryptophan]] and found in the [[central nervous system]], the gastrointestinal tract and [[platelets]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Serotonin is thought to play an important role in a number of physiological and psychological functions, including regulation of [[mood]], vomiting, aggression, appetite, body temperature, sleep, and sexuality. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the body's serotonin is found within the gastrointestinal tract (roughly 90%) and is secreted from enterochromaffin cells. The source of serotonin within the central nervous system is the [[Raphe Nuclei]] in the [[brainstem]]. It is posited that individuals deficient in serotonin are vulnerable to disorders such as clinical [[depression]], [[Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder]], [[anxiety|anxiety disorders]], [[bipolar disorder]], [[irritable bowel syndrome]], ear infections, and [[migraine]]s.  Consequently, medications that increase serotonergic activity in the brain are often used to treat these disorders. Examples include antidepressants such as [[monoamine oxidase inhibitors]] (MAOIs), [[Tricyclic anti-depressants]], and [[Selective-Serotonin-Reuptake-Inhibitors]] (SSRIs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488626</id>
		<title>Talk:Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488626"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T20:30:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist */ re&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looks great.  Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule.  Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Listing fields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here?  It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I googled &amp;quot;MSU biology&amp;quot;, then went over the &amp;quot;Faculty List A-G&amp;quot;. Here is what I found:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No list of degrees: 2&lt;br /&gt;
List with fields: 3&lt;br /&gt;
List without fields: 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Template / formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Really, &amp;quot;Henry8th&amp;quot;???  That's an amazing coincidence you describe:  you just happen to administer a &amp;quot;private wiki&amp;quot; at &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; I mean &amp;quot;accessible only to people within my research group&amp;quot;; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: The copyright policy here says &amp;quot;Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution&amp;quot;.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to &amp;quot;data not provided&amp;quot; and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the &amp;quot;omissions&amp;quot; section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to be common practice (and therefore not &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot;) to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot; has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This man is nothing but a farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A problem with: &amp;quot;Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study,&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as &amp;quot;meaningless edits&amp;quot;? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well.  I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now I'm a &amp;quot;Lenski supporter&amp;quot;? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE?  DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?&amp;quot;, I also wrote: &amp;quot;A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.&amp;quot; and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.&lt;br /&gt;
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,&lt;br /&gt;
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wrong format for a debate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring all the other issues with this &amp;quot;article&amp;quot;, the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:&lt;br /&gt;
 ==Visual Inspection==&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Lenski's Paper===&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Discussion===&lt;br /&gt;
 (back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic &amp;quot;A claims B, to which C points out D.&amp;quot; style)&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 ==Study Omissions==&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)&amp;quot; Aschlafly.  Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008'' &lt;br /&gt;
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled &amp;quot;Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking&amp;quot; and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Anything wrong with the cites for it?  By the way, not every block is proper.   If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion.  The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.)  They don't really cover any &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; activities, though.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; reference only?  As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maybe need to add another section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: &amp;quot;Interactions with Andrew Schlafly&amp;quot; (or &amp;quot;site owner&amp;quot;) would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== e-mail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here?  If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template.  Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Professor?==&lt;br /&gt;
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Digital Organisms==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski is famous for two things.  His work with his work E. coli  and his work with digital organisms.  The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page.  I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;!!  One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a &amp;quot;[[digital organism]]&amp;quot;? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist.  He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question,  &amp;quot;What did he do with E. coli&amp;quot; as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]].  The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner.  Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lenski does say that in his email.  He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views.  Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we be more clear about &amp;quot;data&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;samples&amp;quot;? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound.  You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month.  It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone.  Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;?  As to releasing samples to a &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot; scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot;.  Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson.  It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent.  I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data.  But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you.  He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say &amp;quot;no&amp;quot; to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear Mr. Bohlin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny.  Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review.  You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request.  Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested?  I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mike Anderson&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia contributor&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson.  I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Dear Mike,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Respectfully,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ray Bohlin, PhD&lt;br /&gt;
::::President&lt;br /&gt;
::::Probe Ministries&lt;br /&gt;
::::www.probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
::::rbohlin@probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon.  My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden.  He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state].  --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds.  It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]].  Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: &amp;quot;Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::I knew the reason why.  I just wanted you to say it.  Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited.  I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data.  I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research?  [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance.  If that is being naive then so be it.  Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::We can debate about human nature here if you want, however, that would get us no where. No one said anything about all scientists. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. We're human. It's ludicrous for me to have to preface my statements with such trivia. So, implying that the ''majority'' of scientists are swayed by their personal beliefs is horribly cynical. A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Good to see we agree that atheist scientists can become blinded by their own prejudices and produce misleading conclusions (although we disagree on many other things.) So why is it that one shouldn't be suspicious when the scientist in question is being evasive about the requests for data? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 15:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
''A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis.'' That is precisely ''not'' the case. Faith in God is natural and right: it is, if you like, the 'default' condition of mankind. Atheism is a perversion of belief; it takes a wilful step into ignorance and defiance of God. Once that step is taken, all values of truth and objectivity fly out of the window. Atheists cannot practice science; the need to 'prove' and 'justify' their terrible howling void of non-belief means that they can only practice pseudo-science. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I honestly hope you don't ever become a scientist. I say this not to slight you, but because your view on how it should/does function is horribly skewed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:30, 8 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies?   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statistical Significance ==&lt;br /&gt;
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly.  The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that &amp;quot;A number of Cit+ clones were isolated...&amp;quot; on p7900.  Asking how many is all well and good.  But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance.  The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: &amp;quot;all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected.&amp;quot;  It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what?  Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Visual Inspection ==&lt;br /&gt;
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the &amp;quot;LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.&amp;quot; The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, &amp;quot;Yep, that's turbid,&amp;quot; and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want,  a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488390</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488390"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T04:33:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: so what?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems about the thoroughness of the review. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged by Schafly, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] (&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Lenski received a request from  non-biologist Andrew Schafly for the [[data]], he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling. Lenski makes it clear that only scientist with enough experience to handle the bacteria properly will get access to the original cultures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscure data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=488356</id>
		<title>Diabetes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=488356"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T01:42:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: {{disambiguation}}&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{disambiguation}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Diabetes Insipidus]] &lt;br /&gt;
*[[Diabetes mellitus]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488308</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488308"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T01:02:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: bunch of questions is very informal sounding&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College, but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems about the thoroughness of the review. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged by Schafly, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] (&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Lenski received a request from  non-biologist Andrew Schafly for the [[data]], he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling. Lenski makes it clear that only scientist with enough experience to handle the bacteria properly will get access to the original cultures.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscure data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488293</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488293"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T00:11:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: touch ups&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College, but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems about the thoroughness of the review. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying his published claims, he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by open-minded scientists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscure data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488291</id>
		<title>Talk:Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488291"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T00:08:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist */ format&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looks great.  Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule.  Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Listing fields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here?  It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I googled &amp;quot;MSU biology&amp;quot;, then went over the &amp;quot;Faculty List A-G&amp;quot;. Here is what I found:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No list of degrees: 2&lt;br /&gt;
List with fields: 3&lt;br /&gt;
List without fields: 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Template / formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Really, &amp;quot;Henry8th&amp;quot;???  That's an amazing coincidence you describe:  you just happen to administer a &amp;quot;private wiki&amp;quot; at &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; I mean &amp;quot;accessible only to people within my research group&amp;quot;; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: The copyright policy here says &amp;quot;Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution&amp;quot;.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to &amp;quot;data not provided&amp;quot; and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the &amp;quot;omissions&amp;quot; section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to be common practice (and therefore not &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot;) to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot; has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This man is nothing but a farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A problem with: &amp;quot;Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study,&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as &amp;quot;meaningless edits&amp;quot;? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well.  I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now I'm a &amp;quot;Lenski supporter&amp;quot;? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE?  DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?&amp;quot;, I also wrote: &amp;quot;A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.&amp;quot; and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.&lt;br /&gt;
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,&lt;br /&gt;
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wrong format for a debate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring all the other issues with this &amp;quot;article&amp;quot;, the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:&lt;br /&gt;
 ==Visual Inspection==&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Lenski's Paper===&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Discussion===&lt;br /&gt;
 (back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic &amp;quot;A claims B, to which C points out D.&amp;quot; style)&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 ==Study Omissions==&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)&amp;quot; Aschlafly.  Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008'' &lt;br /&gt;
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled &amp;quot;Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking&amp;quot; and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Anything wrong with the cites for it?  By the way, not every block is proper.   If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion.  The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.)  They don't really cover any &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; activities, though.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; reference only?  As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maybe need to add another section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: &amp;quot;Interactions with Andrew Schlafly&amp;quot; (or &amp;quot;site owner&amp;quot;) would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== e-mail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here?  If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template.  Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Professor?==&lt;br /&gt;
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Digital Organisms==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski is famous for two things.  His work with his work E. coli  and his work with digital organisms.  The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page.  I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;!!  One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a &amp;quot;[[digital organism]]&amp;quot;? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist.  He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question,  &amp;quot;What did he do with E. coli&amp;quot; as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]].  The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner.  Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lenski does say that in his email.  He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views.  Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we be more clear about &amp;quot;data&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;samples&amp;quot;? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound.  You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month.  It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone.  Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;?  As to releasing samples to a &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot; scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot;.  Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson.  It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent.  I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data.  But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you.  He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say &amp;quot;no&amp;quot; to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear Mr. Bohlin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny.  Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review.  You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request.  Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested?  I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mike Anderson&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia contributor&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson.  I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Dear Mike,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Respectfully,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ray Bohlin, PhD&lt;br /&gt;
::::President&lt;br /&gt;
::::Probe Ministries&lt;br /&gt;
::::www.probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
::::rbohlin@probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon.  My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden.  He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state].  --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds.  It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]].  Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: &amp;quot;Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::I knew the reason why.  I just wanted you to say it.  Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited.  I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data.  I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research?  [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance.  If that is being naive then so be it.  Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::We can debate about human nature here if you want, however, that would get us no where. No one said anything about all scientists. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. We're human. It's ludicrous for me to have to preface my statements with such trivia. So, implying that the ''majority'' of scientists are swayed by their personal beliefs is horribly cynical. A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies?   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statistical Significance ==&lt;br /&gt;
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly.  The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that &amp;quot;A number of Cit+ clones were isolated...&amp;quot; on p7900.  Asking how many is all well and good.  But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance.  The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: &amp;quot;all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected.&amp;quot;  It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what?  Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Visual Inspection ==&lt;br /&gt;
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the &amp;quot;LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.&amp;quot; The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, &amp;quot;Yep, that's turbid,&amp;quot; and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want,  a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488290</id>
		<title>Talk:Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488290"/>
		<updated>2008-07-08T00:08:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist */ re&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looks great.  Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule.  Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Listing fields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here?  It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I googled &amp;quot;MSU biology&amp;quot;, then went over the &amp;quot;Faculty List A-G&amp;quot;. Here is what I found:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No list of degrees: 2&lt;br /&gt;
List with fields: 3&lt;br /&gt;
List without fields: 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Template / formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Really, &amp;quot;Henry8th&amp;quot;???  That's an amazing coincidence you describe:  you just happen to administer a &amp;quot;private wiki&amp;quot; at &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; I mean &amp;quot;accessible only to people within my research group&amp;quot;; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: The copyright policy here says &amp;quot;Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution&amp;quot;.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to &amp;quot;data not provided&amp;quot; and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the &amp;quot;omissions&amp;quot; section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to be common practice (and therefore not &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot;) to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot; has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This man is nothing but a farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A problem with: &amp;quot;Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study,&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as &amp;quot;meaningless edits&amp;quot;? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well.  I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now I'm a &amp;quot;Lenski supporter&amp;quot;? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE?  DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?&amp;quot;, I also wrote: &amp;quot;A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.&amp;quot; and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.&lt;br /&gt;
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,&lt;br /&gt;
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wrong format for a debate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring all the other issues with this &amp;quot;article&amp;quot;, the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:&lt;br /&gt;
 ==Visual Inspection==&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Lenski's Paper===&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Discussion===&lt;br /&gt;
 (back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic &amp;quot;A claims B, to which C points out D.&amp;quot; style)&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 ==Study Omissions==&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)&amp;quot; Aschlafly.  Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008'' &lt;br /&gt;
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled &amp;quot;Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking&amp;quot; and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Anything wrong with the cites for it?  By the way, not every block is proper.   If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion.  The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.)  They don't really cover any &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; activities, though.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; reference only?  As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maybe need to add another section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: &amp;quot;Interactions with Andrew Schlafly&amp;quot; (or &amp;quot;site owner&amp;quot;) would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== e-mail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here?  If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template.  Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Professor?==&lt;br /&gt;
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Digital Organisms==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski is famous for two things.  His work with his work E. coli  and his work with digital organisms.  The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page.  I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;!!  One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a &amp;quot;[[digital organism]]&amp;quot;? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist.  He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question,  &amp;quot;What did he do with E. coli&amp;quot; as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]].  The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner.  Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lenski does say that in his email.  He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views.  Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we be more clear about &amp;quot;data&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;samples&amp;quot;? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound.  You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month.  It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone.  Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;?  As to releasing samples to a &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot; scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot;.  Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson.  It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent.  I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data.  But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you.  He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say &amp;quot;no&amp;quot; to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear Mr. Bohlin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny.  Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review.  You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request.  Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested?  I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mike Anderson&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia contributor&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson.  I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Dear Mike,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Respectfully,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ray Bohlin, PhD&lt;br /&gt;
::::President&lt;br /&gt;
::::Probe Ministries&lt;br /&gt;
::::www.probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
::::rbohlin@probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon.  My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden.  He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state].  --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds.  It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]].  Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: &amp;quot;Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::I knew the reason why.  I just wanted you to say it.  Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited.  I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data.  I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research?  [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance.  If that is being naive then so be it.  Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::We can debate about human nature here if you want, however, that would get us no where. No one said anything about all scientists. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. We're human. It's ludicrous for me to have to preface my statements with such trivia. So, implying that the ''majority'' of scientists are swayed by their personal beliefs is horribly cynical. A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing &lt;br /&gt;
when it comes to data analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies?   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statistical Significance ==&lt;br /&gt;
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly.  The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that &amp;quot;A number of Cit+ clones were isolated...&amp;quot; on p7900.  Asking how many is all well and good.  But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance.  The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: &amp;quot;all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected.&amp;quot;  It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what?  Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Visual Inspection ==&lt;br /&gt;
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the &amp;quot;LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.&amp;quot; The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, &amp;quot;Yep, that's turbid,&amp;quot; and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want,  a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488195</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488195"/>
		<updated>2008-07-07T21:57:00Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: grammar and linking to E. Coli - agree about assertion about Andy&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College, but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known evolution critic, Andrew Schlafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; about the thoroughness of the review.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. Schafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying his published claims, he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by [[Creation science|open-minded scientists]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488194</id>
		<title>Talk:Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488194"/>
		<updated>2008-07-07T21:54:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an atheist */ poor science&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;==Formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Looks great.  Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule.  Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Listing fields ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here?  It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I googled &amp;quot;MSU biology&amp;quot;, then went over the &amp;quot;Faculty List A-G&amp;quot;. Here is what I found:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No list of degrees: 2&lt;br /&gt;
List with fields: 3&lt;br /&gt;
List without fields: 12&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Template / formatting==&lt;br /&gt;
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Really, &amp;quot;Henry8th&amp;quot;???  That's an amazing coincidence you describe:  you just happen to administer a &amp;quot;private wiki&amp;quot; at &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your &amp;quot;work&amp;quot;.  I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By &amp;quot;private&amp;quot; I mean &amp;quot;accessible only to people within my research group&amp;quot;; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:: The copyright policy here says &amp;quot;Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution&amp;quot;.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to &amp;quot;data not provided&amp;quot; and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the &amp;quot;omissions&amp;quot; section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to be common practice (and therefore not &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot;) to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and &amp;quot;odd&amp;quot; has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== This man is nothing but a farce ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== A problem with: &amp;quot;Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study,&amp;quot; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as &amp;quot;meaningless edits&amp;quot;? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well.  I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And now I'm a &amp;quot;Lenski supporter&amp;quot;? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE?  DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?&amp;quot;, I also wrote: &amp;quot;A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment.&amp;quot; and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.&lt;br /&gt;
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,&lt;br /&gt;
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Wrong format for a debate ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ignoring all the other issues with this &amp;quot;article&amp;quot;, the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:&lt;br /&gt;
 ==Visual Inspection==&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Lenski's Paper===&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
 ===Discussion===&lt;br /&gt;
 (back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic &amp;quot;A claims B, to which C points out D.&amp;quot; style)&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
 ==Study Omissions==&lt;br /&gt;
 (quote)&lt;br /&gt;
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)&amp;quot; Aschlafly.  Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008'' &lt;br /&gt;
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled &amp;quot;Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking&amp;quot; and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Anything wrong with the cites for it?  By the way, not every block is proper.   If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion.  The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.)  They don't really cover any &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; activities, though.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the &amp;quot;lobbying&amp;quot; reference only?  As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Maybe need to add another section ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: &amp;quot;Interactions with Andrew Schlafly&amp;quot; (or &amp;quot;site owner&amp;quot;) would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== e-mail ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here?  If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template.  Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Professor?==&lt;br /&gt;
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Digital Organisms==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski is famous for two things.  His work with his work E. coli  and his work with digital organisms.  The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page.  I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;!!  One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not &amp;quot;Liberal Claptrap&amp;quot;.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a &amp;quot;[[digital organism]]&amp;quot;? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist.  He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question,  &amp;quot;What did he do with E. coli&amp;quot; as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]].  The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner.  Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Lenski does say that in his email.  He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views.  Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Can we be more clear about &amp;quot;data&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;samples&amp;quot;? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &amp;lt;sup&amp;gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&amp;lt;/sup&amp;gt; 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound.  You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month.  It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone.  Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his &amp;quot;data&amp;quot;?  As to releasing samples to a &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot; scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as &amp;quot;competent&amp;quot;.  Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson.  It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent.  I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data.  But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you.  He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say &amp;quot;no&amp;quot; to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Dear Mr. Bohlin,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny.  Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review.  You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request.  Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested?  I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Sincerely,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Mike Anderson&lt;br /&gt;
::Conservapedia contributor&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson.  I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Dear Mike,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Respectfully,&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::Ray Bohlin, PhD&lt;br /&gt;
::::President&lt;br /&gt;
::::Probe Ministries&lt;br /&gt;
::::www.probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
::::rbohlin@probe.org&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon.  My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden.  He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state].  --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds.  It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]].  Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: &amp;quot;Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::I knew the reason why.  I just wanted you to say it.  Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited.  I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data.  I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research?  [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance.  If that is being naive then so be it.  Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/blockquote&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies?   --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Statistical Significance ==&lt;br /&gt;
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly.  The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that &amp;quot;A number of Cit+ clones were isolated...&amp;quot; on p7900.  Asking how many is all well and good.  But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance.  The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: &amp;quot;all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected.&amp;quot;  It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what?  Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Visual Inspection ==&lt;br /&gt;
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the &amp;quot;LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time.&amp;quot; The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, &amp;quot;Yep, that's turbid,&amp;quot; and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want,  a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488192</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488192"/>
		<updated>2008-07-07T21:50:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cleaning up some grammar issues, also..previous statement removed was speculatory about Lenski.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from [[Oberlin College]], but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old [[E. coli]] experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that the bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known supporter of creation science, Andrew Schafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; about the thoroughness of the review.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. Schafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying his published claims, he did not provide the raw data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by [[Creation science|open-minded scientists]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488189</id>
		<title>Richard Lenski</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Richard_Lenski&amp;diff=488189"/>
		<updated>2008-07-07T21:48:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cleaning up..and removing a speculatory statement about Andy&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Richard Lenski''' is a professor of microbial [[ecology]] at Michigan State [[University]].  He holds a [[doctorate]] from the [[University of North Carolina]] and a B.A. from Oberlin College, but does not disclose his fields for those degrees on his own biographical sketch.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Richard Lenski is best known for his 20 year old E. coli experiment in which he claims to have observed the [[theory of evolution]] in practice, saying that bacteria made minor changes in the long-term laboratory study, insisting that it was not due to contamination.  The 2008 paper he co-authored was [[peer review]]ed in 14 days. For the well known supporter of creation science, Andrew Schafly, this sparked questions regarding potential problems &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; about the thoroughness of the review.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When challenged, Lenski displayed several examples of irrational [[Professor values|behavior]], thrice referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet has filed no [[lawsuit]] charging that (or [[libel]]). [[Truth]] offers total legal protection from accusations of libel. Schafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] when asked to release the information.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog#Second_reply|Lenski's second reply to Andrew Schlafly]]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Richard Lenski received a public request for the [[data]] underlying for his published claims, he did not provide the actual data even though his study was taxpayer-funded. In Schafly's interpretation, Lenski's refusal to provide the raw data even to fellow [[Darwinist]]s is telling, and makes it clear that he will not allow his claims to be tested by [[Creation science|open-minded scientists]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Undisclosed or obscured data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;For those wishing to review the paper personally it may be found at [http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf this link] from Lenski's website.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:{{PAGENAME}}}}&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
__NOTOC__&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=2 cellpadding=2&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#003366 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Undisclosed Data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top bgcolor=#000000 align=center&amp;gt;&amp;lt;font color=&amp;quot;#f6f7ff&amp;quot; size=&amp;quot;+1&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Some Questions about the missing data&amp;lt;/font&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Visual inspection====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. ...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data on these observations?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Turbidity==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? When and how many?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Contaminants???==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of [[citrate]] in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data for when that occurred, and how often?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;If interested in a thorough review, contact the group directly, with a legitimate request for data.  Otherwise, the disclaimer is a more than adequate description of the sample handling process.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog#Second_Reply|second response]] was rude and insulting.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====The Numbers Please?====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Higher resolution data underlying figure not provided despite request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing Numbers==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
A number...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====We're Professional Scientists====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data? How many? Statistically significant?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Missing Characteristics====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2)&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;Interested parties should consult the literature on these topics.  It is not within the scope of this paper to address the significance of these markers.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is missing from disclosure are the data that the markers were actually observed in a reliable and conclusive manner in this study.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====DNA====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DNA sequencing also showed...&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
DATA??&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski defender says, &amp;quot;The inclusion of this data would be considerably more extensive than appropriate for the inclusion in this paper.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No one asked for the data to be printed in the paper. What is missing is disclosure of the data on the website, or upon public request.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, ... &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data about these and other characteristics?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Lenski defender cites to general information unrelated to this study: Available in other publications,&lt;br /&gt;
pykF &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/gs/519955.html &amp;quot;IHOP-pykF&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and&lt;br /&gt;
nadR &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.ihop-net.org/UniPub/iHOP/mgi/447129.html &amp;quot;IHOP-nadR&amp;quot;]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A Richard Lenski supporter also cites an earlier claim (perhaps also unsupported by public release of the data) by Lenski's group: See also the reference for the sequence identification which Blount ''et al.'' list as reference #30 in their paper: Woods, R., D. Schneider, C. L. Winkworth, M. A. Riley, and R. E. Lenski. 2006. Tests of parallel molecular evolution in a long-term experiment with Escherichia coli. PNAS, USA 103:9107-9112.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0602917103v1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====More missing data==== &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
...and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all the others (30). &lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Data distinguishing &amp;quot;This population from all the others&amp;quot;?&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Fast Tracked====&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TABLE width=100% cellspacing=10&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;TD width=50% valign=top&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
The astoundingly short 14-day [[peer review | PEER REVIEW]] period, measured from the day the paper was sent out for review to the day of formal contribution by Lenski after acceptance, raises questions as to whether there was any meaningful peer review of this at all.&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/TD&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/TR&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== ==&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's paper was published in the Proceedings of the [[National Academy of Sciences]], a professional society of scientists with a strong bias towards [[atheism]] and [[evolutionism]]. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lenski's work has been criticized in the past also.  In a paper Lenski published in ''Nature'' in May 8, 2003 entitled &amp;quot;The Evolutionary Origin of Complex Features,&amp;quot; he described a computer simulation that contained no actual biology.  In fact, the discussion section of the paper stated:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;Some readers might suggest that we 'stacked the deck' by studying the evolution of a complex feature that could be built on simpler functions that were also useful. However, that is precisely what evolutionary theory requires ....&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. William Dembski explained, &amp;quot;In other words, the computer programmers built into the simulation what they thought evolution needed to make it work. The validity of this study therefore depends on whether the simulation faithfully models biological reality.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.09.UncDiss_Intro_Contribs.pdf&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]] (letters requesting data, and Lenski's responses)&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]] (discussion of Lenski controversy&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See [[Liberal style]] point 1&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;)&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Scientists]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Evolution]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{DEFAULTSORT:Lenski, Richard}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487780</id>
		<title>Red Blood Cells</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487780"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T20:00:04Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: adding info about RBC disposal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Red blood cells''' (or '''erythrocytes''') are the major cellular component of the [[blood]] that transport [[oxygen]] to other areas of the body. Red blood cells, like all [[blood cells]], are produced in the [[bone]] marrow. They contain the [[protein]] [[hemoglobin]], that contains [[iron]], allowing them to reversibly bind oxygen and carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. They lack a nucleus and the machinery for protein synthesis and, thus, contain no genetic material of their own. The lifespan of a red blood cell is about 120 days. Dead and dying RBCs are broken down and disposed of in the spleen and the liver where the released iron is conserved for reuse in the synthesis of new cells. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[White Blood Cells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Blood]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Platelets]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487773</id>
		<title>Red Blood Cells</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487773"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T19:53:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: adding info about RBC disposal&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Red blood cells''' (or '''erythrocytes''') are the major cellular component of the [[blood]] that transport [[oxygen]] to other areas of the body. Red blood cells, like all [[blood cells]], are produced in the [[bone]] marrow. They contain the [[protein]] [[hemoglobin]], that contains [[iron]], allowing them to reversibly bind oxygen and carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. They lack a nucleus and the machinery for protein synthesis and, thus, contain no genetic material of their own. The lifespan of a red blood cell is about 120 days.  Dead and dying RBCs are broken down and disposed of in the spleen and the liver where the released iron is conserved for reuse in the synthesis of new cells. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[White Blood Cells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Blood]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Platelets]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487612</id>
		<title>Red Blood Cells</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487612"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:47:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: more details for accuracy&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Red blood cells''' (or '''erythrocytes''') are the major cellular component of the [[blood]] that transport [[oxygen]] to other areas of the body. Red blood cells, like all [[blood cells]], are produced in the [[bone]] marrow. They contain the [[protein]] [[hemoglobin]], that contains [[iron]], allowing them to reversibly bind oxygen and carbon dioxide in the bloodstream. They lack a nucleus and the machinery for protein synthesis and, thus, contain no genetic material of their own. The lifespan of a red blood cell is about 120 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[White Blood Cells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Blood]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Platelets]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487610</id>
		<title>Red Blood Cells</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487610"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:46:05Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: some clarification and details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Red blood cells''' (or '''erythrocytes''') are the major cellular component of the [[blood]] that transport [[oxygen]] to other areas of the body. Red blood cells, like all [[blood cells]], are produced in the [[bone]] marrow. They contain the [[protein]] [[hemoglobin]], that contains [[iron]], allowing them to readily reversibly bind oxygen in the bloodstream. They lack a nucleus and the machinery for protein synthesis and, thus, contain no genetic material of their own. The lifespan of a red blood cell is about 120 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[White Blood Cells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Blood]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Platelets]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487608</id>
		<title>Red Blood Cells</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Red_Blood_Cells&amp;diff=487608"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:45:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: some clarification and details&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Red blood cells''' (or '''erthrocytes''') are the major cellular component of the [[blood]] that transport [[oxygen]] to other areas of the body. Red blood cells, like all [[blood cells]], are produced in the [[bone]] marrow. They contain the [[protein]] [[hemoglobin]], that contains [[iron]], allowing them to readily reversibly bind oxygen in the bloodstream. They lack a nucleus and the machinery for protein synthesis and, thus, contain no genetic material of their own. The lifespan of a red blood cell is about 120 days.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==See Also==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[White Blood Cells]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Blood]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Platelets]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=487606</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=487606"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:42:43Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: less awkward&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Taxonomy&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Dinosaur&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|caption=&lt;br /&gt;
|superkingdom=&lt;br /&gt;
|kingdom= Animalia&lt;br /&gt;
|subkingdom=&lt;br /&gt;
|superphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|phylum=Chordata&lt;br /&gt;
|subphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|infraphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|microphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|superdivision=&lt;br /&gt;
|division=&lt;br /&gt;
|subdivision=&lt;br /&gt;
|superclass=&lt;br /&gt;
|class=Sauropsida&lt;br /&gt;
|subclass=Diapsida&lt;br /&gt;
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha&lt;br /&gt;
|superorder=Dinosauria&lt;br /&gt;
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia &lt;br /&gt;
|suborder=&lt;br /&gt;
|infraorder=&lt;br /&gt;
|superfamily=&lt;br /&gt;
|family=&lt;br /&gt;
|subfamily=&lt;br /&gt;
|supertribe=&lt;br /&gt;
|tribe=&lt;br /&gt;
|subtribe=&lt;br /&gt;
|genera=&lt;br /&gt;
|genus=&lt;br /&gt;
|subgenus=&lt;br /&gt;
|species=&lt;br /&gt;
|binomialname=&lt;br /&gt;
|sub=&lt;br /&gt;
|alt=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Dinosaurs''' ([[Greek]]: δεινός (IPA: /dɛinos/) and σαύρος (/sauɾos/); ''terrible lizard'') are animals belonging to the class [[Dinosauria]]. They were known for their large size, although some species weighed just a few ounces. All dinosaurs, except for birds, are extinct. The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''&lt;br /&gt;
14(3):10–14, June 1992&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the Greek words for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;, and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description==&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs are classified into two orders based upon differences in pelvic structure: ''Saurischia'' (&amp;quot;lizard-hipped&amp;quot;), in which the ''pubis'' is pointed forward and down; and ''Ornithischia'' (&amp;quot;bird-hipped&amp;quot;), in which the ''pubis'' is pointed towards the rear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Saurischia''===&lt;br /&gt;
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal.  They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths.  Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal. &lt;br /&gt;
*Sauropoda&lt;br /&gt;
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs.  In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Diplodocus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theropoda&lt;br /&gt;
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding.  Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting. Modern [[birds]] belong to this group.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Coelophysis]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Allosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Deinonychus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Velociraptor]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Ornithischia''===&lt;br /&gt;
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal.  Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw.  Many species had beaks, which leads many people to refer to them as beaked dinosaurs. Despite their name, which means &amp;quot;bird-hipped,&amp;quot; Ornithischians were not the ancestors of modern birds.&lt;br /&gt;
*Ceratopsia&lt;br /&gt;
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Triceratops]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Protoceratops]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*Stegosauria&lt;br /&gt;
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*Ankylosauria&lt;br /&gt;
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Edmontonia]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*Ornithopods&lt;br /&gt;
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly.  Several species had a &amp;quot;boss&amp;quot; of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators. &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,&lt;br /&gt;
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word &amp;quot;chance&amp;quot; in such a phrase as &amp;quot;chance variation&amp;quot; does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&amp;amp;id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&amp;amp;pg=PA217&amp;amp;lpg=PA217&amp;amp;dq=%22robert+bakker%22&amp;amp;sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaur Species==&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores.  Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Different Perspectives ==   &lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-confirmed&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Creationary Perspective===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young earth creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[creation week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.&lt;br /&gt;
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.&amp;lt;ref Name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]]  and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively.  Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a &amp;quot;tail like a cedar&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Extinction ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists reject the &amp;quot;Great Impact Theory&amp;quot;, pointing out multiple problems with this theory. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with  a &amp;quot;New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction&amp;quot; and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]&lt;br /&gt;
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.&lt;br /&gt;
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur.  The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature.  Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art &amp;amp; History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs.  They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.&lt;br /&gt;
** Some people claim that the description of the &amp;quot;[[Thunder bird]]&amp;quot; of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt; However, the thunder bird is described as a bird, which pterosaurs had little resemblance to.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread. Some have said that these descriptions fit those of dinosaurs; however, usually dinosaurs are described as large reptilian animals not particularly like a dinosaur.&lt;br /&gt;
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;WB2000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  World Book Encyclopedia says, &amp;quot;In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings.  But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref Name=&amp;quot;WB2000&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]].  Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
* Some have said that the fact that non-avian dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times. Usually, though, they are ignoring that 65 million years separate the K-T boundary and the present.&lt;br /&gt;
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, the [[Wollemi Pine]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the [[Coelacanth]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Dinosaurs and birds ====&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his article, &amp;quot;Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry&amp;quot;, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists also cite the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers....&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp &amp;quot;Ostrich-osaurus&amp;quot; Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Extinction====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]].  This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.  Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin O Pope, &amp;quot;Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,&amp;quot; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid &amp;quot;Killed Everything&amp;quot;], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A layer of rock containing high concentrations&amp;lt;!-- &amp;quot;High&amp;quot;, or just &amp;quot;higher than normal&amp;quot;? --&amp;gt; of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Ibid''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html &amp;quot;Dinosaur-Killer&amp;quot; Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs&amp;amp;mdash;although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====An Explosion of new species ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals.  As a result of a new &amp;quot;vacancy&amp;quot; in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out.  According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, &amp;quot;Life in the Universe,&amp;quot; viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Dinosaurs and Birds====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs.  This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==&lt;br /&gt;
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionists point out that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record.  This is in fact what we find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human &amp;amp; Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAB&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomic_division&amp;diff=487604</id>
		<title>Autonomic division</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Autonomic_division&amp;diff=487604"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:41:29Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: expanding&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The '''Autonomic division''' or '''Autonomic Nervous System''' (ANS) is a subdivision of the nervous system composed of [[efferent]] nerves leading to [[cardiac muscle|cardiac]] and [[smooth muscle]], [[glands]] and other [[viscera]]. It is further divided into the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems, which typically have opposing and sometimes complementary functions on a particular organ. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Martin, JH (2003). Neuroanatomy text and atlas 3rd ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Kandel, ER; Schwartz JH, Jessell TM (2000). Principles of Neural Science, 4th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-8385-7701-6.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{stub2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biology]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Neuroscience]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serotonin&amp;diff=487602</id>
		<title>Serotonin</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Serotonin&amp;diff=487602"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:36:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: adding some detail&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Serotonin''' or '''5-Hydroxytryptamine''' (5-HT) is a biogenic amine [[neurotransmitter]] synthesized from the [[amino acid]] [[tryptophan]] and found in the [[central nervous system]], the gastrointestinal tract and [[platelets]].  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Serotonin is thought to play an important role in a number of physiological and psychological functions, including regulation of [[mood]], vomiting, aggression, appetite, body temperature, sleep, and sexuality. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the body's serotonin is found within the gastrointestinal tract (roughly 90%) and is secreted from enterochromaffin cells. The source of serotonin within the central nervous system is the [[Raphe Nuclei]] in the [[brainstem]]. It is posited that individuals deficient in serotonin are vulnerable to disorders such as clinical [[depression]], [[Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder]], [[anxiety|anxiety disorders]], [[bipolar disorder]], [[irritable bowel syndrome]], ear infections, and [[migraine]]s.  Consequently, medications that increase serotonergic activity in the brain are often used to treat these disorders. Examples include antidepressants such as [[monoamine oxidase inhibitors]] (MAOIs), [[Tricyclic anti-depressants]], and [[Selective-Serotonin-Reuptake-Inhibitors]] (SSRIs).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=487600</id>
		<title>Dinosaur</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&amp;diff=487600"/>
		<updated>2008-07-05T02:31:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: grammar&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{Taxonomy&lt;br /&gt;
|name=Dinosaur&lt;br /&gt;
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg&lt;br /&gt;
|caption=&lt;br /&gt;
|superkingdom=&lt;br /&gt;
|kingdom= Animalia&lt;br /&gt;
|subkingdom=&lt;br /&gt;
|superphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|phylum=Chordata&lt;br /&gt;
|subphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|infraphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|microphylum=&lt;br /&gt;
|superdivision=&lt;br /&gt;
|division=&lt;br /&gt;
|subdivision=&lt;br /&gt;
|superclass=&lt;br /&gt;
|class=Sauropsida&lt;br /&gt;
|subclass=Diapsida&lt;br /&gt;
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha&lt;br /&gt;
|superorder=Dinosauria&lt;br /&gt;
|order=Ornithischia; Saurischia &lt;br /&gt;
|suborder=&lt;br /&gt;
|infraorder=&lt;br /&gt;
|superfamily=&lt;br /&gt;
|family=&lt;br /&gt;
|subfamily=&lt;br /&gt;
|supertribe=&lt;br /&gt;
|tribe=&lt;br /&gt;
|subtribe=&lt;br /&gt;
|genera=&lt;br /&gt;
|genus=&lt;br /&gt;
|subgenus=&lt;br /&gt;
|species=&lt;br /&gt;
|binomialname=&lt;br /&gt;
|sub=&lt;br /&gt;
|alt=&lt;br /&gt;
}}&lt;br /&gt;
'''Dinosaurs''' ([[Greek]]: δεινός (IPA: /dɛinos/) and σαύρος (/sauɾos/); ''terrible lizard'') are animals belonging to the class [[Dinosauria]]. They were known for being large, although some species weighed just a few ounces. All dinosaurs, except for birds, are extinct. The word ''dinosaur'' was coined in 1841 by [[Richard Owen]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Grigg, Russell, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1956/ Dinosaurs and dragons: stamping on the legends], ''Creation''&lt;br /&gt;
14(3):10–14, June 1992&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, from the Greek words for &amp;quot;terrible lizard&amp;quot;, and reflected the creatures' large size and fearsome appearance to the early paleontologists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Description==&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs are classified into two orders based upon differences in pelvic structure: ''Saurischia'' (&amp;quot;lizard-hipped&amp;quot;), in which the ''pubis'' is pointed forward and down; and ''Ornithischia'' (&amp;quot;bird-hipped&amp;quot;), in which the ''pubis'' is pointed towards the rear.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Saurischia''===&lt;br /&gt;
Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal.  They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material; grinding of food was aided by gastroliths.  Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal. &lt;br /&gt;
*Sauropoda&lt;br /&gt;
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs.  In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) there are species which are of extreme size, in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Diplodocus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*Theropoda&lt;br /&gt;
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding.  Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting. Modern [[birds]] belong to this group.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Coelophysis]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Allosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Deinonychus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Velociraptor]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===''Ornithischia''===&lt;br /&gt;
Species of this group were all herbivorous; most were quadrupedal.  Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw.  Many species had beaks, which leads many people to refer to them as beaked dinosaurs. Despite their name, which means &amp;quot;bird-hipped,&amp;quot; Ornithischians were not the ancestors of modern birds.&lt;br /&gt;
*Ceratopsia&lt;br /&gt;
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Triceratops]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Protoceratops]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*Stegosauria&lt;br /&gt;
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
*Ankylosauria&lt;br /&gt;
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Edmontonia]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
*Ornithopods&lt;br /&gt;
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly.  Several species had a &amp;quot;boss&amp;quot; of bone on their heads (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators. &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]'' &lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''&lt;br /&gt;
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Highlights of the history of dinosaur paleontology==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|200px|thumb|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]]]]&lt;br /&gt;
In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in [[Theory of evolution|evolution]], which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,&lt;br /&gt;
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word &amp;quot;chance&amp;quot; in such a phrase as &amp;quot;chance variation&amp;quot; does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1970, Robert Bakker catalyzed a new era of dinosaur paleontology with evidence that dinosaurs were fully warm-blooded ([[endotherms]]) and fast-moving.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Benton, Michael J. (2000), ''Vertebrate Paleontology'' [http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0632056142&amp;amp;id=PQuKO7xqjNQC&amp;amp;pg=PA217&amp;amp;lpg=PA217&amp;amp;dq=%22robert+bakker%22&amp;amp;sig=imoHNyurTTCpztNV0Pp2EU7Fj6c p. 217]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaur Species==&lt;br /&gt;
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores.  Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Different Perspectives ==   &lt;br /&gt;
    &lt;br /&gt;
Ever since the discovery of dinosaur fossils, there has been debate about whether and how dinosaurs fit into the history of life on Earth. Young-Earth creationists reject the [[uniformitarian]] time-scale, and therefore believe that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Creationists also reject the now-popular idea that dinosaurs evolved into birds. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Creationary Perspective===&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Michelangeloflood.jpg|thumb|250px|left|''The [[Great Flood|Flood]]'', by [[Michaelangelo]], detail from the [[Sistine Chapel]], 1509.]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Young earth creationists]] believe, from the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day 6 of the [[creation week]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:25&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans.&lt;br /&gt;
As such, they reject the [[Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age of the earth.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They believe that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Genesis'' 1:29-30&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.&amp;lt;ref Name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
They use [[archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence to argue that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word &amp;quot;dinosaur.&amp;quot;  However, they are alleged to be mentioned in numerous places throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]]  and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are sometimes said to be references to dinosaurs,&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively.  Young-Earth creationists point out that the descriptions don't fit these creatures, including that hippopotamuses and elephants don't have a &amp;quot;tail like a cedar&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Extinction ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists reject the &amp;quot;Great Impact Theory&amp;quot;, pointing out multiple problems with this theory. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that evolutionists are frequently coming out with  a &amp;quot;New Theory of Dinosaur Extinction&amp;quot; and that their theories are laden with false assumptions. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; It is worth noting, however, that more and more of these theories are being harmonized with one another.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=21082 More Than a Meteor Likely Killed Dinosaurs 65 Million Years Ago], ''SpaceRef.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists cite a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|150|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]&lt;br /&gt;
* There have been a number of claimed sightings of dinosaur-like creatures.&lt;br /&gt;
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur.  The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature.  Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
** The [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], a second century piece of art, is said to appear to be a piece of artwork that shows a dinosaur and man coexisting. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art &amp;amp; History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Engravings in the floor of [[Carlisle Cathedral]] appear to be of dinosaurs.  They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.&lt;br /&gt;
** The description of the &amp;quot;[[Thunder bird]]&amp;quot; of [[American Indian]]s matches the descriptions of [[pterosaur]]s.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;Today&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, suggesting that dragons were real creatures and were actually dinosaurs.&lt;br /&gt;
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: &amp;quot;The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.  Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;WB2000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  World Book Encyclopedia says, &amp;quot;In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings.  But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth.&amp;quot;&amp;lt;ref Name=&amp;quot;WB2000&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] [[New Years' Day]] celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]].  Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the artwork the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]]]] &lt;br /&gt;
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.&lt;br /&gt;
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, the [[Wollemi Pine]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; and the [[Coelacanth]] &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;!-- The Coelacanth are from a group that had previously been thought to have rudimentary limbs and so be the ancestor of land creatures, but this idea was dropped when living Coelacanths were discovered.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/coelacanth.html Coelacanth: the world’s oldest fish?]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  Biologists see this as merely a minor adjustment to the story of evolution. --&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==== Dinosaurs and birds ====&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists contend that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In his article, &amp;quot;Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry&amp;quot;, Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists also cite the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; who stated the following:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations.&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creationists:&lt;br /&gt;
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers....&amp;quot; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists also assert that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp &amp;quot;Ostrich-osaurus&amp;quot; Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The view of [[Theory of evolution|evolutionists]] and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be an asteroid) about 65 million years ago.&lt;br /&gt;
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Extinction====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to most scientists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]].  This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive.  Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most find that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Kevin O Pope, &amp;quot;Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary,&amp;quot; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid &amp;quot;Killed Everything&amp;quot;], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;  A layer of rock containing high concentrations&amp;lt;!-- &amp;quot;High&amp;quot;, or just &amp;quot;higher than normal&amp;quot;? --&amp;gt; of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;''Ibid''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html &amp;quot;Dinosaur-Killer&amp;quot; Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not consitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs&amp;amp;mdash;although the abundance of dinosaur fossils in rocks found higher in the rock layers than the impact is drastically less than their abundance in rocks lower down.{{fact}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====An Explosion of new species ====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals.  As a result of a new &amp;quot;vacancy&amp;quot; in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out.  According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, &amp;quot;Life in the Universe,&amp;quot; viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
====Dinosaurs and Birds====&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs.  This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Cladists place modern birds within the clade dinosauria, meaning that they consider all bird species today as, technically, dinosaurs.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://tolweb.org/Dinosauria/14883/1999.01.01 Tree of Life Web Project.] 1999. Dinosauria. Version 01 January 1999 (temporary). Accessed 30 May 2007.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Dinosaur fossils and Human Fossils and Geological Strata ==&lt;br /&gt;
It is sometimes asserted that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Evolutionists point out that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones shows them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Young Earth Creationists believe that these methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Creationists note that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus assert that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record.  This is in fact what we find.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAB&amp;quot;&amp;gt;Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human &amp;amp; Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists assert there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;NAB&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.&amp;lt;ref name=&amp;quot;HaD&amp;quot; /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==	 &lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Dinosaurs]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=487364</id>
		<title>Rush (band)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=487364"/>
		<updated>2008-07-04T18:03:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: proper formatting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{move|Rush (band)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Rush''' is a Canadian [[progressive rock]] band formed in the summer of 1968 initially comprising lead vocalist and bassist [[Geddy Lee]], rhythm/lead guitarist [[Alex Lifeson]], and drummer [[John Rutsey]]. [[Neil Peart]] replaced Rutsey in July 1974 and this lineup has been unchanged ever since. Early in the band's career, most of their musical output emulated blues-inspired rock bands such as [[Cream (band)|Cream]] and [[Led Zeppelin]] with lyrics that focused on epic fantasy or science fiction stories. Over the years, however, the band shed this emulation with inspiration and subsequent integration of progressive rock, [[pop rock]], [[reggae]], and [[modern rock]] characteristics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the band eschewing mainstream media exposure, their popularity grew as the years wore on, spawning fan-favorites such as 1980's ''Permanent Waves'' and 1981's quadruple platinum ''Moving Pictures''. The latter is conventionally considered the band's quintessential album and the apex of their commercial success. The band is still highly active with respect to touring and recording. They recently released their latest studio album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows'' May 1, 2007. The band's catalog is vast (composed of 19 studio albums, 7 official live recordings and numerous compilations) since their activity spans over 30 years. This longevity inevitably resulted in obvious musical changes, which lead to disagreement among fans regarding the most popular/fan-favorite songs and albums. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of Peart's lyrics, however, especially during the late '70s and early '80s (e.g ''[[2112]]''), were inspired by the [[objectivist]] philosophy of novelist [[Ayn Rand]], as well as by psychedelic [[Illegal drugs | drugs]] (e.g. &amp;quot;A Passage to Bangkok&amp;quot;). The band have received some criticism for these lyrical themes, especially in the pro-[[collectivist]] British press in the wake of this album in the 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The band is currently on an intercontinental tour in support of their most recent album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows''. A double live album dubbed ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live'' was released on April 15, 2008 chronicling this tour. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Band Members===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Geddy Lee - Bass guitar, lead vocals, synthesizers (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Alex Lifeson - Guitar, mandolin, mandola, bass pedals, backing vocals (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Neil Peart - Drums, acoustic and electronic percussion (1974 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* John Rutsey - Drums and percussion (1968 - 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Studio Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Rush (album)|''Rush'']] (March 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Fly by Night]]'' (February 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Caress of Steel]]'' (September 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[2112 (album)|''2112'']] (February 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[A Farewell to Kings]]'' (September 1977)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Hemispheres (1978 album)|''Hemispheres'']] (October 1978)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Permanent Waves]]'' (January 1980)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Moving Pictures (album)|''Moving Pictures'']] (February 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Signals (album)|''Signals'']] (September 1982)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Grace Under Pressure (1984 album)|''Grace Under Pressure'']] (April 1984)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Power Windows (album)|''Power Windows'']] (October 1985)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Hold Your Fire]]'' (September 1987)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Presto (album)|''Presto'']] (November 1989)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Roll the Bones]]'' (September 1991)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Counterparts (album)|''Counterparts'']] (October 1993)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Test for Echo]]'' (September 1996)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Vapor Trails]]'' (May 2002)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows]]'' (May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other Studio Records ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Not Fade Away (album)|''Not Fade Away'']] (1973 - 7&amp;quot; Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Closer to The Heart (album)|''Closer to The Heart'']] (1977 - Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Feedback (Rush album)|''Feedback'']] (June 2004 - Cover Album)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Live Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[All The World's a Stage]]'' (September 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Exit...Stage Left]]'' (October 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[A Show of Hands]]'' (December 1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Different Stages (1998 album)|Different Stages]]'' (November 1998)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Rush in Rio]]'' (October 2003)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]]'' (November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live]]'' (April 2008)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Videos ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Through the Camera Eye (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Exit..Stage Left (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Grace Under Pressure Tour (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* A Show of Hands (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Chronicles (1990 album)| Chronicles]] (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* Rush in Rio (DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]] (DVD - November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Compilations/Interviews ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Archives (Rush album)|Archives]]'' (April 1978) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackage of the first three albums (''[[Rush (album)|Rush]]'', ''[[Fly by Night]]'' and ''[[Caress of Steel]]'')&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Chronicles (1990 album)|Chronicles]]'' (September 1990) &amp;amp;ndash; Essentially a &amp;quot;Greatest Hits&amp;quot; release&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Story of Kings - Interview]]'' (1992) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Alex Lifeson]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Interviews - Vol 2]]'' (October 1995) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Geddy Lee]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective I]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their first decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective II]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their second decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Spirit of Radio: Greatest Hits 1974-1987]]'' (February 2003) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackaging of [[Mercury/Polygram]]-held songs up to [[Hold Your Fire]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Solo Efforts ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 1]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 2]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994/-5)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Victor (album)|Victor]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lifeson, ''et al.'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[My Favorite Headache]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lee, ''et al.'' (November 2000)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Visions: The Official Biography'' &amp;amp;ndash; Banasiewicz, Bill. (1988), Omnibus Press &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0711911622&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush Tribute: Merely Players'' &amp;amp;ndash; Telleria, Robert (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550822713&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Success Under Pressure'' &amp;amp;ndash; Gett, Steve. (1984) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0895242303&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rhythm &amp;amp; Light'' &amp;amp;ndash; Nuttall, Carrie, (2005), Rounder Books, ISBN 1579400930&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1985) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250556&lt;br /&gt;
* ''More Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart, Wheeler (1989) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250513&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Masked Rider: Cycling in West Africa'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1895900026&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Ghost Rider (book)|Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550225464 (hardcover), ISBN 1550225480 (paperback)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Traveling Music: Playing Back the Soundtrack to My Life and Times'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226649&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Contents Under Pressure: 30 Years of Rush at Home and Away'' &amp;amp;ndash; Popoff, Martin. Publisher: Ecw Press (June 28, 2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226789&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Price, et al. (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1587151022&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rock Bands]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.22.0219.37804.html Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.rush.com Rush Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.neilpeart.net Neil Peart's Official Website]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=487362</id>
		<title>Rush (band)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=487362"/>
		<updated>2008-07-04T18:03:20Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: not necessary to have a list of these songs&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{move|Rush (band)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Rush''' is a Canadian [[progressive rock]] band formed in the summer of 1968 initially comprising lead vocalist and bassist [[Geddy Lee]], rhythm/lead guitarist [[Alex Lifeson]], and drummer [[John Rutsey]]. [[Neil Peart]] replaced Rutsey in July 1974 and this lineup has been unchanged ever since. Early in the band's career, most of their musical output emulated blues-inspired rock bands such as [[Cream (band)|Cream]] and [[Led Zeppelin]] with lyrics that focused on epic fantasy or science fiction stories. Over the years, however, the band shed this emulation with inspiration and subsequent integration of progressive rock, [[pop rock]], [[reggae]], and [[modern rock]] characteristics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the band eschewing mainstream media exposure, their popularity grew as the years wore on, spawning fan-favorites such as 1980's ''Permanent Waves'' and 1981's quadruple platinum ''Moving Pictures''. The latter is conventionally considered the band's quintessential album and the apex of their commercial success. The band is still highly active with respect to touring and recording. They recently released their latest studio album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows'' May 1, 2007. The band's catalog is vast (composed of 19 studio albums, 7 official live recordings and numerous compilations) since their activity spans over 30 years. This longevity inevitably resulted in obvious musical changes, which lead to disagreement among fans regarding the most popular/fan-favorite songs and albums. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of Peart's lyrics, however, especially during the late '70s and early '80s (e.g ''[[2112]]''), were inspired by the [[objectivist]] philosophy of novelist [[Ayn Rand]], as well as by psychedelic [[Illegal drugs | drugs]] (e.g. ''[[A Passage to Bangkok]]''). The band have received some criticism for these lyrical themes, especially in the pro-[[collectivist]] British press in the wake of this album in the 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The band is currently on an intercontinental tour in support of their most recent album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows''. A double live album dubbed ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live'' was released on April 15, 2008 chronicling this tour. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Band Members===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Geddy Lee - Bass guitar, lead vocals, synthesizers (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Alex Lifeson - Guitar, mandolin, mandola, bass pedals, backing vocals (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Neil Peart - Drums, acoustic and electronic percussion (1974 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* John Rutsey - Drums and percussion (1968 - 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Studio Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Rush (album)|''Rush'']] (March 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Fly by Night]]'' (February 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Caress of Steel]]'' (September 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[2112 (album)|''2112'']] (February 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[A Farewell to Kings]]'' (September 1977)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Hemispheres (1978 album)|''Hemispheres'']] (October 1978)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Permanent Waves]]'' (January 1980)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Moving Pictures (album)|''Moving Pictures'']] (February 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Signals (album)|''Signals'']] (September 1982)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Grace Under Pressure (1984 album)|''Grace Under Pressure'']] (April 1984)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Power Windows (album)|''Power Windows'']] (October 1985)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Hold Your Fire]]'' (September 1987)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Presto (album)|''Presto'']] (November 1989)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Roll the Bones]]'' (September 1991)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Counterparts (album)|''Counterparts'']] (October 1993)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Test for Echo]]'' (September 1996)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Vapor Trails]]'' (May 2002)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows]]'' (May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other Studio Records ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Not Fade Away (album)|''Not Fade Away'']] (1973 - 7&amp;quot; Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Closer to The Heart (album)|''Closer to The Heart'']] (1977 - Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Feedback (Rush album)|''Feedback'']] (June 2004 - Cover Album)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Live Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[All The World's a Stage]]'' (September 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Exit...Stage Left]]'' (October 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[A Show of Hands]]'' (December 1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Different Stages (1998 album)|Different Stages]]'' (November 1998)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Rush in Rio]]'' (October 2003)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]]'' (November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live]]'' (April 2008)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Videos ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Through the Camera Eye (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Exit..Stage Left (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Grace Under Pressure Tour (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* A Show of Hands (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Chronicles (1990 album)| Chronicles]] (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* Rush in Rio (DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]] (DVD - November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Compilations/Interviews ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Archives (Rush album)|Archives]]'' (April 1978) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackage of the first three albums (''[[Rush (album)|Rush]]'', ''[[Fly by Night]]'' and ''[[Caress of Steel]]'')&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Chronicles (1990 album)|Chronicles]]'' (September 1990) &amp;amp;ndash; Essentially a &amp;quot;Greatest Hits&amp;quot; release&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Story of Kings - Interview]]'' (1992) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Alex Lifeson]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Interviews - Vol 2]]'' (October 1995) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Geddy Lee]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective I]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their first decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective II]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their second decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Spirit of Radio: Greatest Hits 1974-1987]]'' (February 2003) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackaging of [[Mercury/Polygram]]-held songs up to [[Hold Your Fire]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Solo Efforts ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 1]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 2]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994/-5)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Victor (album)|Victor]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lifeson, ''et al.'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[My Favorite Headache]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lee, ''et al.'' (November 2000)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Visions: The Official Biography'' &amp;amp;ndash; Banasiewicz, Bill. (1988), Omnibus Press &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0711911622&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush Tribute: Merely Players'' &amp;amp;ndash; Telleria, Robert (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550822713&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Success Under Pressure'' &amp;amp;ndash; Gett, Steve. (1984) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0895242303&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rhythm &amp;amp; Light'' &amp;amp;ndash; Nuttall, Carrie, (2005), Rounder Books, ISBN 1579400930&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1985) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250556&lt;br /&gt;
* ''More Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart, Wheeler (1989) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250513&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Masked Rider: Cycling in West Africa'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1895900026&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Ghost Rider (book)|Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550225464 (hardcover), ISBN 1550225480 (paperback)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Traveling Music: Playing Back the Soundtrack to My Life and Times'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226649&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Contents Under Pressure: 30 Years of Rush at Home and Away'' &amp;amp;ndash; Popoff, Martin. Publisher: Ecw Press (June 28, 2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226789&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Price, et al. (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1587151022&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rock Bands]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.22.0219.37804.html Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.rush.com Rush Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.neilpeart.net Neil Peart's Official Website]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Protein&amp;diff=486975</id>
		<title>Protein</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Protein&amp;diff=486975"/>
		<updated>2008-07-04T01:08:41Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: formatting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Proteins''' are complex organic compounds whose basic structure is a primary chain of amino acids covalently bonded via [[peptide bond]]s and folded into a certain shape. This tertiary fold dictates the function of the protein within the organism. They can take on many forms and perform distinct functions including (but certainly not limited to) structural, enzymatic, information storage, intracellular signaling, and transportation roles. In terms of structure, proteins are important in the construction and integrity of different body tissues including connective and muscular, as well as endocrine/exocrine glands. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/protein.html &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Synthesis==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proteins are synthesized by cytoplasmic structures composed of catalytic rRNA and proteins called [[ribosomes]]. Ribosomes translate information coded in mRNA (transcribed from genomic DNA, specific regions known as [[genes]]) after editing and manipulation by nuclear [[spliceosome]]s. The nascent protein is elongated in the ribosome through addition of different amino acids specified by codons (sets of three nucleotides) in the mRNA molecule. The formation of the protein chain requires the codon, a molecule of transfer RNA (tRNA) charged with a particular amino acid, and the tRNA's anti-codon. A molecule of water is expelled after each peptide bond is formed, hence the name &amp;quot;condensation reaction&amp;quot;.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the protein has been generated, it is assisted by other proteins termed chaperones that aid in the formation of the proper conformation. A protein is always synthesized in one direction so, invariably, proteins also exhibit the physical property known as polarity. All [[polypetide]]s possess free N-terminal(Amine; NH2) and C-terminal (Carboxylic Acid; COOH) ends. The protein may then be further edited post-translationally by certain enzymes. Examples of such modifications include, [[isoprenylation]], [[palmitoylation]], [[myristoylation]], [[methylation]], [[acetylation]], N-terminal [[proteolysis]], and [[disulfide bond]] linkage. These modifications often have some bearing on the function and localization of the protein. After these processes occur, the protein can be transported to other sub-cellular organelles/locations such as the plasma membrane, golgi apparatus, endoplasmic reticulum, and vesicles where they perform their pre-programmed function. Vesicular proteins are usually shuttled to the plasma membrane, or reserved cytoplasmically for secretion at a later time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Nutrition==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Adult humans need a minimum of 1 gram of protein for every kilogram of body weight per day to keep from slowly breaking down their own tissues. Failure to receive enough protein can cause stunted growth, loss of muscle mass, decreased immunity, weakening of the heart and respiratory system, and eventually death. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.usda.gov/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are two types of the standard 20 amino acids embedded in the [[genetic code]]: ''essential'' and ''non-essential''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are 13 amino acids the body can manufacture on its own. Essential amino acids are those which cannot be made by the body and can only be obtained from the diet. There are 9 amino acids the human body cannot produce on its own. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.nutrition.gov/ &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Protein is also classified as ''complete'' or ''incomplete''.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Complete protein foods supply all of the essential amino acids the body needs to build new proteins. Incomplete protein foods do not supply all the essential amino acids.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Complete protein food sources tend to come from meat and other animal products, fish, eggs, and milk products. Incomplete proteins come from plant sources, fruits, vegetables, grains, and nuts. Plant proteins can be combined to include all of the essential amino acids and form a complete protein, such as eating rice and beans together. Protein is only one component of a healthy diet. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt; http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002467.htm &amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Biochemistry]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Nutrition]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes_mellitus&amp;diff=486973</id>
		<title>Diabetes mellitus</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes_mellitus&amp;diff=486973"/>
		<updated>2008-07-04T01:06:27Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: grammar&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Diabetes Mellitus''' refers to three types of a highly variable disorders with abnormalities in the ability to make and/or use the hormone [[insulin]] resulting in [[hyperglycemia]] and other [[metabolism|metabolic]] derangements involving [[fat]] and [[protein]]. [[Diabetes]] Mellitus Type I, formally known as Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, type II, formally known as Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, and type III (termed gestational diabetes), a form of the disease that arises during pregnancy, are the three principle forms. Diabetes mellitus is not to be confused with [[Diabetes Insipidus]], which does not involve insulin or [[glucose]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pathophysiology==&lt;br /&gt;
*Diabetes Mellitus Type I - Autoimmune destruction of either insulin itself, or more commonly the insulin secreting cells of the pancreas (beta cells). Patients require intramuscular injections of purified insulin.&lt;br /&gt;
*Diabetes Mellitus Type II - The cells of the body are rendered unresponsive to normal insulin, either at the level of the receptor or downstream signaling events within the cell. This is also referred to as &amp;quot;insulin resistance&amp;quot; and is highly correlated to obesity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atkins Diet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:diseases]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486840</id>
		<title>Rush (band)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486840"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T22:39:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* Band Members */ delinking as already linked in lead&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;{{move|Rush (band)}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
'''Rush''' is a Canadian [[progressive rock]] band formed in the summer of 1968 initially comprising lead vocalist and bassist [[Geddy Lee]], rhythm/lead guitarist [[Alex Lifeson]], and drummer [[John Rutsey]]. [[Neil Peart]] replaced Rutsey in July 1974 and this lineup has been unchanged ever since. Early in the band's career, most of their musical output emulated blues-inspired rock bands such as [[Cream (band)|Cream]] and [[Led Zeppelin]] with lyrics that focused on epic fantasy or science fiction stories. Over the years, however, the band shed this emulation with inspiration and subsequent integration of progressive rock, [[pop rock]], [[reggae]], and [[modern rock]] characteristics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the band eschewing mainstream media exposure, their popularity grew as the years wore on, spawning fan-favorites such as 1980's ''Permanent Waves'' and 1981's quadruple platinum ''Moving Pictures''. The latter is conventionally considered the band's quintessential album and the apex of their commercial success. The band is still highly active with respect to touring and recording. They recently released their latest studio album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows'' May 1, 2007. The band's catalog is vast (composed of 19 studio albums, 7 official live recordings and numerous compilations) since their time together and activity spans over 30 years. This longevity inevitably resulted in obvious musical changes which lead to disagreement among fans regarding the most popular/fan-favorite songs and albums. Some consider songs such as the instrumental &amp;quot;YYZ&amp;quot;, the semi-concept album ''2112'', (with sections &amp;quot;Overture and &amp;quot;The Temples of Syrinx&amp;quot;), &amp;quot;Fly By Night&amp;quot;, and charting singles &amp;quot;Closer to the Heart&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Freewill&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The Spirit of Radio&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;New World Man&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The Big Money&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Distant Early Warning&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;Tom Sawyer&amp;quot; as some of their very best. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of Peart's lyrics, however, especially during the late '70s and early '80s (e.g ''[[2112]]''), were inspired by the [[objectivist]] philosophy of novelist [[Ayn Rand]], as well as by psychedelic [[Illegal drugs | drugs]] (e.g. ''[[A Passage to Bangkok]]''). The band have received some criticism for these lyrical themes, especially in the pro-[[collectivist]] British press in the wake of this album in the 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The band is currently on an intercontinental tour in support of their most recent album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows''. A double live album dubbed ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live'' was released on April 15, 2008 chronicling this tour. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Band Members===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* Geddy Lee - Bass guitar, lead vocals, synthesizers (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Alex Lifeson - Guitar, mandolin, mandola, bass pedals, backing vocals (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* Neil Peart - Drums, acoustic and electronic percussion (1974 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* John Rutsey - Drums and percussion (1968 - 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Studio Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Rush (album)|''Rush'']] (March 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Fly by Night]]'' (February 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Caress of Steel]]'' (September 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[2112 (album)|''2112'']] (February 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[A Farewell to Kings]]'' (September 1977)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Hemispheres (1978 album)|''Hemispheres'']] (October 1978)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Permanent Waves]]'' (January 1980)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Moving Pictures (album)|''Moving Pictures'']] (February 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Signals (album)|''Signals'']] (September 1982)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Grace Under Pressure (1984 album)|''Grace Under Pressure'']] (April 1984)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Power Windows (album)|''Power Windows'']] (October 1985)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Hold Your Fire]]'' (September 1987)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Presto (album)|''Presto'']] (November 1989)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Roll the Bones]]'' (September 1991)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Counterparts (album)|''Counterparts'']] (October 1993)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Test for Echo]]'' (September 1996)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Vapor Trails]]'' (May 2002)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows]]'' (May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other Studio Records ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Not Fade Away (album)|''Not Fade Away'']] (1973 - 7&amp;quot; Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Closer to The Heart (album)|''Closer to The Heart'']] (1977 - Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Feedback (Rush album)|''Feedback'']] (June 2004 - Cover Album)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Live Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[All The World's a Stage]]'' (September 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Exit...Stage Left]]'' (October 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[A Show of Hands]]'' (December 1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Different Stages (1998 album)|Different Stages]]'' (November 1998)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Rush in Rio]]'' (October 2003)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]]'' (November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live]]'' (April 2008)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Videos ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Through the Camera Eye (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Exit..Stage Left (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Grace Under Pressure Tour (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* A Show of Hands (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Chronicles (1990 album)| Chronicles]] (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* Rush in Rio (DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]] (DVD - November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Compilations/Interviews ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Archives (Rush album)|Archives]]'' (April 1978) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackage of the first three albums (''[[Rush (album)|Rush]]'', ''[[Fly by Night]]'' and ''[[Caress of Steel]]'')&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Chronicles (1990 album)|Chronicles]]'' (September 1990) &amp;amp;ndash; Essentially a &amp;quot;Greatest Hits&amp;quot; release&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Story of Kings - Interview]]'' (1992) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Alex Lifeson]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Interviews - Vol 2]]'' (October 1995) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Geddy Lee]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective I]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their first decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective II]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their second decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Spirit of Radio: Greatest Hits 1974-1987]]'' (February 2003) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackaging of [[Mercury/Polygram]]-held songs up to [[Hold Your Fire]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Solo Efforts ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 1]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 2]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994/-5)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Victor (album)|Victor]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lifeson, ''et al.'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[My Favorite Headache]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lee, ''et al.'' (November 2000)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Visions: The Official Biography'' &amp;amp;ndash; Banasiewicz, Bill. (1988), Omnibus Press &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0711911622&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush Tribute: Merely Players'' &amp;amp;ndash; Telleria, Robert (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550822713&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Success Under Pressure'' &amp;amp;ndash; Gett, Steve. (1984) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0895242303&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rhythm &amp;amp; Light'' &amp;amp;ndash; Nuttall, Carrie, (2005), Rounder Books, ISBN 1579400930&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1985) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250556&lt;br /&gt;
* ''More Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart, Wheeler (1989) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250513&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Masked Rider: Cycling in West Africa'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1895900026&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Ghost Rider (book)|Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550225464 (hardcover), ISBN 1550225480 (paperback)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Traveling Music: Playing Back the Soundtrack to My Life and Times'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226649&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Contents Under Pressure: 30 Years of Rush at Home and Away'' &amp;amp;ndash; Popoff, Martin. Publisher: Ecw Press (June 28, 2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226789&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Price, et al. (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1587151022&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rock Bands]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.22.0219.37804.html Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.rush.com Rush Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.neilpeart.net Neil Peart's Official Website]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Megadeth&amp;diff=486832</id>
		<title>Megadeth</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Megadeth&amp;diff=486832"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T22:36:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: expansion&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Megadeth''' is an American [[thrash metal]]/[[heavy metal]] band formed in 1983 by former [[Metallica]] guitarist [[Dave Mustaine]].&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://wm10.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&amp;amp;searchlink=MEGADETH&amp;amp;sql=11:jifixqe5ldfe~T1 Biography as All Music Guide]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; They credited, along with [[Metallica]], [[Anthrax (band)|Anthrax]] and [[Slayer]], with pioneering the thrash metal movement of the early to mid 80s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Current lineup==&lt;br /&gt;
*Dave Mustaine (guitars and vocals)&lt;br /&gt;
*Chris Broderick (guitars)&lt;br /&gt;
*Shawn Drover (drums)&lt;br /&gt;
*James LoMenzo (bass)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discography==&lt;br /&gt;
*''Killing Is My Business... And Business Is Good!'' (1985)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Peace Sells... But Who's Buying?'' (1986)&lt;br /&gt;
*''So Far, So Good... So What!'' (1988)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Rust In Peace'' (1990)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Countdown to Extinction'' (1992)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Youthanasia'' (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Cryptic Writings'' (1997)&lt;br /&gt;
*''Risk'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
*''The World Needs a Hero'' (2001)&lt;br /&gt;
*''The System Has Failed'' (2004)&lt;br /&gt;
*''United Abominations'' (2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.megadeth.com/ Official Megadeth Website]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Bands]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Heavy Metal]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Progressive_rock&amp;diff=486699</id>
		<title>Progressive rock</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Progressive_rock&amp;diff=486699"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T19:41:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: delinking tool..doesn't lead to the band&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Progressive rock''', often shortened to '''prog rock''' or '''prog''', is a form of [[rock music]] characterized by lengthy and complicated forms (often based on classical or jazz, and frequently consisting of multiple contrasting sections), the use of instruments not typically found in rock, and complicated harmonies and rhythms.  Other defining features include the &amp;quot;[[concept album]]&amp;quot; (such as ''[[Dark Side of the Moon]]'' or ''[[The Wall]]''), fantasy-based lyrics, and artistic album covers.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Progressive rock arose during the late 1960s and carried on through the 1970s before a decline corresponding to the rise of [[Punk rock|punk]].  [[King Crimson]], [[Yes]], [[Emerson, Lake, &amp;amp; Palmer]], and [[Genesis (band)|Genesis]] are considered the four &amp;quot;classic&amp;quot; exponents of this genre, although bands as diverse as [[Pink Floyd]], [[Jethro Tull]], and [[Rush]] have been given this label.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The genre has been criticized for some of its excesses and pretensions, which led to its downfall in the late 1970s (although bands like [[Pink Floyd]] and [[Rush]] continued to maintain a large following).  This could be seen as a general turn in popular music towards more commercial and easily-accessible forms (such as disco and smooth jazz).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1980s, many &amp;quot;neo-prog&amp;quot; artists such as [[Pallas]] and [[Marillion]] began a revival of the genre, combining the virtuosity and complexity of the '70s bands with a more mainstream sound reflecting the [[New Wave]] movement.  Stalwarts of the genre (including [[Yes]] and [[Genesis]]) also modified their sound to head in a more mainstream direction.  One example of this is the formation of the supergroup [[Asia]], featuring former members of [[Yes]], [[King Crimson]], and [[ELP]].  Asia's pop-oriented debut established a sales record for 1982, but surprised disappointed many fans of progressive rock who were expecting something less mainstream.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the 1990s a new wave of &amp;quot;progressive metal&amp;quot; bands arose who combined the sound of traditional prog bands with metal bands such as [[Black Sabbath]] and [[Metallica]]. The most prominent of these is [[Dream Theater]], while other such bands include [[Symphony X]], [[Queensryche]], and Tool.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Musical Genres]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hyperglycemia&amp;diff=486698</id>
		<title>Hyperglycemia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hyperglycemia&amp;diff=486698"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T19:40:09Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cat&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Hyperglycemia''' is the state of an abnormally high [[glucose]] concentration in the [[blood]]. It generally arises in patients afflicted with [[Diabetes mellitus]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medicine]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486671</id>
		<title>Talk:Rush (band)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486671"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:52:25Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: move page&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I agree with the proposal. This page should be renamed/moved to [[Rush (band)]] in order to prevent confusion. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 14:52, 3 July 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dave_Mustaine&amp;diff=486664</id>
		<title>Dave Mustaine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dave_Mustaine&amp;diff=486664"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:50:10Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: quotes&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Dave Mustaine''' is the lead singer and guitarist of [[Heavy Metal]] band [[Megadeth]]. He was born in [[La Mesa]], [[California]] in 1961. Before spawning Megadeth, he was one of the founding members of [[Metallica]], but was forced to leave the band because of his problems with [[alcohol abuse]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After he was found driving under the influence and after a recent accident for which he had risked the ability to play guitar, Mustaine decided in 2002 to convert to [[Christianity]] and has since been an advocate of [[family]] values. However, he remains critical of authorities such as the [[United States]] government and the [[United Nations]]. His lyrics are characterized by an aggressive temper, especially toward authority figures. In recent years, Megadeth's lyrical output has dwelled on political themes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He stated that he voted for [[George W. Bush]] because he felt that [[John Kerry]] would ruin America.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.roadrun.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&amp;amp;newsitemID=28343 Dave Mustaine Says John Kerry Will 'Ruin Our Country' - Oct. 25, 2004 ], ''Blabbermouth.net''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mustaine professed his Christian faith in the song ''Shadow of Death'' from the 2003 album ''The System Has Failed''. The song starts off with the lyric &amp;quot;Auxilium meum a Domino&amp;quot; which is [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;My help comes from the Lord&amp;quot;, the lyrics then contains a direct reading of Psalm 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He expresses clearly his ideas toward the [[United Nations]] in the song ''United Abominations'' off the album of the same title:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div bgcolor=&amp;quot;#ff0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Within striking distance from Ground Zero sits a smoldering international cauldron, the &amp;quot;United Abominations&amp;quot; as it were. Born to prevent wars, it froze in the face of disaster and stood silent while terrorization took hostage the world. In a mire Hypocrisy, the UN ignores sex crimes by it's &amp;quot;blue helmets&amp;quot;, and enable terrorism: so in the end it's failed and the UN is where our &amp;quot;so-called&amp;quot; friends get to stab us in the back and we pay 22% of their tab to host our enemies here at home. Ambassadors from countries otherwise known as a catastrophe, enjoy diplomatic immunity living in Manhattan, while their children are turned into prostitutes, It's a complete and utter disgrace, a blot on the face of humanity, and they get away with it!&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He is also very critical of [[Iraq war]] and U.S. intervention abroad, e.g. in the same song as above:&lt;br /&gt;
:I fear to undo the failings in Iraq, Iran, and Korea&lt;br /&gt;
:You may bury the bodies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But you can't bury the crimes only&lt;br /&gt;
:Fools stand up and really lay down their arms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Music]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dave_Mustaine&amp;diff=486662</id>
		<title>Dave Mustaine</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dave_Mustaine&amp;diff=486662"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:49:49Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: removed unreferenced statements, cleaned up, provided the correct lyrics to united abominations&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Dave Mustaine''' is the lead singer and guitarist of [[Heavy Metal]] band [[Megadeth]]. He was born in [[La Mesa]], [[California]] in 1961. Before spawning Megadeth, he was one of the founding members of [[Metallica]], but was forced to leave the band because of his problems with [[alcohol abuse]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After he was found driving under the influence and after a recent accident for which he had risked the ability to play guitar, Mustaine decided in 2002 to convert to [[Christianity]] and has since been an advocate of [[family]] values. However, he remains critical of authorities such as the [[United States]] government and the [[United Nations]]. His lyrics are characterized by an aggressive temper, especially toward authority figures. In recent years, Megadeth's lyrical output has dwelled on political themes.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He stated that he voted for [[George W. Bush]] because he felt that [[John Kerry]] would ruin America.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;[http://www.roadrun.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&amp;amp;newsitemID=28343 Dave Mustaine Says John Kerry Will 'Ruin Our Country' - Oct. 25, 2004 ], ''Blabbermouth.net''&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mustaine professed his Christian faith in the song ''Shadow of Death'' from the 2003 album ''The System Has Failed''. The song starts off with the lyric &amp;quot;Auxilium meum a Domino&amp;quot; which is [[Latin]] for &amp;quot;My help comes from the Lord&amp;quot;, the lyrics then contains a direct reading of Psalm 23.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He expresses clearly his ideas toward the [[United Nations]] in the song ''United Abominations'' off the album of the same title:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;div bgcolor=&amp;quot;#ff0000&amp;quot;&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
Within striking distance from Ground Zero sits a smoldering international cauldron, the &amp;quot;United Abominations&amp;quot; as it were. Born to prevent wars, it froze in the face of disaster and stood silent while terrorization took hostage the world. In a mire Hypocrisy, the UN ignores sex crimes by it's &amp;quot;blue helmets&amp;quot;, and enable terrorism: so in the end it's failed and the UN is where our &amp;quot;so-called&amp;quot; friends get to stab us in the back and we pay 22% of their tab to host our enemies here at home. Ambassadors from countries otherwise known as a catastrophe, enjoy diplomatic immunity living in Manhattan, while their children are turned into prostitutes, It's a complete and utter disgrace, a blot on the face of humanity, and they get away with it!&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;/div&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He is also very critical of [[Iraq war]] and U.S. intervention abroad, e.g. in the same song as above:&lt;br /&gt;
:I fear to undo the failings in Iraq, Iran, and Korea&lt;br /&gt;
:You may bury the bodies&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:But you can't bury the crimes only&lt;br /&gt;
:Fools stand up and really lay down their arms&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
{{reflist|2}}&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Music]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486644</id>
		<title>Rush (band)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486644"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:38:39Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: better placement of the statement&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Rush''' is a Canadian [[progressive rock]] band formed in the summer of 1968 initially comprising lead vocalist and bassist [[Geddy Lee]], rhythm/lead guitarist [[Alex Lifeson]], and drummer [[John Rutsey]]. [[Neil Peart]] replaced Rutsey in July 1974 and this lineup has been unchanged ever since. Early in the band's career, most of their musical output emulated blues-inspired rock bands such as [[Cream (band)|Cream]] and [[Led Zeppelin]] with lyrics that focused on epic fantasy or science fiction stories. Over the years, however, the band shed this emulation with inspiration and subsequent integration of progressive rock, [[pop rock]], [[reggae]], and [[modern rock]] characteristics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the band eschewing mainstream media exposure, their popularity grew as the years wore on, spawning fan-favorites such as 1980's ''Permanent Waves'' and 1981's quadruple platinum ''Moving Pictures''. The latter is conventionally considered the band's quintessential album and the apex of their commercial success. The band is still highly active with respect to touring and recording. They recently released their latest studio album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows'' May 1, 2007. The band's catalog is vast (composed of 19 studio albums, 7 official live recordings and numerous compilations) since their time together and activity spans over 30 years. This longevity inevitably resulted in obvious musical changes which lead to disagreement among fans regarding the most popular/fan-favorite songs and albums. Some consider songs such as the instrumental &amp;quot;YYZ&amp;quot;, the semi-concept album ''2112'', (with sections &amp;quot;Overture and &amp;quot;The Temples of Syrinx&amp;quot;), &amp;quot;Fly By Night&amp;quot;, and charting singles &amp;quot;Closer to the Heart&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Freewill&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The Spirit of Radio&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;New World Man&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The Big Money&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Distant Early Warning&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;Tom Sawyer&amp;quot; as some of their very best. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of Peart's lyrics, however, especially during the late '70s and early '80s (e.g ''[[2112]]''), were inspired by the [[objectivist]] philosophy of novelist [[Ayn Rand]], as well as by psychedelic [[Illegal drugs | drugs]] (e.g. ''[[A Passage to Bangkok]]''). The band have received some criticism for these lyrical themes, especially in the pro-[[collectivist]] British press in the wake of this album in the 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The band is currently on an intercontinental tour in support of their most recent album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows''. A double live album dubbed ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live'' was released on April 15, 2008 chronicling this tour. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Band Members===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Geddy Lee]] - Bass guitar, lead vocals, synthesizers (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Alex Lifeson]] - Guitar, mandolin, mandola, bass pedals, backing vocals (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Neil Peart]] - Drums, acoustic and electronic percussion (1974 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[John Rutsey]] - Drums and percussion (1968 - 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Studio Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Rush (album)|''Rush'']] (March 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Fly by Night]]'' (February 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Caress of Steel]]'' (September 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[2112 (album)|''2112'']] (February 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[A Farewell to Kings]]'' (September 1977)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Hemispheres (1978 album)|''Hemispheres'']] (October 1978)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Permanent Waves]]'' (January 1980)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Moving Pictures (album)|''Moving Pictures'']] (February 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Signals (album)|''Signals'']] (September 1982)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Grace Under Pressure (1984 album)|''Grace Under Pressure'']] (April 1984)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Power Windows (album)|''Power Windows'']] (October 1985)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Hold Your Fire]]'' (September 1987)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Presto (album)|''Presto'']] (November 1989)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Roll the Bones]]'' (September 1991)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Counterparts (album)|''Counterparts'']] (October 1993)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Test for Echo]]'' (September 1996)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Vapor Trails]]'' (May 2002)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows]]'' (May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other Studio Records ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Not Fade Away (album)|''Not Fade Away'']] (1973 - 7&amp;quot; Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Closer to The Heart (album)|''Closer to The Heart'']] (1977 - Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Feedback (Rush album)|''Feedback'']] (June 2004 - Cover Album)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Live Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[All The World's a Stage]]'' (September 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Exit...Stage Left]]'' (October 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[A Show of Hands]]'' (December 1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Different Stages (1998 album)|Different Stages]]'' (November 1998)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Rush in Rio]]'' (October 2003)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]]'' (November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live]]'' (April 2008)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Videos ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Through the Camera Eye (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Exit..Stage Left (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Grace Under Pressure Tour (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* A Show of Hands (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Chronicles (1990 album)| Chronicles]] (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* Rush in Rio (DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]] (DVD - November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Compilations/Interviews ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Archives (Rush album)|Archives]]'' (April 1978) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackage of the first three albums (''[[Rush (album)|Rush]]'', ''[[Fly by Night]]'' and ''[[Caress of Steel]]'')&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Chronicles (1990 album)|Chronicles]]'' (September 1990) &amp;amp;ndash; Essentially a &amp;quot;Greatest Hits&amp;quot; release&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Story of Kings - Interview]]'' (1992) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Alex Lifeson]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Interviews - Vol 2]]'' (October 1995) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Geddy Lee]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective I]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their first decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective II]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their second decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Spirit of Radio: Greatest Hits 1974-1987]]'' (February 2003) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackaging of [[Mercury/Polygram]]-held songs up to [[Hold Your Fire]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Solo Efforts ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 1]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 2]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994/-5)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Victor (album)|Victor]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lifeson, ''et al.'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[My Favorite Headache]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lee, ''et al.'' (November 2000)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Visions: The Official Biography'' &amp;amp;ndash; Banasiewicz, Bill. (1988), Omnibus Press &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0711911622&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush Tribute: Merely Players'' &amp;amp;ndash; Telleria, Robert (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550822713&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Success Under Pressure'' &amp;amp;ndash; Gett, Steve. (1984) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0895242303&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rhythm &amp;amp; Light'' &amp;amp;ndash; Nuttall, Carrie, (2005), Rounder Books, ISBN 1579400930&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1985) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250556&lt;br /&gt;
* ''More Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart, Wheeler (1989) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250513&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Masked Rider: Cycling in West Africa'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1895900026&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Ghost Rider (book)|Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550225464 (hardcover), ISBN 1550225480 (paperback)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Traveling Music: Playing Back the Soundtrack to My Life and Times'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226649&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Contents Under Pressure: 30 Years of Rush at Home and Away'' &amp;amp;ndash; Popoff, Martin. Publisher: Ecw Press (June 28, 2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226789&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Price, et al. (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1587151022&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rock Bands]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.22.0219.37804.html Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.rush.com Rush Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.neilpeart.net Neil Peart's Official Website]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486641</id>
		<title>Rush (band)</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rush_(band)&amp;diff=486641"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:37:12Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: some updates&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Rush''' is a Canadian [[progressive rock]] band formed in the summer of 1968 initially comprising lead vocalist and bassist [[Geddy Lee]], rhythm/lead guitarist [[Alex Lifeson]], and drummer [[John Rutsey]]. [[Neil Peart]] replaced Rutsey in July 1974 and this lineup has been unchanged ever since. Early in the band's career, most of their musical output emulated blues-inspired rock bands such as [[Cream (band)|Cream]] and [[Led Zeppelin]] with lyrics that focused on epic fantasy or science fiction stories. Over the years, however, the band shed this emulation with inspiration and subsequent integration of progressive rock, [[pop rock]], [[reggae]], and [[modern rock]] characteristics. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the band eschewing mainstream media exposure, their popularity grew as the years wore on, spawning fan-favorites such as 1980's ''Permanent Waves'' and 1981's quadruple platinum ''Moving Pictures''. The latter is conventionally considered the band's quintessential album and the apex of their commercial success. The band is still highly active with respect to touring and recording. They recently released their latest studio album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows'' May 1, 2007 and a double live album dubbed ''Snakes and Arrows Live''.  The band's catalog is vast (composed of 19 studio albums, 7 official live recordings and numerous compilations) since their time together and activity spans over 30 years. This longevity inevitably resulted in obvious musical changes which lead to disagreement among fans regarding the most popular/fan-favorite songs and albums. Some consider songs such as the instrumental &amp;quot;YYZ&amp;quot;, the semi-concept album ''2112'', (with sections &amp;quot;Overture and &amp;quot;The Temples of Syrinx&amp;quot;), &amp;quot;Fly By Night&amp;quot;, and charting singles &amp;quot;Closer to the Heart&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Freewill&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The Spirit of Radio&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;New World Man&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;The Big Money&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Distant Early Warning&amp;quot;, and &amp;quot;Tom Sawyer&amp;quot; as some of their very best. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of Peart's lyrics, however, especially during the late '70s and early '80s (e.g ''[[2112]]''), were inspired by the [[objectivist]] philosophy of novelist [[Ayn Rand]], as well as by psychedelic [[Illegal drugs | drugs]] (e.g. ''[[A Passage to Bangkok]]''). The band have received some criticism for these lyrical themes, especially in the pro-[[collectivist]] British press in the wake of this album in the 70s.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The band is currently on an intercontinental tour in support of their most recent album ''Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows''.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
===Band Members===&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Geddy Lee]] - Bass guitar, lead vocals, synthesizers (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Alex Lifeson]] - Guitar, mandolin, mandola, bass pedals, backing vocals (1968 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Neil Peart]] - Drums, acoustic and electronic percussion (1974 - Present)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[John Rutsey]] - Drums and percussion (1968 - 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Discography ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Studio Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Rush (album)|''Rush'']] (March 1974)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Fly by Night]]'' (February 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Caress of Steel]]'' (September 1975)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[2112 (album)|''2112'']] (February 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[A Farewell to Kings]]'' (September 1977)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Hemispheres (1978 album)|''Hemispheres'']] (October 1978)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Permanent Waves]]'' (January 1980)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Moving Pictures (album)|''Moving Pictures'']] (February 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Signals (album)|''Signals'']] (September 1982)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Grace Under Pressure (1984 album)|''Grace Under Pressure'']] (April 1984)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Power Windows (album)|''Power Windows'']] (October 1985)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Hold Your Fire]]'' (September 1987)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Presto (album)|''Presto'']] (November 1989)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Roll the Bones]]'' (September 1991)&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Counterparts (album)|''Counterparts'']] (October 1993)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Test for Echo]]'' (September 1996)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Vapor Trails]]'' (May 2002)&lt;br /&gt;
# ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows]]'' (May 2007)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Other Studio Records ===&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Not Fade Away (album)|''Not Fade Away'']] (1973 - 7&amp;quot; Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Closer to The Heart (album)|''Closer to The Heart'']] (1977 - Single)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Feedback (Rush album)|''Feedback'']] (June 2004 - Cover Album)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Live Albums ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[All The World's a Stage]]'' (September 1976)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Exit...Stage Left]]'' (October 1981)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[A Show of Hands]]'' (December 1988)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Different Stages (1998 album)|Different Stages]]'' (November 1998)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Rush in Rio]]'' (October 2003)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]]'' (November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Snakes &amp;amp; Arrows Live]]'' (April 2008)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Videos ===&lt;br /&gt;
* Through the Camera Eye (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Exit..Stage Left (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* Grace Under Pressure Tour (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* A Show of Hands (VHS, Laserdisc)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Chronicles (1990 album)| Chronicles]] (VHS, Laserdisc, DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* Rush in Rio (DVD)&lt;br /&gt;
* [[R30 Live In Frankfurt|R30: Live in Frankfurt]] (DVD - November 2005)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Compilations/Interviews ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Archives (Rush album)|Archives]]'' (April 1978) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackage of the first three albums (''[[Rush (album)|Rush]]'', ''[[Fly by Night]]'' and ''[[Caress of Steel]]'')&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Chronicles (1990 album)|Chronicles]]'' (September 1990) &amp;amp;ndash; Essentially a &amp;quot;Greatest Hits&amp;quot; release&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Story of Kings - Interview]]'' (1992) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Alex Lifeson]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Interviews - Vol 2]]'' (October 1995) &amp;amp;ndash; Interview with [[Geddy Lee]]&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective I]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their first decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Retrospective II]]'' Repackaging of best songs from their second decade.&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[The Spirit of Radio: Greatest Hits 1974-1987]]'' (February 2003) &amp;amp;ndash; Repackaging of [[Mercury/Polygram]]-held songs up to [[Hold Your Fire]] &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
=== Solo Efforts ===&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 1]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Burning for Buddy, Volume 2]]'' ([[Buddy Rich]] tribute album) &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Peart, ''et al.'' (1994/-5)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Victor (album)|Victor]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lifeson, ''et al.'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[My Favorite Headache]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; (Solo), Lee, ''et al.'' (November 2000)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Books ==&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Visions: The Official Biography'' &amp;amp;ndash; Banasiewicz, Bill. (1988), Omnibus Press &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0711911622&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush Tribute: Merely Players'' &amp;amp;ndash; Telleria, Robert (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550822713&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rush: Success Under Pressure'' &amp;amp;ndash; Gett, Steve. (1984) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0895242303&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Rhythm &amp;amp; Light'' &amp;amp;ndash; Nuttall, Carrie, (2005), Rounder Books, ISBN 1579400930&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1985) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250556&lt;br /&gt;
* ''More Drum Techniques of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart, Wheeler (1989) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 0769250513&lt;br /&gt;
* ''The Masked Rider: Cycling in West Africa'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1895900026&lt;br /&gt;
* ''[[Ghost Rider (book)|Ghost Rider: Travels on the Healing Road]]'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2002) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550225464 (hardcover), ISBN 1550225480 (paperback)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Traveling Music: Playing Back the Soundtrack to My Life and Times'' &amp;amp;ndash; Peart (2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226649&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Contents Under Pressure: 30 Years of Rush at Home and Away'' &amp;amp;ndash; Popoff, Martin. Publisher: Ecw Press (June 28, 2004) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1550226789&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Mystic Rhythms: The Philosophical Vision of Rush'' &amp;amp;ndash; Price, et al. (1999) &amp;amp;ndash; ISBN 1587151022&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Rock Bands]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001.8.22.0219.37804.html Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.rush.com Rush Official Website]&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.neilpeart.net Neil Peart's Official Website]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Opeth&amp;diff=486639</id>
		<title>Opeth</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Opeth&amp;diff=486639"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:32:02Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: some formatting&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Opeth''' is a Swedish [[progressive metal]] band, combining influences from 1980s and 1990s [[death metal]] with elements of 1960s and 1970s progressive rock. The band also exhibits elements of [[jazz]], [[blues rock|blues]] and European [[folk music]]. Frontman Mikael Akerfeldt, in particular, is known for being an avid collector of obscure 1970s vinyl, the styles of which have greatly influenced his own range of guitar, vocal and compositional styles. A number of Opeth albums have been produced by Steven Wilson, of popular progressive rock band Porcupine Tree. Akerfeldt is good friends with Mike Portnoy of [[Dream Theater]]. Their mutual admiration of each other's band led them to co-headline on the Progressive Nation Tour round the USA in 2008. Like Dream Theater, members of Opeth are known for their technical musical proficiency.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Discography==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Orchid'' (1995)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Morningrise'' (1996)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''My Arms, Your Hearse'' (1998)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Still Life'' (1999)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Blackwater'' Park (2001)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Deliverance'' (2002)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Damnation'' (2003)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Ghost Reveries'' (2005)&lt;br /&gt;
* ''Watershed'' (2008)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Heavy Metal]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hyperglycemia&amp;diff=486637</id>
		<title>Hyperglycemia</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Hyperglycemia&amp;diff=486637"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:29:17Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: New page: '''Hyperglycemia''' is the state of an abnormally high glucose concentration in the blood. It generally arises in patients afflicted with Diabetes mellitus.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Hyperglycemia''' is the state of an abnormally high [[glucose]] concentration in the [[blood]]. It generally arises in patients afflicted with [[Diabetes mellitus]].&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes_mellitus&amp;diff=486635</id>
		<title>Diabetes mellitus</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes_mellitus&amp;diff=486635"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:27:16Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: some clarification, linking, updates&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Diabetes Mellitus''' refers to three types of a highly variable disorders with abnormalities in the ability to make and/or use the hormone [[insulin]] resulting in [[hyperglycemia]] and other [[metabolism|metabolic]] derangements involving [[fat]] and [[protein]]. [[Diabetes]] Mellitus Type I, formally known as Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, type II, formally known as Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus, and type III is termed gestational diabetes, a form of the disease that arises during pregnancy are the three principle forms. Diabetes mellitus is not to be confused with [[Diabetes Insipidus]], which does not involve insulin or [[glucose]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Pathophysiology==&lt;br /&gt;
*Diabetes Mellitus Type I - Autoimmune destruction of either insulin itself, or more commonly the insulin secreting cells of the pancreas (beta cells). Patients require intramuscular injections of purified insulin.&lt;br /&gt;
*Diabetes Mellitus Type II - The cells of the body are rendered unresponsive to normal insulin, either at the level of the receptor or downstream signaling events within the cell. This is also referred to as &amp;quot;insulin resistance&amp;quot; and is highly correlated to obesity. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atkins Diet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[category:diseases]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=486633</id>
		<title>Diabetes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=486633"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:24:54Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* See also */ adding links&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Diabetes''' is caused by a problem with the body's [[endocrine system]]. In a healthy body, specialized cells (called [[beta cell]]s) in the [[pancreas]] make insulin. [[Insulin]] is a [[hormone]] that allows the body to use energy from food. In one form of diabetes, the immune system mistakes beta cells as &amp;quot;non-self&amp;quot; and attacks them. When enough beta cells are destroyed, symptoms of diabetes appear. If the beta cells still produce insulin but do not respond properly to the insulin or the insulin produced naturally is not enough to meet the needs of the body, people can work to keep it under control by losing [[weight]], changing their [[diet]], and increasing their [[exercise]]. Others take one or more medications, including insulin.  Unchecked diabetes can result in [[death]] from [[ketoacidosis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[American Medical Association]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atkins Diet]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Diabetes Insipidus]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Diabetes mellitus]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medicine]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Diseases]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=486632</id>
		<title>Diabetes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=486632"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:23:48Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: /* References */ cat fix&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Diabetes''' is caused by a problem with the body's [[endocrine system]]. In a healthy body, specialized cells (called [[beta cell]]s) in the [[pancreas]] make insulin. [[Insulin]] is a [[hormone]] that allows the body to use energy from food. In one form of diabetes, the immune system mistakes beta cells as &amp;quot;non-self&amp;quot; and attacks them. When enough beta cells are destroyed, symptoms of diabetes appear. If the beta cells still produce insulin but do not respond properly to the insulin or the insulin produced naturally is not enough to meet the needs of the body, people can work to keep it under control by losing [[weight]], changing their [[diet]], and increasing their [[exercise]]. Others take one or more medications, including insulin.  Unchecked diabetes can result in [[death]] from [[ketoacidosis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[American Medical Association]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atkins Diet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medicine]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Diseases]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=486631</id>
		<title>Diabetes</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Diabetes&amp;diff=486631"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:23:35Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: cat&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Diabetes''' is caused by a problem with the body's [[endocrine system]]. In a healthy body, specialized cells (called [[beta cell]]s) in the [[pancreas]] make insulin. [[Insulin]] is a [[hormone]] that allows the body to use energy from food. In one form of diabetes, the immune system mistakes beta cells as &amp;quot;non-self&amp;quot; and attacks them. When enough beta cells are destroyed, symptoms of diabetes appear. If the beta cells still produce insulin but do not respond properly to the insulin or the insulin produced naturally is not enough to meet the needs of the body, people can work to keep it under control by losing [[weight]], changing their [[diet]], and increasing their [[exercise]]. Others take one or more medications, including insulin.  Unchecked diabetes can result in [[death]] from [[ketoacidosis]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== See also ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
*[[American Medical Association]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Atkins Diet]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==References==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Medicine]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Disease]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deoxyribonucleic_acid&amp;diff=486629</id>
		<title>Deoxyribonucleic acid</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Deoxyribonucleic_acid&amp;diff=486629"/>
		<updated>2008-07-03T18:21:56Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Wisdom89: detailing&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Image:799.gif|right|thumb|300px]]&lt;br /&gt;
'''Deoxyribonucleic acid''' (DNA) is an [[organic compound|organic]] [[chemical compound]] made up of [[molecule]]s shaped like a [[double helix]], a continuously twisted ladder. The individual monomeric building blocks of DNA (and other nucleic acids) are [[nucleotide]]s, which themselves consist of three principle moieties: A nitrogenous base, a [[sugar]], and a [[phosphate]] group.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DNA carries the [[gene|genet]]ic coding for the [[protein]]s that form the bodies of living [[organism]]s, as well as the blueprints for generating some [[RNA]]. All organisms contain DNA, and the DNA of a sexually reproducing organism is a mix of its parent's DNA.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==History==&lt;br /&gt;
In the late 19th century [[Friedrich Miescher]], a Swiss [[biochemist]], discovered several different proteins and an unusual [[acid]] in the [[nucleus]] of cells. The acid was named deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. In 1944 two American [[biologist]]s, [[Alfred Hershey]] and [[Martha Chase]] used experiments with [[bacteria]] and [[bacteriophage]]s to show that DNA passed [[gene]]s from one generation to the next. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At that time, it was unclear how this simple molecule could hold all the complex information controlling the development of humans, animals and plants. Scientists knew it was made of four chemical bases called [[adenine]] (A), [[thymine]] (T), [[guanine]] (G) and [[cytosine]] (C), plus [[phosphoric acid]] and a [[sugar]]. They also knew that there was always the same amount of A as T and of G as C in cells, but they did not know the rules that controlled the arrangement.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
British scientists [[Rosalind Franklin]] and [[Maurice Wilkins]]  passed [[X-ray|X-rays]] through DNA to study the patterns made when the crystals diffracted them. From studying photographs of patterns, Rosalind Franklin concluded that DNA must be be a [[helix]]. [[James Watson]] and [[Francis Crick]], working in [[Cambridge]], used this information to help them solve the puzzle of DNA structure. They built a model showing that if A always paired with T and G paired with C, DNA must be like a ladder made of two strands twisted together in a double helix. The sugar and phosphoric acid were the sides of the ladder, and the rungs were the paired bases.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watson and Crick suggested that DNA could unzip itself into two separate strands, and each strand could act as a pattern to grow a new strand. Crick showed later that each pair of genes worked in a group of three making the code for amino acids, the building blocks of proteins. These groups are called [[codon|codons]]. They make about fifty thousand different types of [[protein]], which make all the different types of cell in the body. Indian biochemist [[Har Gobind Khorana]] made all the possible codons and worked out which codons controlled which [[amino acid]]. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the DNA in one cell was stretched out, it would be about three feet long. Although DNA has a very simple structure, it can carry an enormous amount of [[information]]. Scientists do not yet understand all the DNA they see, but in 1991 a project called the [[Human Genome Project]] began to use computers to map the three billion base pairs which make up the 46 human [[chromosome|chromosomes]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Modern understanding==&lt;br /&gt;
[[Image:818.gif|right|thumb|Structure of DNA.]]&lt;br /&gt;
Small parts of DNA called [[gene]]s serve as the instructions for the body to carry out its functions and give rise to the physical traits of the organism. &amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;&amp;quot;Eye-color genes, through the proteins they encode, direct the amount and placement of melanin in the iris.&amp;quot; [http://www.hhmi.org/cgi-bin/askascientist/highlight.pl?kw=&amp;amp;file=answers%2Fgenetics%2Fans_044.html Ask A Scientist - Genes and eye color]&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt; Genes are packaged into [[chromosomes]]. Each individual human being has 23 pairs of chromosomes, where one set is inherited from his/her mother and the other set is inherited from his/her father. 22 of these chromosomes are referred to as autosomes, while the remaining chromosome determines gender (sex chromosome).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Prokaryotic DNA]] is circular (a closed loop), while [[Eukaryotic DNA]] is linear (with ends) with the exception of [[Mitochondrial DNA]], which is circular too. DNA in [[prokaryote]]s usually consists only of one closed loop chromosome.&amp;lt;ref&amp;gt;Campbell, Neil A, et. al. ''Biology''. 6th ed. San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings, 2002. 299, 530-31.&amp;lt;/ref&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DNA changes account for differences between individuals. However, they can also cause medical problems such as [[cancer]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DNA is [[transcription|transcribed]] into [[mRNA]], which is in turn [[translation|translated]] into [[proteins]] built from [[amino acids]]. Additionally, DNA maybe transcribed into functional RNAs (ribosomal and transfer RNA) that do not undergo translation. [[RNA]] can also be reverse-transcribed back into DNA, which is the called [[Complementary DNA]] or [[cDNA]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==DNA fingerprinting==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
DNA can help police track down criminals if an attacker leaves something like hair or blood at a crime scene. Everybody’s DNA is unique unless they are identical twins, and the genetic ‘fingerprint’ of this material can be enough to confirm if a suspect was at the scene.&lt;br /&gt;
Genetic fingerprinting can also show if somebody is closely related to somebody else. Archaeologists used samples from living relatives to identify whether bodies found buried in a forest in [[Russia]] were the remains of the [[Tsar]] and his family, killed during the 1919 [[Russian revolution]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As well as showing how different we all are, DNA shows how much we are all the same. Only one small part of one chromosome distinguishes a boy from a girl. Genes give us different colored eyes, hair and skin, but 99.5% of any human's DNA is in the same order as everybody else’s. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every living thing on earth has DNA that uses the same basic chemicals as human DNA, but because their chemicals are in a different order, the DNA of a worm or a tree encodes for different proteins, and those proteins make different cells. Evolutionists believe that all these cells developed from the first single-cell creatures formed three thousand million years ago, evolving gradually into new species to adapt to their environment. Creationists believe that God created living things as distinct [[baraminology|&amp;quot;kinds&amp;quot;]], and point to [[information]] theory to show that the information on the DNA could not have arisen by chance.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==External links==&lt;br /&gt;
*[http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/trun/artwork/Animations/cloningexp/cloningexp.html Animated guide to DNA cloning]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== References ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;lt;references/&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Genetics]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Wisdom89</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>