Changes

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] suggests: "The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper."

[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] suggests: "The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper."

Faulty logic on four counts: 1) It is not a "torrent of nonsense" to independently repeat experiments. That is the basis by which experimental results may be readily confirmed or disproved. 2) Nobody suggested that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] repeat the experiments by himself. It is well know that he doesn't have the facilities to do that. What I suggested was that Conservapedia editors try to locate sympathetic scientists who have the resources to run the experiments. These experiments are neither expensive nor difficult to reporduce. It just takes time and a lab. 3) If another lab group found that they were unable to reproduce the results despite using the strains provide by Lenksi and following the paper's techniques, that would force a serious re-evaluation and likely, a retraction of conclusions made paper. 4) I made no "demand" that the experiments be repeated. I *suggested* that it would be a good idea. I wrote: ''"Now, contrast that to my deleted comment '''suggesting''' that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment."''

Faulty logic on four counts: 1) It is not a "torrent of nonsense" to independently repeat experiments. That is the basis by which experimental results may be readily confirmed or disproved and reproducibility is one of the main principles of the scientific method. 2) Nobody suggested that [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] repeat the experiments by himself. It is well known that he doesn't have the facilities to do that. What I suggested was that Conservapedia editors try to locate sympathetic scientists who have the resources to run the experiments. These experiments are neither expensive nor difficult to reproduce. It just takes time (a few minutes a day for most of the work) and a lab. 3) If another lab group found that they were unable to reproduce the results despite using the strains provide by Lenski and following the paper's techniques, that would force a serious re-evaluation and likely, a retraction of conclusions made paper. 4) I made no "demand" that the experiments be repeated. I *suggested* that it would be a good idea. I wrote: ''"Now, contrast that to my deleted comment '''suggesting''' that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment."''

Given the four substantive rebuttals provided above, will [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] acknowledge that rerunning the experiment in an independent lab has legitimate merit?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Given the substantive remarks provided above, will [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] or anyone else acknowledge that rerunning the experiment in an independent lab has legitimate merit?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:19, 15 September 2008 (EDT)