16
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 163:
Line 163: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 00:21, July 18, 2008
, 00:21, July 18, 2008→Formal Response to PNAS
::::::::::::As for calculations of mutation rates: Blount et al. performed additional fluctuation experiments (journal pg. 7903) in an attempt to estimate the relative effect of the potentiating mutation and calculate a rough estimate of the mutation rates. Keep in mind, those rates '''''are referenced to growth under the specific conditions used in that particular experiment''''' and were used to provide ballpark estimates for comparison to other classes of known mutations. As for the second experiment not 'scaling' (with the first?), I wouldn't expect that. The first involved clones grown in continuous liquid subcultures and both the total number of generations, cells/generation and growth conditions (e.g. liquid with nutrient replenishment vs. solid agar) are very different.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::As for calculations of mutation rates: Blount et al. performed additional fluctuation experiments (journal pg. 7903) in an attempt to estimate the relative effect of the potentiating mutation and calculate a rough estimate of the mutation rates. Keep in mind, those rates '''''are referenced to growth under the specific conditions used in that particular experiment''''' and were used to provide ballpark estimates for comparison to other classes of known mutations. As for the second experiment not 'scaling' (with the first?), I wouldn't expect that. The first involved clones grown in continuous liquid subcultures and both the total number of generations, cells/generation and growth conditions (e.g. liquid with nutrient replenishment vs. solid agar) are very different.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::: I have not "sidestepped" your point, Andy. Your claim is that the number of Cit+ mutants obtained did not scale with sample size in the third experiment. In response, I reiterated what Argon and I have said previously, specifically that there are differences between the third and second experiments that make a straight comparison between the two inappropriate. That said, if anyone is sidestepping the issue, it is you. Argon and I have addressed your objection previously, but your only response has been to stubbornly restate the original claim. If you don't agree with our statements, then you must explicate why. Additionally, I did not say or imply in any way that the third experiment was flawed. I said that it was significantly different from the second, but this is not the same as saying it was flawed. Argon has provided a response to the scaling of the second experiment to the first.[[User:Gerlach|Gerlach]] 20:21, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: In response to earlier postings about drafting and submitting a letter to PNAS, I'm for it and would be happy to contribute. In response to a comment above, I don't want any "glory" and learned a long time ago that nobody gets credit or money for telling the truth. More often those who speak the truth are reviled and insulted, but mockery doesn't bother the truth as much as it bothers falsehoods.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:01, 16 July 2008 (EDT)