185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 56:
Line 56: + + + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 19:03, July 13, 2008
, 19:03, July 13, 2008→1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented...: new section
The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."
The author of the above statement must not have read the paper or the supplement carefully. Lenski took clones from those cultures that '''weren't Cit+'''. Careful reading of the paper or the supplement reveals that Cit+ mutants appeared at 750 generations or later into the replay experiment. The authors write: "New Cit+ variants emerged between 750 and 3,700 generations..."
== 1. Lenski's "historical contingency" hypothesis, as specifically depicted in Figure 3, is contradicted by the data presented... ==
Again, more issues with comprehension: The authors did not know when the potentiating mutation first arose but they knew it was before generation 31,500. Figure 2 is merely figurative, being an illustration, and not quantitative. Their analyses suggested that the potentiating mutation did arise at about the 20,000 generation point or later. Their conclusion is that Cit+ mutation rate is low even in a potentiated background but apparently distinguishable from a low-incidence single, unpotentiated event.