Changes

::::::::::::Science is tentative at the cutting edge. I do not think for one moment that the paper is the "be all and end all" of all research on the subject or that every detail has been exhaustively investigated. I do question the paper, like all first papers in a research topic, but on the whole, I think the conclusions are *reasonably* supported. In my work with bacteria I have seen very different results from what I initially presumed were relatively insignificant changes. Later later experiments suggested why the experiments were unexpectedly sensitive to those changes. For the Cit+ work from Lenski's lab, I'm pretty confident that later experiments will either more solidly confirm or deny the conclusions of the Blount paper. The best data will come from sequencing work being planned now. But at least for now, I think theirs a reasonable conclusion, given what they've encountered so far. YMMV.

::::::::::::Science is tentative at the cutting edge. I do not think for one moment that the paper is the "be all and end all" of all research on the subject or that every detail has been exhaustively investigated. I do question the paper, like all first papers in a research topic, but on the whole, I think the conclusions are *reasonably* supported. In my work with bacteria I have seen very different results from what I initially presumed were relatively insignificant changes. Later later experiments suggested why the experiments were unexpectedly sensitive to those changes. For the Cit+ work from Lenski's lab, I'm pretty confident that later experiments will either more solidly confirm or deny the conclusions of the Blount paper. The best data will come from sequencing work being planned now. But at least for now, I think theirs a reasonable conclusion, given what they've encountered so far. YMMV.

::::::::::::Of course, imagine the better quality dialog you might have had if you'd waited until now to contact Lenski with specific questions based on a thorough reading of paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::Of course, imagine the better quality dialog you might have had if you'd waited until now to contact Lenski with specific questions based on a thorough reading of paper. In any case, as I mentioned previously (message now gone), if you're convinced of what you've written, by all means please fire off your letter --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:33, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.