Changes

4.  Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses.  Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.

4.  Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses.  Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.

5.  Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit⁺ variant generations.  Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.  Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104]</ref>

5.  Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit⁺ variant generations.  Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.  Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104 Cholera toxin induces malignant glioma cell differentiation]</ref>

6.  The long lag time (over 12,000 generations) between the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that the potentiating mutation likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit⁺ variant, and that the first occurrence of the Cit⁺ variant in the Third Experiment at the 20,000th generation somehow implies that a potentiating mutation occurred in its proximity.

6.  The long lag time (over 12,000 generations) between the historical contingency (potentiating mutation) in the largest experiment disproves Lenski's implicit assumption that the potentiating mutation likely occurred in proximity with the occurrence of the Cit⁺ variant, and that the first occurrence of the Cit⁺ variant in the Third Experiment at the 20,000th generation somehow implies that a potentiating mutation occurred in its proximity.