Changes

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. <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]</ref>.

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. <ref>See [[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog]]</ref>.

When receiving a bunch of questions by Andrew 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]] (<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>).

When receiving a bunch of questions by Andrew Schafly, several examples of irrational behaviour occurred, referring to the challenges as [[slander]], yet no [[lawsuit]] was filed yet. Schlafly claimed that accusing Lenski of slander was not his goal. He has also displayed annoyance, arrogance, and [[elitism]] (<ref>See [[Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog]]</ref>).

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.

When Lenski received a request from  non-biologist Andrew Schafly for [[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, which could be considered a reasonable way to make a good use of the taxpayers money.

Undisclosed or obscure data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>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.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref>

Undisclosed or obscure data for Lenski's 2008 paper are noted below (pp. 2-3 from paper, superscripts omitted):<ref>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.</ref><ref>A Lenski defender has asserted that this table format is copyrighted under [[GFDL]], which imposes overly complex rules for reuse.</ref>