Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at Conservapedia:Lenski dialog.

Reply to comments in archive

The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.

Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[1]

So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--Aschlafly 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:

"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website."

If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --DinsdaleP 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

If "the relevant ... data ... are in our paper," as set forth in the above quote of Lenski, then he would not have much data. So don't pretend the data is too voluminous to turn over. The paper is only 8 pages long!

In fact, the graphs in the paper suggest to a reader that there is underlying data having greater resolution than a graph can provide, and yet those data have not been disclosed for public scrutiny.--Aschlafly 19:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions

IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:

(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result), and

(2) -- whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.

Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --

Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) -- A new step in evolution

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).LarryFarma 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoodsDeanWinter 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--Aschlafly 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. AndyMann 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date. E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it". The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled. It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released. The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols. The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.

I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource. With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP. That would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable. Godspeed. --DinsdaleP 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply

I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.AndyMann 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Good thing I saved the page before they tried to get rid of the evidence! Kenji 20:30, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Tools

These are the tools used by liberals according to the entry on Conservapedia. Judge for yourselves whether anyone else on this website makes use of these themselves!

Deceit - Aschlafly and others here accused Professor Richard Lenski of fraud without proof, and they also claim that the data in question has not been made available. But a simple reading of Prof. Lenski's second response reveals that he has made all data available, including the bacteria used in the study (provided that the logistics of transporting such sensitive material are handled properly).

Holding conservatives to a higher standard than they hold themselves - Aschlafly posted on the front page "Lenski's latest response to a request for his data is revealing ... about Lenski's attitude. Take a good look at the attitude our tax dollars are paying for..." without acknowledging that by most accounts his own tone was rude and impolite (not to mention accusatory).

Bullying - Tom Moore wrote "...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified." To which Aschlafly responded: "As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant." Ad hom argument against Tom Moore = bullying.

Also, user Philip J Rayment threatened user Able806 with being blocked/banned unless he listed the qualifications of CMI staff. Sounds like bullying to me! "Do this or else!"

Censorship - Just count the number of posts deleted or the threats of blocking or banning for daring to suggest an alternative approach to dialog with Prof. Lenski! Especially by users Bugler or Philip J. Rayment.

Capturing and misleading youth - Many of the original Conservapedia editors are homeschooled students of Aschlafly.

Sowing division among conservatives, such as atheists complaining that one particular prayer might offend someone of another religion. Desensitization - The actions of Aschlafly have been questioned by most Conservapedia users who are responding to this situation. One might say that his actions have created division among conservatives.

Jamming - Anyone who has attempted to reason with Aschlafly and suggest alternate routes of debate has been branded either a "defender of withholding data" or an "atheist" or (gasp!) a "liberal," even though one's personal religious or political beliefs are difficult to pinpoint based on selected Internet comments.

Conversion - As a Christian, I do not believe that Aschlafly's behavior is a good witness for Jesus Christ and I fear that his actions may cause non-Christians to dismiss Christian beliefs based on his poor example.

Undermining religion - It undermines and insults God when Aschlafly and others insist that He could have never used evolution as His mechanism for breathing life onto the Earth.

Mocking conservative science - Science is not biased towards liberalism or conservatism. Some scientists are. The arguments by Aschlafly and others have not been accepted as scientific by other scientists are therefore fall outside the realm of science.

Portraying criminals and miscreants as being conservative when, in fact, they are not - Prof. Lenski and others who have contributed to this discussion have been called "atheists" and "liberals" when there is no proof that they hold such beliefs.

Dismissing valid conservative criticism for no reason - Aschlafly dismissed Prof. Lenski's responses to his letters and the Conservapedia community has been trying to encourage him to reconsider, on the grounds that Prof. Lenski agreed to produce everything that has been requested and devoted significant time to responding thoroughly to the entire community.

Using the term "conservative" as a pejorative - On this page (as well as half the "news" items on the main page) the term "liberal" is used as a pejorative. "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." ~Luke 6:42

Insisting on "globalist" terms and phrasing to the detriment of American English and meanings. This is an anti-American effort to promote "one worldism" - I'm tired, but if anyone who finds an example of this on the page will win a free Internet beer.

In psychology, "projection" is essentially when one attributes one's own traits or behavior to others, often because they are negative, unwanted, or socially undesirable.

Like I said, judge for yourselves.

Kenji 20:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)