Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog"

Latest revision as of 21:30, June 21, 2021

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at Conservapedia:Lenski dialog. See also Flaws in Lenski Study.

1 Reply to comments in archive
2 More replies to archived comments
3 Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions
4 removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply
5 Archive Link?
6 Whence Lenski?
7 Qualification
8 MTA
9 Bad motive redux
10 Why does it matter?
11 Hsdebater comment
12 Intelligent design theorists on the implications of Richard Lenski's experiment

Reply to comments in archive

The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.

Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[1]

So where are all the data Lenski said he analyzed?--Aschlafly 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:

"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the evolution of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website."

If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --DinsdaleP 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

If "the relevant ... data ... are in our paper," as set forth in the above quote of Lenski, then he would not have much data. So don't pretend the data is too voluminous to turn over. The paper is only 8 pages long!

In fact, the graphs in the paper suggest to a reader that there is underlying data having greater resolution than a graph can provide, and yet those data have not been disclosed for public scrutiny.--Aschlafly 19:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The resolution of the graphs are more than sufficient to communicate the results. If the figures didn't provide sufficient clarity for their purpose the authors would have also provided tables. For example, in figure 1 it's clear the culture shifted its growth pattern. In figure 2, one can see that the Cit+ cultures reach a higher density in the media, as indicated by the higher ODs. To a microbiologist, those results indicate that the Cit+ cells can utilize more of the nutrients in the media (in this case, citrate). --Argon 21:08, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to chime in here and give some professional perspective. I am a molecular biologist -- if I asked him to, Prof. Lenski would send me a sample from his bacterial stocks (I have a -80 freezer and know how to work with E. coli). Let's assume for a minute that, like you, I strongly suspected the results of the paper (I do not, but that doesn't matter for this exercise). If this were the case, two of the routes I could take would be to re-analyze Prof. Lenski's data or replicate his experiments. In some cases, data and their analysis are complex, and re-analysis can yield different results than those the original author reached. This is the case for a large-scale association study, for example -- there are tons of data to analyze, and their analysis is not straightforward. In Prof. Lenski's case, however, the data are extremely simple, consisting primarily of 1) OD readings to measure fitness, and 2) colony counts.

OD readings, or optical density readings, are obtained by pipetting a sample of cultured bacteria into a cuvette, sticking that cuvette into a machine, and writing down the number that pops up on a screen. Somewhere in a grad student's notebook (or in his/her computer) is a list of these numbers, and their average and range were presented in the PNAS paper at each generation in Figure 1 (similar data are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 5). So, in other words, the data you see in the paper *are all of the data* save for a second grade computation...which was probably performed by Excel. If you don't believe the data in the paper, then what do you expect to gain from seeing these "raw" data? There is so little to gain that I seriously doubt that PNAS would take such a request seriously.

The meat of the paper, in Table 1, is a presentation of colony counts. These are obtained by another grad student picking up a bacterial culture plate, counting the number of colonies on it, and moving on to the next plate. Again, the raw data are what you see in the paper. What exactly are you expecting here, photographic images of all of the tens of thousands of plates they examined? That is just not done. Why would we go to that level of self-surveillance to please a small, vocal minority of people claiming fraud? The public's interest is not served by spending inordinate amounts of effort and money on this level of surveillance. If the science is correct, his experiment will be replicated.

In sum, as others have tried to explain, there really isn't any more complex data for you to reasonably request. A slightly expanded list of numbers from what's in the paper won't get you anything if you already don't believe the data. And the scientific culture doesn't even come close to expecting photographic evidence of bacterial plates. Your best bet, if you really don't believe the results, is to get an outsider to try and replicate and/or confirm some portion of his results. The easy route would be to ask for a cit+ strain and its ancestor and see if they are indeed cit- and cit+. You could even sequence them to check if the cit+ strain is indeed an ancestor of the cit- strain, but while this would be a perfectly normal approach in a molecular biology lab with impressive resources, the entire concept of evolution is anathema to you, so I can't think of a reasonable criterion you would use to determine ancestry. If you wanted to go the hard route, you could obtain the ancestral strain and grow and measure them for years as Prof. Lenski's lab did.

I hope this has been somewhat instructive for you in explaining why a request for "further data" will not bear fruit beyond the small amount of data that Prof. Lenski says he will make available. And why it is not reasonable to expect further data. I am more than happy to respond to questions or requests for clarification if you would like. -- Princetonian 23:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

For starters, most of the opposition to releasing the data has been the false claim that the data are too voluminous to release. You are making the opposite claim, one which is more consistent with Lenski's paper: there is very little important data beyond what is in the 8-page paper. But that doesn't withstand scrutiny either.

The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):

Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?] These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density. (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--Aschlafly 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I know some people here have claimed that the data are too voluminous to release...I didn't know what they were talking about, which is one reason I chimed in. Anyway, here are point by point responses to each of these cases. Turbidity checking: these data are either in a grad student's notebook somewhere, or were not recorded. I wouldn't at all be surprised if they weren't recorded due to the nature of the data (it's just a visual check of turbidity, and wouldn't be reported in a paper). Low concentration of glucose in DM25: this is a factual statement about DM25 media, not an observation. Contaminants: Same comment as the turbidity checking. Either there's a one-liner in a notebook somewhere ("Flask 25 contaminated, re-grew from stock") or nothing at all, since it's tangential to the experiment. Figure 1: As I already mentioned, the data in Figure 1 are actually comprehensive -- three data points went into each plotted point. They report the range (which give you a max and a min) and they also show you the average, which allows you to impute the third data point. Number of Cit clones, and the following comments except the last: these data are probably recorded in a lab notebook somewhere, since they're rather not tangential to the experiment. In addition, I'm sure they have a frozen stock of each cit+ bacterial clone that they checked, so this is something that could be easily independently verified. Cit+ is not a contaminant: no this would not be a part of the peer review...peer reviewers are not out to find fraud in general. Especially in the inaugural paper of somebody just nominated into the national academy. And the data underlying contamination checking are also extremely simple -- you plate the bacteria on an Ara+ plate and check sensitivity by eye, for example -- so there is no need to verify methodology as long as you trust the source.

You're basically asking for the lab notebooks of all of the grad students involved in the experiment over the 20 years. The data in these notebooks is going to be, in general, very simple (e.g., the statement "colony grew on Ara-, is a contaminant") since as I mentioned, there is no photographic evidence of this. Additionally, while biotech companies generally have document retention policies as required by law, no such policies exist at the academic level (although specific institutions may have them). A very few labs are run like well-oiled machines -- lab notebooks are kept up-to-date and thorough, and every observation is recorded. This is the ideal, but almost no labs actually achieve it, since most labs are working at 125% speed in an effort to get experiments finished and published.

If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe. You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud. This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want. In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment. But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight. Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud. -- Princetonian 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

You've confirmed that the strident claims by Lenski defenders here that the data are too voluminous to release were nonsense. We'll see how many of them now admit they were wrong. Let's not hold our breaths!

But your opposite approach above, which essentially suggests there are no data that can be released, doesn't withstand scrutiny either. Figure 1 is plainly a low-resolution representation of underlying data that must exist. The greater resolution should be released. Similarly, there should be data underlying the essential assertion that a particular sample was not contaminated, while others had been. For example, the paper asserts that "[a] number of Cit clones were isolated." How many were isolated? If those data exist, then it should be released along with the other data. If those data do not exist, then that is even more telling.--Aschlafly 11:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Regarding the questions highlighted by Aschlafly to which Princetonian also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:

...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]

This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]

A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]

Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]

Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]

Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a qualitative visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells. As for the visible transition: After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS

Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations

Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. The protocols are published.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).

See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. The protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]

The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.

YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

The bottom line is that some think that Lenski's claims must be accepted on faith rather than independent verification of the data. That is not science.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Just a word about reading the professional, scientific literature: Scientific papers are by the nature of their medium, mostly brief, to the point and highly condensed. Rather than repeat all the background information that others in the field may already know and encouraged to limit the length by journals with page limits, authors provide references to other papers that contain the previously published information. They also use terms that are well-defined within their profession to shorten the text further. One wouldn't expect a layman with no experience in biology to easily digest the paper. To point is not to obfuscate but to simmer the paper down to essentials that others in the field can readily understand. With some effort to become familiar with the underlying & established techniques & science, determined, non-experts can eventually pick up this information. I'd respectfully suggest to anyone *seriously* interested in the paper but not comfortable with the technical details, that they may want to find a knowledgeable biologist willing to explain. At least they should read the entire paper and the additional papers referenced within. Consider asking DI's research institute or Behe for help with understanding the techniques behind the work.--Argon 20:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--Aschlafly 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper: Books? Magazines? Newspapers? What type of books? What subjects? My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Unfortunately, there are essentially no real scientists left. Peer review is almost never done with the amount of scrutiny Aschlafly discusses. Reviewers, even for journals with long submission-to-publication times, do not request the original data. When original data are requested, it is by researchers who want to continue the work and write publications of their own on the subject. There just aren't incentives to do thorough reviews.

Aschlafly, I think you're right that review should have been more stringent. I think you're wrong, however, to conclude that an exception was made here. Its true that review time was very short in this case. The total number of man-hours devoted to any review, however, is seldom more than 40.

What does "real scientists" mean? If it means practicing academics today, it's sadly wrong. Most professors are self-centered, and would see true peer review as impinging on their personal freedom. "Who has time," they think, "to transcribe lab notebooks? I've got more papers to publish!" I bet the majority would even resist your request to Lenski. This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like Particle/wave duality theory and the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation. Drochld 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

With respect to your comments on peer review, note that there were merely 14 days between the time the Lenski manuscript was sent for review and the time it was confirmed for publication. I doubt even 10 good hours of real peer review were devoted to the Lenski manuscript, let alone the 40 you mention. The 14 days included administrative and communication delays, and business and weekend days. It looks like a "rubber stamp" process to me for evaluating this Lenski manuscript, in contrast to other papers published by the same journal. It seems possible to me that there was no meaningful peer review at all for the Lenski manuscript, and it may be worth making inquiries of the Journal on this point alone.--Aschlafly 09:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

The paper is straightforward and the data clear. Lenski's work is well known within the microbiology community and therefore much of the preceding information is already generally understood (i.e. reviewers don't need to dig through all the references). I can see it sailing through review.--Argon 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review. I agree with that analysis. In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--Aschlafly 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

On the contrary. I see it sailing through review because the experiment is straightforward, clearly reported and very interesting to the field. The techniques are uncontroversial and well understood among microbiologists. Easy reviews proceed faster, plain and simple. That reveals nothing about whether the paper received more, less or the same of scrutiny as the typical paper.

Are you familiar with PNAS review policy? I ask because in previous notes you've wondered whether authors submit original (raw?) data in addition to their paper's actual manuscripts. Have you perhaps discussed review policies with other Nation Academy of Sciences members or at least, publishing biologists? It might be more productive than polling anonymous sources on the internet.--Argon 11:28, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, the purpose of a Peer Review is not to make sure the entire experiment wasn't a massive fraud - it is to ensure that the work adhered to scientific principles and guidelines. In this case, the work was short and did adhere to principal. Lenski has, as required, laid out how the experiment can be repeated. Are you saying that he risked his entire reputation on results that can be checked and refuted by another lab? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falsehood (talk)

Aschlafly, peer reviews are not suitable to detect all experiment flaws or outright fraud. Reviewers can't always know whether a lab assistent made a mistake or even if the experiment was done at all. The primary goal is to make sure that the experiment can be repeated so completely independent researchers can verify the results. This is the only good verification. A mistake in the experiment means that the data cannot be trusted. That is true for fraudulent data as well. There are several reasons to repeat an experiment. First of all, a groundbreaking result will nearly always be repeated. Scientists want to be sure they can trust the result and not waste years on related experiments. The second reason is to test yourself. A scientist may want to repeat an important experiment before starting their own related experiments. It may also be done to test a new lab or test setup. Thirdly, indications of fraud are an obvious reason. Fourthly, highly complicated experiments that can easily go wrong may be replicated. Fifthly, new scientists are less trusted and more likely to be checked. Now, this experiment is not particularly likely to be repeated. It is not particularly groundbreaking (evolutionary changes have been observed in many other experiments), complicated and there are no indications of fraud. Of course, you/Conservapedia may want to appeal to colleages of mr. Lenski for a repeat of (parts of) the experiment, but I doubt that they will be swayed by your arguments that seem to boil down to: 'I don't understand the science, but I don't like the result, so there must be a mistake'. It would be wiser to point to an actual lack of evidence or methodology flaw in the paper (if it exists), so an experiment can be drafted to test the significance of that mistake. --Aapje 07:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

More replies to archived comments

"Why do you say that it does not support evolution?" (Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler (Asked by JPohl of me):

See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

"The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils" (Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels) (in a question by Wandering to me)

"Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is blatantly false" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)

How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same sub-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

Philip J. Rayment 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally distinguishes E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.JPohl 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:

According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
According to creation, mutations do not produce new genetic information, although very rarely, you might by chance get the odd one.

Lenski has allegedly found one information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?

I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:

It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved hundreds if not thousands of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore evidence that evolution can't explain our existence.

Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

There are some flaws in that logic though:

Simple cells likely first appeared 4 billion years ago. Given how many existed simultaneously (an entire planet at some times v. a few petri dishes) and that simpler living beings have shorter lifespans, going from "microbes to man" (or something as genetically complex as man) is really a matter of time.
31,500 generations is not a minimum number of generations for a rare, complex trait to manifest. That just happened to be the case here. Dumb luck could have had significant mutations develop at any earlier (or later) point.
What definition of "ability" are you using here? All of the bacteria also evolved larger cells - would you count that as an "ability"? According to Lenski's work, "enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over"
Bacteria are asexual. Animals and plants reproduce through sex, which causes significantly more genetic variation.JPohl 12:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

No, going from microbe to man is not a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also here.

We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended. This and this are good links on information theory.JPohl 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just happened to be the case here. As you say, it might occur sooner, and it might take longer. But my argument was based on the evidence of this example, not on what speculation might allow for. The evidence is not proof, but the evidence in this case is against evolution.

I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?JPohl 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.

They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.JPohl 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation within the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create new genetic information.

It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.JPohl 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip J. Rayment 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

"We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended.": So? Like all analogies, it's not perfect. Evolution doesn't go around in circles like travelling around the Earth, so that reply is invalid, and the objection remains: mutations go in the wrong direction.

"This and this are good links on information theory.": No, they are not good links at all. From memory of checking the first one out before, it has little of substance. The second is a disagreement over a particular case, not a general look at information, and has some errors in it that I can identify.

"I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?": I said "evidence", not "proof". If you don't understand the difference, read the relevant sections in my Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia. Creationism also proposes mutations, so the fact that a mutation happened is not evidence favouring evolution.

"They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.": The New Scientist article quoted Jerry Coyne saying "it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events, ... That's just what creationists say can't happen.". What creationists say "can't happen" is an increase in information. So if you are claiming that nobody is claiming this to be an increase in information, they you are claiming that Jerry Coyne doesn't know what he's talking about regarding what creationists claim (which could be the case, actually!). As for your example, a short third leg probably doesn't require new information anyway. We already have the information for legs, so failure (mutation) of a switch might result in a third one (it's happened with animals), and another fault (mutation) might cause that third leg to be stunted. So if Lenski's discovery is like this, then it really is the case that it doesn't support evolution, because microbes-to-microbiologist evolution requires new genetic information.

"[Sexual reproduction] varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.": That sounds like hand-waving to me, rather than an argument of substance.

Philip J. Rayment 10:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Philip,

With due respect, I see a fairly serious problem with the position you're taking. One of the central arguments against evolution is that mutations cannot produce new information. Now you're arguing that:

"According to creation, mutations do not produce new genetic information, although very rarely, you might by chance get the odd one."

The problem is that, if it can "very rarely" happen "by chance," then the premise that mutations do not produce new genetic information is simply false. Instead, we're faced with a debate over how frequently mutations produce new genetic information. --Benp 10:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence for it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... Which I admit is often overused by evolutionists as well, but it still isn't a good basis for deciding which theory the evidence favors. Feebasfactor 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule. For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information. However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get something simple that is new. And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that in this case it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this did happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted. But the question is not really how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones. And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction. That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation? Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).

Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence for creation? If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it is evidence for it! You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans. Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours individuals, not mutations, then a less-fit individual will be selected against even with the odd "good" mutation. So really, it will occur a lot slower for humans than for bacteria.

For more information on this, see this brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".

Philip J. Rayment 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

It's amusing to me that you cite Haldane's Dilemma, even though it was debunked at the same time it was given that name. As Leigh Van Valen pointed out on page in his paper Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis, significant evolutionary changes occur when the environmental changes cause unadapted organisms have less reproductive success. This holds with evolutionary theory, as there is abundant evidence of large changes occurring in organisms at times where their environment changes and their population is small. Mind you, this is the paper which originated the term "Haldane's Dilemma", so with the exception of J. B. S. Haldane's papers, this is the original source. --Rspeed 16:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, the massive increase in size is just one (and the most readily visible) aspect of Coelacanthiforme's evolution since the end of the Cretaceous. If you want firm proof, there are significant differences in skeletal structure between the most closely-related ancient and modern species of coelacanth (Macropoma and Latimeria). It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus. --Rspeed 15:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

There have apparently been various attempts to debunk Haldane's Dilemma, but those attempts have themselves been debunked. In 1992 (well after Van Valen's paper), George C. Williams wrote of Haldane's Dilemma, "In my opinion the problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."[2]

"It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus": Oh? Because you say so? Yet you didn't explain how this can be determined without interfertility tests. No, this "established fact" is by decree, not scientific tests of interfertility.

Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

"Oh? Because you say so?" No, because the scientists who know how to determine taxonomy said so. Your argument is unbelievably weak, by that logic humans could be genetically compatible with T-Rex. Rather than simply dismissing everything that disagrees with the Bible, you should probably do some research from reliable sources. The scientific method exists for a reason.

That's fine about someone disagreeing with Van Valen's conclusions, but can you share his reasoning? I found Van Valen's debunking of Haldane's Dilemma to be quite logical and it fits with the data (such as Prof. Lenski's experiment).

--Rspeed 20:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions

IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:

(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result), and

(2) -- whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.

Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --

Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) -- A new step in evolution

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).LarryFarma 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoodsDeanWinter 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--Aschlafly 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. AndyMann 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

If you're serious, then please provide some quotes and links to back up your statements. Also contribute to entries rather than violating the 90/10 rule.--Aschlafly 20:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --

"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.)" (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

"Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population?" As I said, I asked Blount whether favoring Cit+ evolution was the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient supplies of glucose so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation), and he did not answer.

"They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved." I disagree with you here, for the reasons stated at the end of my first comment in this talk page.LarryFarma 05:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for your insightful comments and continued efforts to obtain the truth.

It has been conceded, finally, by Lenski defenders that the data are not too voluminous to turn over. The underlying data for Figure 1 in the paper for the population expansion during the alleged evolution of the Cit-plus phenotype, for example, could shed light on whether contamination played a role. There is no legitimate reason to withhold the greater resolution from the public, which funded the study.--Aschlafly 09:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date. E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it". The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled. It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released. The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols. The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.

I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource. With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP. That would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable. Godspeed. --DinsdaleP 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent (see Lenski's early papers) and it's actually tangential in the overall context of the long-term experiment. Zachary Blount describes the purpose of citrate in the media in his responses at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php (see replies #115 & #270). Citrate was not added to be a carbon nutrient in the media but as a non-metabolizable chelator (the three carboxyl groups of citrate can bind certain cations in solution). The recipe for the medium was taken from other microbiologists who developed the recipe as a general culture medium back in 1949. Lenski's description of the DM25 media is here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html. Glucose was the intended carbon source. If you read the Lenski article cited by Blount (Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli. -- available here: https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/, you'll see the setup and reasons for performing the experiments (An earlier article at generation 2000 is here: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1991,%20AmNat,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf). Basically, Lenksi wanted to see how mutations arise and move through populations over time. Even if the media and growth conditions remain pretty consistent over time, the populations continuously shift and change. That is because for a bacterium in the experiment the 'environment' is not just made up of the flask and media but also the *other cells in the flask* with which it must compete. This results in a continuously shifting competitive environment as mutations arise in lineages. Citrate utilization was just one of the many interesting variations acquired over the course of the experiment. Read his other papers for more details and a fuller understanding of the open-ended experiment's scope.--Argon 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I looked at the blog and found it to be remarkably uninformative. I saw nothing about Blount and Lenski's purpose, nothing that persuasively ruled out non-evolutionary reasons for the citrate-eating bacteria, and nothing to justify the withholding of the data to reveal greater resolution than provided by the figures in the paper.--Aschlafly 23:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Blogging has limits, which is why I also provided references to Lenski's other papers, including some of those Blount mentioned would be worth reading.--Argon 20:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--Argon 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

That was strange -- for several hours I was not able to post here, but now I can. Here is my response to Argon's comment of 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Argon said, "The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent"

I didn't ask if Cit+ (citrate-eating E. coli bacteria) evolution was the "main intent" of the experiment -- I only asked if Cit+ evolution was one of the original "goals." There is a misunderstanding about what the word "goal" means -- a goal does not have to be a sure result. In searches for the Lost Dutchman Mine and the ivory-billed woodpecker, finding them are "goals." A "goal" can be one of many goals, a secondary goal, a longshot goal, or whatever. And "intent" is not part of the definition of "goal" -- "intent" generally means what one plans to do, but one cannot plan to achieve an uncertain result. BTW, the term "citrate metabolizers" is misleading because the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate but did not have the ability to pass it through the cell walls.

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the New step in evolution post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

"When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly)."

Blount then essentially contradicted his above statement by saying that "the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant" (comment #115) and that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" (comment #122).

Also, the following factors suggest that Cit+ evolution was an original goal of the experiment:

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the New step in evolution post on Zimmer's blog, "there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)").

(2) I and others assumed that a purpose of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria an insufficient glucose supply so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution. I asked Blount if this was in fact a purpose of the glucose-cycling and he did not answer. I asked what the purpose of the glucose-cycling was if favoring Cit+ evolution was not the purpose, and he did not answer.

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? LarryFarma 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--British_cons (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

British_cons: Suppose a committee is considering this research for an award or a prize and asks the researchers the same questions I asked: (1) Was Cit+ evolution a goal of the experiment? and (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose of the glucose-cycling? Are the researchers going to answer, “No, it was not a goal — it was just an unforeseen accident. We don’t deserve any credit for it.”

Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.LarryFarma 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--British_cons (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

British_cons: As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident? Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as I showed above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions. As I noted above, Cit+ evolution had been observed before, so it seems that repeating it was a likely goal of the experiment. Also, I asked about the purpose(s) of the glucose-cycling and I got no answer to that question. Knowing the goals of the research and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the research.LarryFarma 14:07, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Thudden: As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident? This betrays a unequivocal lack of understanding of scientific process and acclaim. Hundreds of world-altering scientific discoveries have been serendipitous: Pauling and Penicillin, Galvani and neuroelectricity, Nagano's discovery of interferon, Becquerel and Röntgen's discovery of radioactivity and X-rays respectively. If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim, perhaps only with added envy.

Fleming and Penicillin (just for the sake of accuracy). HSpalding 17:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

"If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim," I disagree -- IMO things discovered by intelligent searching are more highly regarded. LarryFarma 06:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Thudden: Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided.

"Identical academic acclaim": Fleming won the Nobel Prize, Becquerel won the Nobel Prize, Rontgen won the first ever Nobel Prize for Physics, Nobel Prizes were awarded for the serendipitous discoveries of restriction endonucleases and RNA interference... Not to mention "Eureka!" The list of people who've won the highest acclaim for accidental discoveries is very, very long. HSpalding 17:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)

"Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided."

It is just my own personal opinion -- I have no opinion poll results on the question. Do you have any opinion poll results to back up your statement?

I was especially impressed by the way Neptune was discovered in 1846 -- a mathematician predicted its location on the basis of perturbations of the motion of Uranus, and Neptune was found in one night very close to the predicted spot. Also, Pluto was found on the basis of perturbations in Neptune's motion but the search took much longer.

You should sign your comments at the end, not the beginning -- when you sign them at the beginning, it looks like you are addressing someone (that is what I originally thought about your preceding comment). LarryFarma 15:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

(unindent) Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? You keep repeating this "no straight answers" argument, and people keep pointing out your error, and you've yet to see this argument through to the end anywhere. Conservapedia is already struggling to maintain its current signal-to-noise ratio, please stop forum-shopping here. Aziraphale 14:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT) <-knows where all the good sales are...

Aziraphale said, "Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? " I have already spent a helluva lot of time responding to those criticisms on Carl Zimmer's blog and my own blog! (see links in my first comment on this talk page) But I have been kicked off of Carl Zimmer's blog, and my own blog gets only about 50 visits per day. In contrast, this talk page is getting thousands of visits per day, so it is obviously a much better forum for publicizing my views.

"You keep repeating this 'no straight answers' argument, and people keep pointing out your error." And I keep pointing out the errors in arguments that attempt to point out my alleged error.LarryFarma 16:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

Ok, fair enough. Enjoy your time here. :) Aziraphale 18:05, 27 June 2008 (EDT) <-o/~know when to hold 'em... o/~

"Enjoy your time here." I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. LarryFarma 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--British_cons (talk) 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

How could a random event, Cit+ evolution, be a "hypothesis"? Even Zachary Blount used the term "goal." What is wrong with saying that an experiment has a "goal" (or "goals")? LarryFarma 15:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Because according to the Scientific method the objective of an experiment is to test an hypothesis. Remember that things are not proved in science - only disproved. The objective of an experiment is never to "prove" anything - only to test an hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed then it is strengthened, if it not confirmed it is weakened or discarded. Consequently the fundamental question to ask of an experiment is, "What hypothesis was being tested?" --British_cons (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

How would you describe Cit+ evolution as a hypothesis, even assuming that Cit+ evolution had not been observed before (Cit+ evolution was observed prior to Lenski's experiment) ?LarryFarma 21:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm afraid that's for you to figure out. As I've said, the only sensible way for you to ask the question you want answered is to form it as a question about the hypothesis. How you manage that is down to you. :-)--British_cons (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"I'm afraid that's for you to figure out." It's your idea that it must be stated as a hypothesis, so showing how it can be stated as a hypothesis is your responsibility. Anyway, Lenski could not hypothesize about whether Cit+ evolution could occur, because it had been observed prior to the start of his experiment. All he could do was consider Cit+ evolution to be a "goal" of his experiment. LarryFarma 05:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help. Anyway, the article on Scientific method on this wiki states that the reason for an experiment is to test an hypothesis - so it's not my opinion but what this Wiki states. I suppose you could edit the article so this it reflects your view of how science works. --British_cons (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time). The null hypothesis (not supported by the results of the experiments) is that the Cit+ strain arises by a single, exceptionally rare event.--Brossa 10:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time)."

I was aware that one of the original goals of the experiment was to test for historical contingency -- that was the reason for freezing the populations at each 500th generation. My questions were about other things: (1) was Cit+ evolution an original goal of the experiment (remember that this whole experiment started in 1988, long before the study in the present paper), (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient glucose supplies so as to cause alternating glucose feeding and starvation), and (3) what were other purposes -- if any -- of the glucose-cycling. Zachary Blount did not give a straight answer to the first question and gave no answers at all to the latter two questions. LarryFarma 13:12, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli. The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource. The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you. There is no other purpose to providing the bacteria with a limited supply of glucose. Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer - it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one.

You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions - and your response seems to be that he does not deserve praise for this, since he didn't set out with this particular outcome in mind - it's just an accident, if in fact the Cit+ bacteria exist at all. Or maybe you object because you think Lenski somehow 'stacked the deck' in favor of his bacteria becoming Cit+, so the results aren't 'fair' somehow. Or perhaps you think that after 20 years of failing to develop a Cit+ strain of E. coli through selection, Lenski just gave up, genetically engineered such a strain, and then faked his data. If you could clearly state what your suspicions are, rather than simply repeating that Blount won't answer your questions, it would be simpler to address your concerns.

This is utterly beside the point, however, because the importance of this recent paper does not depend on the detail of the strain being Cit+ - it could have been the development of a toxin, or some other event that led the new strain to be markedly, phenotypically different from its ancestors in some way. The importance lies in the work that was done to sketch out the outline of how the new trait developed, and in the re-development of the same trait during a re-running of the experiment from ancestral stock.

Is it interesting that the trait seen in Lenski's E. coli is the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions? Yes. Is it remarkable? Yes, since you can count the number of E. coli strains that can do this on one hand. It's so wild and crazy that it might lead one to question whether the bacteria involved should even be called E. coli anymore - it's that striking a difference from 'normal' E. coli behavior. Was the development of the Cit+ strain an accident? Entirely. Would another Cit+ strain arise if the experiment was completely restarted from 1988? Almost certainly not - Lenski's data suggests that this is a staggeringly unlikely event, dependent on a series of merely overwhelmingly unlikely events. Did Lenski wish to develop a Cit+ strain from the beginning? No man can know the inner mind of another, but I would bet the farm that he didn't see this coming. If I were designing an E. coli breeding scheme with the stated purpose of selecting for a Cit+ mutant, I can think of much, much, much better ways to do it than this experimental protocol. The Cit+ trait is a novelty - an interesting one, one that is remarkable because of its rarity, one that resonates - but the value of the research does not depend upon it. --Brossa 17:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli."

I am trying to get answers to some simple, basic questions about the experiment. Is there something wrong with that?

Also, the "semantics" -- as you call them -- of "goal" are very important. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that a goal is necessarily an expected result or is necessarily an intended result. Just going around telling people that the Cit+ evolution was not a goal can be very misleading.

If you want to expand the term 'goal' to the point that you include unexpected, unintended results then you rob it of all meaning. By your reasoning, my getting into a fatal car accident is the 'goal' of my driving to the grocery store. If you think that 'goal' is a term of art that describes the entire universe of possible outcomes of an action, you are mistaken. If you want Blount et al to admit that the emergence of a Cit+ mutant was possible, given the experimental protocol, then I think that you already have your answer: yes. Was it expected? No. Was the experiment designed from the beginning to favor Cit+ mutation over some other pathway? No.--Brossa 23:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource."

That statement is too vague.

What part is too vague? The alternatives to glucose cycling are: provide so much glucose that cell growth remains exponential up through the time of the next sampling; provide so little glucose that there is no cell division at all; or use a chemostat setup in which the glucose concentration can be maintained at a constant, arbitrary level indefinitely at the cost of vastly increased material and labor costs to the experimenter.--Brossa 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

"The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you."

The glucose cycling gives an especially big advantage to Cit+ bacteria because they have something to eat after the glucose supply is exhausted whereas their Cit- neighbors do not.

It gives them an advantage. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how big an advantage it is, because instead of being unable to metabolize citrate they may merely be terrible at it. If the Cit- cells are better at glucose metabolism than the Cit+ ones are, they may completely swamp out the Cit+ in the early, glucose-dependent phase. Even if the Cit+ cells continue to grow after the glucose is exhausted, they may never completely outcompete the Cit- cells by the time the next population sample is taken. In fact, this appears to be what has happened, as the experiment has shown that two populations of cells originating from the Ara-3 line have reached a temporary equilibrium: a grows-very-fast-on-glucose Cit- population (10%) and a grows-more-slowly-on-glucose-but-keeps-growing-on-citrate Cit+ population (90%). --Brossa 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

"Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer -- it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one."

Yes, I know it is there as a chelating agent -- but I also want to know if Cit+ evolution was a goal (again, a goal does not have to be an expected result and can even be an unlikely result) and if favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (I also would like to know if there were other purposes of the glucose-cycling and exactly how any other purposes work). The fact that Cit+ evolution was observed once previously adds to my hunch that it was a goal. Also, the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate and just needed to evolve a way to pass citrate through the cell wall.

"You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions"

Well, he is getting a lot of acclaim for it, isn't he? The paper has been widely ballyhooed all over the Internet. The Internet has several articles and hundreds of comments about it.

He does not deserve acclaim because he is a farmer who has a goose that lays golden eggs, but because he can demonstrate in rough form how the goose came to lay golden eggs when it's grandparents could not. In fact, he has gone back and re-bred the grandparents and gotten golden-egg laying geese again and again, even though none of his other geese, or even the great-grandparents of the golden goose, can breed golden-egg-layers. The real achievement is not having the goose, it's reproducing it against all the odds, and showing that there's something special about the grandparents compared to the greatgrandparents, even though the grandparents appear to be normal. The fact that many folks, including those in the media, can't get past the 'ohmygoshgoldeneggs!!!' phase is not Lenski's fault.--Brossa 23:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"If you could clearly state what your suspicions are"

Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment. LarryFarma 20:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help." You call that "help"? All you did was clutter up this talk page with your irrelevant "hypothesis" idea. With friends like you, who needs enemies? LarryFarma 10:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it. In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation.--British_cons (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

"When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it."

And you thought -- or seemed to think -- that you were giving it. I am beginning to suspect that you are just a troll.

"In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation."

No, he has not clarified the situation -- see my above response to him. LarryFarma 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I will not stoop to name calling. Goodbye and good luck with your enquiries.--British_cons (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, what did you expect? First you introduced an irrelevant topic, "hypothesis." Then you contradicted yourself by first saying "I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help" and then saying "When did I call it help?" LarryFarma 15:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Mods, can we get a ruling on this? LarryFarma is harassing other users, talking far more than he is making valid contributions, and generally being a troll. If he was defending Lenski instead of attacking the paper, he would have been blocked a long time ago. Can someone please comment on this? I believe we can all make our points without name-calling. -- Aaronp

In fact, the only contributions that Larry has made have been to this talk page. Can we get a 90/10 block please? Aaronp

Aaronp: Is somebody hassling you? People who don't want to read my comments don't have to read them.

Also, the 90/10 rule doesn't apply here because I cannot make any contributions to the project page, which is reserved for the exchange of letters between Schlafly and Lenski.

BTW, I am not attacking the paper -- I am only attacking the lead author's failure to give straight answers to simple, basic questions about it. LarryFarma 21:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

Okay, here's my two-bob's worth.

LarryFarma, this page was started to question the validity of Lenski's work and claims. Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize, I can't see that they are relevant to the validity of his work. I think that this might be the cause of some of the angst, as some editors are assuming that you are trying to question the work's validity with an argument that has no bearing on that point.

Secondly, Aaronp has a point about the so-called 90/10 rule. It's point is to ensure that editors contribute to the site and don't just argue. That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site. The rule is not page-specific in that sense. So as Aaronp has called for that rule to be invoked, and as you have only contributed on this talk page, I think that his request is fair. However, I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it.

Philip J. Rayment 21:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

"LarryFarma, this page was started to question the validity of Lenski's work and claims."

The opening sentence of my first comment questions the validity of Lenski's work:

"IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:"

You say,

"Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize"

That is not the issue here -- the issue here is that the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has not given straight answers to my simple, basic questions about the experiment. If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper or in the audience at a presentation of the paper at a scientific conference, would he be dodging my questions? And my questions are not just about goals -- for example, I also would like to know the purposes of the glucose-cycling (alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation). These things are all part of understanding the experiment. Also, what does the original research proposal -- if there is one -- say about the goals and methodologies of the experiment? Is Lenski willing to release that proposal?

"That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site."

I am new to the site and therefore have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site. Would you like me to write an article about co-evolution? All I would have to do would just copy-and-paste from my blog's several articles about co-evolution. I have found the issues of co-evolution to be a very effective challenge to evolution theory.

" I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it."

Are you willing, then, to censor all future comments that attack my positions? If comments attacking my positions are posted in the future here, then why shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself? In fact, while I was writing this comment, Brossa posted three comments attacking my positions.

Also, how do you intend to "enforce" the 90/10 rule -- by IP address blocking? That is often ineffective and also often unintentionally blocks other Internet users who share the same ISP proxy.

BTW, I am very annoyed that Aaronp hypocritically called me a "troll" while criticizing me for using that name to insult another commenter. LarryFarma 01:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in some of my comments. The first part of my message was not as an administrator, but just to try and clarify the issues. I didn't mean to suggest that you hadn't addressed the validity of his claims. It was meant simply to point out that some may be misunderstanding the point of your comments. And I'm not saying that the questions you are raising are not legitimate questions to raise.

It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited.

We do allow copying of your own work. There is a template available to note that it is your own work. And of course it can be edited by others, as is the case with all articles.

If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word, and that might be unfortunate, but that's not going to be reason to ignore the so-called 90/10 rule.

I'm not suggesting that you are the only one in the wrong here. Uncivil language happens a fair bit. But that's peripheral to the issue I'm discussing here.

I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics. And fair warning: I've referred to the 90/10 rule as the "so-called" 90/10 rule, because it's not a rule against precisely 90% talk vs. 10% contributions, but a rule against "unproductive activity", with 90/10 being an example of that. So simply making the odd article edit or posting the odd copied article will not necessarily avoid that rule. It's something that we administrators make a judgement on, and others will make it more readily that I will.

Philip J. Rayment 09:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

"I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics."

That reminds me of the following lawyer joke:

Customer: What are your rates?

Lawyer: $100 for three questions.

Customer: Isn't that kind of steep?

Lawyer: Yes. What is your third question?

"If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word"

Almost all of my arguments here have been answers to my critics. What is at stake here is my right to answer critics. And the reason why I have been making more comments here than other commenters is that other commenters have been using tag-team tactics against me. Giving me just one more opportunity to answer attacks is unacceptable because those attacks are continuing and will continue. And how do I know that other commenters here are not violating the 90/10 rule? Am I being singled out because of Aaronp's rude complaint?

"It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited."

I would have liked to make some contributions to Conservapedia articles, but I now have mixed feelings about Conservapedia because of the 90/10 rule, an arbitrary and unfair rule which is being used to prevent me from defending myself here. I gave up on Wikipedia a long time ago because of its arbitrary and unfair rules and practices, and I am now seeing that Conservapedia is no better.

Anyway, we can debate my questions here until doomsday, but nothing can excuse Zachary Blount's failure to give straight answers to those questions. LarryFarma 15:26, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

While I completely agree with you that the 90/10 rule is somewhat intimidating (I even refrained from removing wikilinks to salted articles from talk pages because I feared that a casual inspection would make those edits look like "talk, talk, talk"!), it should be said that so far, 20 of your 20 edits were on this page. In other words, your contributions outside of this discussion amount to ZERO. This is an encyclopedia project (or at least it says so) and not a discussion forum. Making encyclopedia edits should be your first priority, not an afterthought. If I remember correctly (I have only paid little attention to this trainwreck), people with far better ratios also received 90/10 blocks for making just a few posts here. You on the other hand were given edit rights just so you could debate here. Look at me, I got more than a 100 edits (according to My Preferences), most of them non-talk, and I still can't edit at night. You have been treated extremely well, all things considered. It's time that you actually contribute to the site's primary purpose: Building an encyclopedia. --KevinM 15:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply

I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.AndyMann 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. Philip J. Rayment 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Archive Link?

Can a link be provided to the archive for this page? Thanks. --DinsdaleP 20:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --Argon

No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. Karajou 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I read this page a while ago - Lensky and ASchaffly's two-and-fro, and have since returned. Why is it that ASchaffly's second letter this time seems to have been edited to be a lot more polite than when I first read it? It makes Lenski's second reply seem unnecessarily rude. When I first read this I felt his tone was justified, now it seems out of place.

I don't think the letter has been changed at all. HenryS 22:54, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

Whence Lenski?

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just Google their name and "god" and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [3] [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drochld (talk)

I'm a little confused about the terminology of the survey. According to the 1998 figures, 7% had "personal belief", 72% had "personal disbelief", and 21% had "doubt (presumably equivalent to atheism) or agnosticism". I know what atheism and agnosticism are, but what does personal disbelief mean in this case? It sounds like agnosticism, but agnosticism is in a separate category. So what is it? Anyone know?--Frey 13:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

If they're not believers, and they're not agnostics/doubters, then they're atheists. Atheism = disbelief. Bugler 14:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I find it doubtful that are more atheists than agnostics. Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything. I think a survey with more clearly defined choices is called for.--Frey 23:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

Actually it is not true to say, Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist as Conservapedia's article says; Weak Atheism. Many more scientifically-minded atheists would follow this point of view for the very reasons you state - A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.--British_cons (talk) 12:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I think the distinction to be made here is between personal belief and what can be proven. It is possible to put forward a definition of God that cannot be tested and is therefore neither provable nor falsifiable, however that wouldn't mean an individual couldn't have a personal belief (or disbelief) in God. If I can be forgiven a pop culture reference, I can't prove I don't live in The Matrix but I have a personal belief that I don't.--Boreas^talk 13:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

I'm guessing that 100% of creationist are theists...so? Does this invalidate THEM in any way? No, it does not. I don't see how this line of discussion is pertinent or constructive in any way. --RobinGoodfellow 14:58, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

I assume that Bugler's ignoring of Gnostics such as myself was not an attempt to polarise the community into more easily distinguishable sects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scholl (talk)

Qualification

It is quite clear why Lenski is annoyed at requests for data and questions about the validity of his work. It is that none of those who are asking have any background in biology (please correct me if I'm wrong) and are as such not qualified to evaluate his work.

If you have questions or doubts about the research, then the *only* way you are going to get any useful result is by finding a biologist who perhaps shares your concerns and asking them to evaluate the research. Do you think, as a historian, that you wouldn't be annoyed by someone with no background in your field questioning your research, having apparently not even thoroughly read it? Boatie 08:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

No, Boatie, I'm confident your suggested reason has nothing to do with it. I requested making the data available for review by the public, including experts: "I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students."[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog] You can reread Lenski's negative response yourself.--Aschlafly 08:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

But surely if there are any experts with specific requests then Lenski would provide any additional information that they require, as he has indicated. The fact that he is clearly offended by the initial requests and their implications means that he is now unlikely to cooperate with you, or anyone affiliated with this website, I suspect. Boatie 09:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Boatie, you're awfully naive if think the withholding of the underlying data from public scrutiny has anything to do with anyone being "offended".--Aschlafly 09:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I hope you noticed that I didn't resort to petty name-calling. It's not helpful. I didn't suggest that data was being withheld to prevent public scrutiny. Merely I suggested that Lenski is probably not inclined to comply with the demands of a non-expert whose repeated requests may not even be sensible. Note that the report was submitted for peer review, and the paper involved will have since been read by many qualified biologists. Boatie 09:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Boatie, you're clueless. People withhold data from public scrutiny for one obvious reason: to prevent the public (including experts) from scrutinizing their work. Feigning offense has nothing to do with it.--Aschlafly 09:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

That's simply not true, and has been raised plenty of times, Lenski is not necessarily with holding data from any experts, he's only failing to supply to *you*. Find an *actual biologist* with concerns about his work and maybe things will be different. Further name-calling does nothing to help your argument. Boatie 10:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Scientists prefer specifc questions over general ones. In the initial email exchange you had a couple of specific questions that were answered specifically. Asking a general question will only result in "Do you have a question?" Saying "I want to see the data" is not a question. Saying "I want to see the data because I have a question about this specific issue I have" is more likely to get an answer. Prof Lenski has stated multiple times that he would provide samples etc to qualified people if they have questions on his research. Since no one here has demonstrated the required credentials and filed the proper paperwork to obtain a sample of prof lenski's work, this hand waving is all for naught. Toaster1 23:50, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, I think you're rather clueless in this matter yourself. I've read the e-mail correspondence and I don't think Lenski is being evasive or deliberately withholding data from you or making claims he cannot back with evidence. When you think he's holding stuff back, you should be specific about what you feel is missing and why you think that is important for the claim and specifically ask for that data. You can run around screaming about something not being true, but that won't help much in the matter at hand. But then again I get the feeling you really don't want the data to be there at all, but rather make sure everyone follows you in believing the data doesn't exist to begin with. You put too much emphasis on the fact Lenski must be withholding something, without actually stating what it is and why it would disprove his claims. -- (unsigned by User:DeLight) 09:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

We've been extremely specific about which data are being withheld. See Richard Lenski. And I found Lenski to be quite clear that he's not going to release his underlying data for public review, even though it was publicly funded. Perhaps you think Lenski is perfect and there is no chance of flaws in his work that the public might discover when the underlying data are released, but such a position is obviously absurd.--Aschlafly 09:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry for the late reply, but one of your sysops found it necessary to block me following my previous critique. To answer your statement, I don't think Lenski is perfect, I hardly know the man, but I do know what I have read in the correspondence between him and you. I don't agree he's not willing to share his work for public review, because he is willing, yet he has some well-founded conditions that should be met first. This is a lack of willingness to share with just anyone, and rather sensible in science. Do you really think it's wise for all scientists to send samples of their work (especially in biology) to any Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it, without knowing if they can actually handle the materials safely?

Three things about your comment: First, it is a sensible question to ask a scientist for proof of his research when that scientist is getting government funding for his research; second, it is wise for them to send samples of their work; they do send them to other scientists, so why not the general public (unless they have something to hide); and third, you were blocked for a reason, the least of which is a German proxy address to hide your own, which you are not permitted to do so...so bye again! Karajou 04:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

Just to answer a question you posed Karajou "second, it is wise for them to send samples of their work; they do send them to other scientists, so why not the general public (unless they have something to hide)" scientists are liable for the samples they provide. Thus the reason for MTAs and other inquiries to purpose of use for the samples. Most work and materials discovered or used by a scientist are not owned by the scientist, the institution normally has control over distribution beyond the scope of the grant or funding source. It would be foolish for a scientist to hand out potentially infectious material to anyone who asked for it, thus the reason why a qualified institution must used to receive the samples. I work part time for a company that does biorepository services, LN2 -80 and other long term cold storage. We have to maintain a license with the FDA and CDC for the bacteria and viruses that we hold. So to sum up, if the requestor does not have proper credentials for exploring the sample the scientist is legally obligated to withhold said samples till the requester meets qualification.

To keep using the tax funded research claim is misleading. The military is tax funded and most of its operations are not open for public, most work by the CDC and HHS is funded by tax dollars and once again is not available for the general public.--Able806 10:33, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

MTA

Did anyone ask Lenski if a MTA is required by MSU to provide his data? Most MTAs are used for specific materials like cultures and such but a few are now requiring them for actual analysis results. Most universities now require specific permissions to be granted for scientific research due to the fear that such information could be used in inappropriate ways. Perhaps Lenski is bound by the university until a MTA is filed or feels that it is a waste of time to supply data that would only be understood by a few people here, which to my knowledge, care not to spend the time to analyze it. I could be wrong but I know I would not supply my test results to anyone who asked for it without understanding what they intended to do with it. I could be held liable for what they did with the information.

As for the length of time for the peer review, it is obvious that many here do not understand the process nor do they understand the difference of peer review of a publication verses replication of an experiment. Most experiments are not replicated for several years due to the need for funding. Peer review of publications is based on application of sound analysis techniques and clear summery of data analyzed. Not an actual analysis of the data. While I do not review papers, my wife does and it is not at all what has been implied here. I have published in a few journals, each with different standards and different times for the publication to go to press. Lenski's experiment is not complicated and only required minimal tests, therefore it would be expected to be a quick peer review of the publication due to the simplicity. If he performed tests using animals, or followed metabolisms then the peer review should have taken much longer. However, due to the few tests that he performed, all of which are accepted standardized protocol for research microbiologists, the need to dig deeper was not required. So to sum up, few experiments, easy study, and simple conclusion equals fast turn around for publication. If you read the paper, Lenski did not make any claims about anything other than the development of the bacteria's ability to metabolize citrate, pretty simple.--Able806 10:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Bad motive redux

I was blocked for two weeks for this post:

Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefore the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? MAnderson 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly has since posted these comments: “At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive”.--Aschlafly 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT) "If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT) "Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

He has said these things even though the data and even the E. Coli samples are available to qualified researchers. Really my original post was dead on correct! He doesn’t want the data and merely wants to create the appearance of impropriety on the part of Lenski to discredit him. MAnderson 11:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data. I don't think MAnderson is claiming that Lenski welcomes independent review of "the data", nor does he need to welcome it in order to act properly. He needs to make it available where it will "allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS". It is evident that you do not wish to either replicate the experiment (which, if Lenski made it up, would fairly conclusively prove him a fraud) nor do you wish to review it in any meaningful way (which may build on the work by revealing its faults). That is the PNAS requirement. It appears that Dr. Georgia Purdom of "Answers in Genesis" has plenty of data to perform her intended review[5] (no doubt very negative) of Lenski's research.

"At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it" Agreed. Can we test that hypothesis? It hasn't been tested so far (unless Dr. Purdom asked for data, in which case its been falsified) because we have not seen any prospective independent reviewer ask for data. You are not a reviewer (independent or otherwise) unless you review and you are not a prospective reviewer unless you seek to review. Why not develop a plan (with AiG or the Discovery Institute) of just what you are going to do with the data, beyond that already published of course, and ask for the data that lets you do that? Until you have that plan it is abundantly clear that you are not a "reviewer" and have no entitlement to extra (unspecified by you) data. --Bill Dean 08:50, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

Why does it matter?

Hello Conservapedians- It seems like you are making a huge fuss about Leski's experiment, as if you do not want it to be true.I mean, of course it should be subject to peer review, but it JUST came to the general public. Give it time. However, why exactly does it matter, anyway? There are several dozen OTHER recorded examples of the following: --Speciation --Beneficial Mutation --Mutations adding information So, while important, it is not like Lenski's data shows us anything new. If you would like examples of such, just ask. I assume, however, that you are already aware of the observations, and there is something important —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KevinF (talk)

It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this. Many others, including me, disagreed with that course. That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe. Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it? Because that is what you are doing. Creationists accept speciation. They also accept beneficial mutations. The one that they don't accept is mutations adding information, because it is not observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's). I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated. When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, he was unable to supply any. And why do you think Lenski's research was cited as answering creationist criticisms? If creationist criticism has been answered so much before, so that this is nothing new, then why make a deal about it as though it is something new? Philip J. Rayment 22:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

While Lenski is certainly being quite snarky in his responses, Mr. Aschlafly does not seem to understand that in an experiment like this, the "raw data" isn't something that can be printed out and mailed. The raw data is the actual bacterial colonies with the mutation. Thus, the raw data is completely useless to anyone who does not have a properly equipped biological lab, and indeed is illegal to provide to anyone without a properly equipped biological lab since E. coli bacteria are a potential disease vector. --JacieCady 19:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)

No the bacterial colonies are the samples. The raw data are the uninterpreted measurements and observations. This claim is little more than misdirection to justify not providing the data. If I tell you my car can stop on a dime & I know this because I have tested it, my car and a dime are NOT the raw data. The raw data would be the records of the attempts to stop on a dime including records of where the car stopped in relation to the dime. If I was asked for this data and said that I cannot send you my car because you don't have a lock up garage, I am merely dodging the question.LowKey 08:06, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Well put, LowKey. FYI, a chart summarizing how the data were undisclosed is here.--Aschlafly 09:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)

"When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, he was unable to supply any"—Oh, give me a break. Do you honestly expect someone to be able to come up with such information on the spot? --_transResident Transfan^form! 23:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Good point, AutoFire.--JackH 17:15, 4 December 2008 (EST)

He shouldn't have to "come up" with anything "on the spot". He had claimed the existance of examples many times, he should have already known of at least one, but he couldn't. This is like the editor of a car magazine claiming that the new BMW has many improvements over the previous model, but when asked for one can’t supply any. Nobody would claim it was unfair to expect him to come up with one on the spot.LowKey 17:56, 4 December 2008 (EST)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4 According to Dawkins he stopped to confront the interviewers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vuiasl (talk)---22:21, 7 December 2008

That link goes to a video that supplies no information about the topic. It merely says questions to Dawkins are hoaxes by Creationists, yet doesn't provide one example or proof. --₮K^/Talk! 00:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)

The interview made Dawkins look a fool. Of course he has attempted to explain it away. The CMI website provides plenty of info about this, it even has a timeline showing how much time Dawkins had to come up with something, so even ignoring all of the above "on the spot" is still wildly inaccurate. It was more a case of Dawkins "realising" he might be talking to creationists because evolutionists would have accepted the elephant-hurling without challenge. Also, the interview was 11 years ago and he still hasn't provided the examples as asked {With the possible exception of Lenski's experiment, which he may have mentioned. But the [in]validity of that is the subject at hand here in the first place. LowKey 18:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)}, so the "on the spot" objection is invalid on that account alone.LowKey 18:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)

I'm confused here. Everyone should know by now Dawkins is a fraud. As they should all know my opinion of him. That video didn't seem a bit different from the two times I have observed lectures by him, and he wondered off his prepared remarks. Results were the same as for Obama. Poor. (not Ed) --₮K^/Talk! 18:39, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Ah but everyone should also know that evolution is an invalid conclusion, but millions believe it to be a "fact". Scripture clearly tells us that people are blinded.LowKey 18:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)

What Dawkins does or doesn't do is hardly of any importance. Evolution doesn't rely on him, or what he does and doesn't do in interviews. It falls flat on its own. - Rod Weathers 18:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Hsdebater comment

I think Schlaffy misses the point of why Lenski didn't give him the experiments. He might think it's a conspiracy to silence him, but I (no offense schlaffy) beleive, like many others it seems on this site, it to be the simple explanation that you're not a scientist, and probably never taken a collegecourse on microbiology, evolutionary biology,and just plain biology.--Hsdebater 10:55, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Please learn how to spell basic words like "believe" (it's not "beleive"), and then realize that I don't think Lenski made all his taxpayer-funded data available for any public scrutiny, which of course would have included many knowledgeable people.--Andy Schlafly 11:00, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

What do you mean i just read his paper in my science class just yesterday, and i have also read it outside of class.--Hsdebater 13:02, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

So you apparently read his claims ... but where's the data underlying the claims? Despite my repeated requests, and despite the taxpayer funding of the project, I don't think he ever made all his data available for public scrutiny.--Andy Schlafly 13:08, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

So I went ahead and formatted, hope thats alright. Is this the extra information you were looking for? --EmersonWhitecp 17:09, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

I don't see real data in your link or answers to the data requests that have been outstanding for nearly two years at Richard Lenski. Do you?--Andy Schlafly 17:23, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

There is a very small link you must click on to get to the 2 page PDF (1.25 more like it) with the data. --EmersonWhitecp 17:27, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

(edit conflict) Which specific data requested nearly two years ago in Richard Lenski do you claim is contained in the mere 1.25-page of text in the pdf?--Andy Schlafly 17:34, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

You can link directly to the PDF.....--ṬK_/Admin^/Talk 17:30, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

PDF in question To be honest I can't figure out what more information you would want than what was in the original paper, your point by point rundown doesn't make sense to me. I was just trying to be helpful, not trying to make a point or anything. --EmersonWhitecp 17:46, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

If you want to believe whatever a professor says without verifying it, then you don't need to look at any underlying data. But do you give the Bible at least equal time and trust?

It took me only a minute or so to look at the first request for data in Richard Lenski (concerning turbidity), and then search the pdf for "turbid" for me to observe that the actual data are not there.--Andy Schlafly 19:08, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Sorry I thought you were talking about a different data set. Fig. 1 Is the recreation that they measured. However if you read the paper he said that the turbidity was measured visually, that means that someone looked at it every day to make sure it looked alright, not that someone did a disk test for turbidity which would be impractical in such a small volume. This is standard procedure for liquid culture in a laboratory, something even college sophomores have to learn to do. --EmersonWhitecp 19:30, 15 April 2010 (EDT)

Andy, by "raw data," do you mean the bacterial cultures? If that is the case, the main reason Lenski isn't providing you with the raw data is because he thinks that you do not have the proper infrastructure to analyse and maintain them.--PRichards 07:45, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

There's a different between raw data and the actual bacteria PRichards. I doubt anyone would ask for the bacterial samples, suggesting otherwise is just an excuse to not supply the data by playing the "expert" card RichardKerry 07:57, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

Right. PRichards, you take liberal denial to new depths, and your British spelling is a giveaway.--Andy Schlafly 16:44, 16 April 2010 (EDT)

andy, answer the question: "by "raw data," do you mean the bacterial cultures?" raw data could mean anything, please be specific. --Johnb 09:18, 24 May 2010 (EDT)

Intelligent design theorists on the implications of Richard Lenski's experiment

The biologist Michael Behe criticized Richard Lenski's claims concerning the significance of his experiment (see: Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli by Michael Behe).

Jonathon Witt of the Discovery Institute indicates that the biologist Dustin Van Hofwegen punctured the evolutionists' claims for Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment (see: Biologist Dustin Van Hofwegen Punctures Claims for Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment).

Difference between revisions of "Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog"

Latest revision as of 21:30, June 21, 2021

Contents

Reply to comments in archive

More replies to archived comments

Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions

removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply

Archive Link?

Whence Lenski?

Qualification

MTA

Bad motive redux

Why does it matter?

Hsdebater comment

Intelligent design theorists on the implications of Richard Lenski's experiment

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Popular Links

donate

Edit Console

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==
+[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]
-Dear Prof. Lenski,
+The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at [[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]].  See also [[Flaws in Lenski Study]].
-This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
+== Reply to comments in archive ==
-<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
-<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
-Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.
+: The comments above by defenders of withholding data have been unsatisfactory, to say the least.
-If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."
+: [[Lenski]] says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]
-Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review.  Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue.  Thank you.
+: So where are all the data [[Lenski]] said he analyzed?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:27, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
-Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
+::As clearly stated in Professor [[Lenski]]'s second response:
-<br>www.conservapedia.com
-<br>cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications
-:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+::: ''"Finally, let me now turn to our data. As I said before, the relevant methods and data about the [[evolution]] of the citrate-using bacteria are in our paper. In three places in our paper, we did say 'data not shown', which is common in scientific papers owing to limitations in page length, especially for secondary or minor points. None of the places where we made such references concern the existence of the citrate-using bacteria; they concern only certain secondary properties of those bacteria. We will gladly post those additional data on my website." ''
-:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+::If the additional data is not on his website by now, I'm sure it will be soon. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 07:45, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
-:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all.  Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+::: If "the relevant ... data ... are in our paper," as set forth in the above quote of Lenski, then he would not have much data.  So don't pretend the data is too voluminous to turn over.  The paper is only 8 pages long!
-== Draft letter ==
+::: In fact, the graphs in the paper suggest to a reader that there is underlying data having greater resolution than a graph can provide, and yet those data have not been disclosed for public scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-Dear Prof. Lenski,
+:::: The resolution of the graphs are more than sufficient to communicate the results. If the figures didn't provide sufficient clarity for their purpose the authors would have also provided tables. For example, in figure 1 it's clear the culture shifted its growth pattern. In figure 2, one can see that the Cit+ cultures reach a higher density in the media, as indicated by the higher ODs. To a microbiologist, those results indicate that the Cit+ cells can utilize more of the nutrients in the media (in this case, citrate). --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:08, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
+:::: I'd like to chime in here and give some professional perspective.  I am a molecular biologist -- if I asked him to, Prof. Lenski would send me a sample from his bacterial stocks (I have a -80 freezer and know how to work with E. coli).  Let's assume for a minute that, like you, I strongly suspected the results of the paper (I do not, but that doesn't matter for this exercise).  If this were the case, two of the routes I could take would be to re-analyze Prof. Lenski's data or replicate his experiments.  In some cases, data and their analysis are complex, and re-analysis can yield different results than those the original author reached.  This is the case for a large-scale association study, for example -- there are tons of data to analyze, and their analysis is not straightforward.  In Prof. Lenski's case, however, the data are extremely simple, consisting primarily of 1) OD readings to measure fitness, and 2) colony counts.
-<br>http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
-<br>http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html
-This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available.  I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students.  Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.
+:::: OD readings, or optical density readings, are obtained by pipetting a sample of cultured bacteria into a cuvette, sticking that cuvette into a machine, and writing down the number that pops up on a screen.  Somewhere in a grad student's notebook (or in his/her computer) is a list of these numbers, and their average and range were presented in the PNAS paper at each generation in Figure 1 (similar data are presented in Figure 2 and Figure 5).  So, in other words, the data you see in the paper *are all of the data* save for a second grade computation...which was probably performed by Excel.  If you don't believe the data in the paper, then what do you expect to gain from seeing these "raw" data?  There is so little to gain that I seriously doubt that PNAS would take such a request seriously.
-If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+.  As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper.  Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."
+:::: The meat of the paper, in Table 1, is a presentation of colony counts.  These are obtained by another grad student picking up a bacterial culture plate, counting the number of colonies on it, and moving on to the next plate.  Again, the raw data are what you see in the paper.  What exactly are you expecting here, photographic images of all of the tens of thousands of plates they examined?  That is just not done.  Why would we go to that level of self-surveillance to please a small, vocal minority of people claiming fraud?  The public's interest is not served by spending inordinate amounts of effort and money on this level of surveillance.  If the science is correct, his experiment will be replicated.
-Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review.  Thank you.
+:::: In sum, as others have tried to explain, there really isn't any more complex data for you to reasonably request.  A slightly expanded list of numbers from what's in the paper won't get you anything if you already don't believe the data.  And the scientific culture doesn't even come close to expecting photographic evidence of bacterial plates.  Your best bet, if you really don't believe the results, is to get an outsider to try and replicate and/or confirm some portion of his results.  The easy route would be to ask for a cit+ strain and its ancestor and see if they are indeed cit- and cit+.  You could even sequence them to check if the cit+ strain is indeed an ancestor of the cit- strain, but while this would be a perfectly normal approach in a molecular biology lab with impressive resources, the entire concept of evolution is anathema to you, so I can't think of a reasonable criterion you would use to determine ancestry.  If you wanted to go the hard route, you could obtain the ancestral strain and grow and measure them for years as Prof. Lenski's lab did.
-Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
+:::: I hope this has been somewhat instructive for you in explaining why a request for "further data" will not bear fruit beyond the small amount of data that Prof. Lenski says he will make available.  And why it is not reasonable to expect further data.  I am more than happy to respond to questions or requests for clarification if you would like.  -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 23:50, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications
+::::: For starters, most of the opposition to releasing the data has been the false claim that the data are too voluminous to release.  You are making the opposite claim, one which is more consistent with Lenski's paper: there is very little important data beyond what is in the 8-page paper.  But that doesn't withstand scrutiny either.
-:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek
+::::: The "meat" of the paper is this, and at a minimum the data should be released for it (pp. 2-3 from paper):
-== List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data ==
+:::::: Evolution of Cit Function in Population Ara-3. The LTEE populations  are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?] Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?], the cultures are only slightly turbid when transferred. Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]  These contaminated cultures reach much higher turbidity owing to the high concentration of citrate in the medium, which allows the contaminants to reach high density.  (When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?] After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?] A number [DATA?] of Cit clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive,  and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS?]. DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]
-Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia.  Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below.  Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.
+::::: Note, by the way, how the opponents of data disclosure seem to have no idea about what data Lenski actually has, which raises further questions about the merits of the conclusion.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-This will be the second request for the data from Lenski.  Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data.  But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting.  Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data.  Is that what you are asking for?  Or what?
-: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
-: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
-: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:I "diluted it.  I thought it needed to be more specific and polite.  Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it.  There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: I know some people here have claimed that the data are too voluminous to release...I didn't know what they were talking about, which is one reason I chimed in.  Anyway, here are point by point responses to each of these cases.  <i>Turbidity checking</i>: these data are either in a grad student's notebook somewhere, or were not recorded.  I wouldn't at all be surprised if they weren't recorded due to the nature of the data (it's just a visual check of turbidity, and wouldn't be reported in a paper).  <i>Low concentration of glucose in DM25</i>: this is a factual statement about DM25 media, not an observation.  <i>Contaminants</i>: Same comment as the turbidity checking.  Either there's a one-liner in a notebook somewhere ("Flask 25 contaminated, re-grew from stock") or nothing at all, since it's tangential to the experiment.  <i>Figure 1</i>: As I already mentioned, the data in Figure 1 are actually comprehensive -- three data points went into each plotted point.  They report the range (which give you a max and a min) and they also show you the average, which allows you to impute the third data point.  <i>Number of Cit clones, and the following comments except the last</i>: these data are probably recorded in a lab notebook somewhere, since they're rather not tangential to the experiment.  In addition, I'm sure they have a frozen stock of each cit+ bacterial clone that they checked, so this is something that could be easily independently verified. <i>Cit+ is not a contaminant</i>: no this would not be a part of the peer review...peer reviewers are not out to find fraud in general.  Especially in the inaugural paper of somebody just nominated into the national academy.  And the data underlying contamination checking are also extremely simple -- you plate the bacteria on an Ara+ plate and check sensitivity by eye, for example -- so there is no need to verify methodology as long as you trust the source.
-'''Current total of supporters:  7'''
+:::::: You're basically asking for the lab notebooks of all of the grad students involved in the experiment over the 20 years.  The data in these notebooks is going to be, in general, very simple (e.g., the statement "colony grew on Ara-, is a contaminant") since as I mentioned, there is no photographic evidence of this.  Additionally, while biotech companies generally have document retention policies as required by law, no such policies exist at the academic level (although specific institutions may have them).  A very few labs are run like well-oiled machines -- lab notebooks are kept up-to-date and thorough, and every observation is recorded.  This is the ideal, but almost no labs actually achieve it, since most labs are working at 125% speed in an effort to get experiments finished and published.
-*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: If you're really interested in monitoring the quotidien details of these experiments, that falls outside of the scope of what PNAS and professional standards would require Lenski to release, I believe.  You're not asking to re-analyze data so much as to oversee the entire experiment for fraud.  This would require giving you all of Lenski's graduate students' lab notebooks for an indefinite period of time, which would be quite disruptive, and as I said probably wouldn't even yield the level of data you seem to want.  In this case your best bet is to contact MSU and ask for a comprehensive review of Lenski's lab and his notes for this experiment.  But without any evidence to point to said fraud, they will certainly deny your request for oversight.  Your expectations here just aren't in line with professional standards in the field in the absence of any evidence of fraud.  -- [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] 10:49, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]]<sup>[[User talk:TerryH|Talk]]</sup> 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-*--[[User:DeanS|DeanS<sup>talk</sup>]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email?  I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email.  What were you proposing to send, Andy?  If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: It will be polite and professional, of course.  In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::: You've confirmed that the strident claims by Lenski defenders here that the data are too voluminous to release were nonsense.  We'll see how many of them now admit they were wrong.  Let's not hold our breaths!
-::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::: But your opposite approach above, which essentially suggests there are no data that can be released, doesn't withstand scrutiny either.  Figure 1 is plainly a low-resolution representation of underlying data that must exist.  The greater resolution should be released.  Similarly, there should be data underlying the essential assertion that a particular sample was not contaminated, while others had been.  For example, the paper asserts that "[a] number of Cit clones were isolated."  How many were isolated?  If those data exist, then it should be released along with the other data.  If those data do not exist, then that is even more telling.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:34, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft.  I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-Let's work up a draft.  Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:
+:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
+:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
+:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.
-Dear Prof. Lenski,
+:::::: Show us the data.  Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations???  I hope that's not what you mean.  But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
+:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
-innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly.  Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.
+:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.
-We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context.  Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.
+:::::: Again, show us the data.  What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this.
+:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
---[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.
-:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy.  We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right?  Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: No kidding.  The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw.  How many is "occasional"?  Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution.  At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims.  But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter.  The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
+:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.
-:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible.  But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity.  I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response.  Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :)  --[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::I'll add my name to that version as well.  It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when  we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
+:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.
-----
+:::::: Your answer here is absurd.  Higher resolution in science is always helpful.  The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring.  The data must exist to generate the graph.  Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names?  I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
+:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
-:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here.  The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: Right, that's no problem.  We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
+:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.
-:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well.  You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. The protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Recap ==
+:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
+:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.
-Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim.  Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data.  No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.
+:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. The protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny.  Journals and even government policy encourage or require it.  Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public.  Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
-:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue.  I think public scrutiny is excellent.  I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make.  It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff.  If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
+:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.
-:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't.  Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request.  Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are.  I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively.  None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex."  Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
+:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.
-:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it.  That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: The bottom line is that some think that Lenski's claims must be accepted on faith rather than independent verification of the data.  That is not science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it.  I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own.  I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know!  But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments.  My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::Just a word about reading the professional, scientific literature: Scientific papers are by the nature of their medium, mostly brief, to the point and highly condensed. Rather than repeat all the background information that others in the field may already know and encouraged to limit the length by journals with page limits, authors provide references to other papers that contain the previously published information. They also use terms that are well-defined within their profession to shorten the text further. One wouldn't expect a layman with no experience in biology to easily digest the paper. To point is not to obfuscate but to simmer the paper down to essentials that others in the field can readily understand. With some effort to become familiar with the underlying & established techniques & science, determined, non-experts can eventually pick up this information. I'd respectfully suggest to anyone *seriously* interested in the paper but not comfortable with the technical details, that they may want to find a knowledgeable biologist willing to explain. At least they should read the entire paper and the additional papers referenced within. Consider asking DI's research institute or Behe for help with understanding the techniques behind the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data.  Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: Your sermon is misplaced.  Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper: Books? Magazines? Newspapers? What type of books? What subjects? My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it.  I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.
+Unfortunately, there are essentially no real scientists left. Peer review is almost never done with the amount of scrutiny Aschlafly discusses. Reviewers, even for journals with long submission-to-publication times, do not request the original data. When original data are requested, it is by researchers who want to continue the work and write publications of their own on the subject. There just aren't incentives to do thorough reviews.
-::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?
+Aschlafly, I think you're right that review should have been more stringent. I think you're wrong, however, to conclude that an exception was made here. Its true that review time was very short in this case. The total number of man-hours devoted to '''any''' review, however, is seldom more than 40.
-::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+What does "real scientists" mean? If it means practicing academics today, it's sadly wrong. Most [[professor values|professors]] are self-centered, and would see true peer review as impinging on their personal freedom. "Who has time," they think, "to transcribe lab notebooks? I've got more papers to publish!" I bet the majority would even resist your request to Lenski. This liberal attitude towards truth is what leads to claptrap like [[Particle/wave duality theory]] and [[COBE|the theory of cosmic microwave background radiation]]. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 09:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it.  I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work.  Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also).  But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves.  But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it.  Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
+: With respect to your comments on peer review, note that there were merely 14 days between the time the Lenski manuscript was sent for review and the time it was confirmed for publication.  I doubt even 10 good hours of real peer review were devoted to the Lenski manuscript, let alone the 40 you mention.  The 14 days included administrative and communication delays, and business and weekend days.  It looks like a "rubber stamp" process to me for evaluating this Lenski manuscript, in contrast to other papers published by the same journal.  It seems possible to me that there was no meaningful peer review at all for the Lenski manuscript, and it may be worth making inquiries of the Journal on this point alone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview.  It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
-::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists.  We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
-::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.
+::The paper is straightforward and the data clear. Lenski's work is well known within the microbiology community and therefore much of the preceding information is already generally understood (i.e. reviewers don't need to dig through all the references). I can see it sailing through review.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.
+::: In other words, you seem to be saying the latest paper was not given a thorough, independent peer review.  I agree with that analysis.  In fact, it probably "sailed through" without any meaningful peer review at all, despite published journal procedures claiming to require meaningful peer review.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:08, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::On the contrary. I see it sailing through review because the experiment is straightforward, clearly reported and very interesting to the field. The techniques are uncontroversial and well understood among microbiologists. Easy reviews proceed faster, plain and simple. That reveals nothing about whether the paper received more, less or the same of scrutiny as the typical paper.
-:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this.  If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::Are you familiar with PNAS review policy? I ask because in previous notes you've wondered whether authors submit original (raw?) data in addition to their paper's actual manuscripts. Have you perhaps discussed review policies with other Nation Academy of Sciences members or at least, publishing biologists? It might be more productive than polling anonymous sources on the internet.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:28, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud ==
+:::::Aschlafly, the purpose of a Peer Review is not to make sure the entire experiment wasn't a massive fraud - it is to ensure that the work adhered to scientific principles and guidelines. In this case, the work was short and did adhere to principal. Lenski has, as required, laid out how the experiment can be repeated. Are you saying that he risked his entire reputation on results that can be checked and refuted by another lab?  {{unsigned|Falsehood}}
-I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of evolutionists fraud]].  In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::Aschlafly, peer reviews are not suitable to detect all experiment flaws or outright fraud. Reviewers can't always know whether a lab assistent made a mistake or even if the experiment was done at all. The primary goal is to make sure that the experiment can be repeated so completely independent researchers can verify the results. This is the only good verification. A mistake in the experiment means that the data cannot be trusted. That is true for fraudulent data as well. There are several reasons to repeat an experiment. First of all, a groundbreaking result will nearly always be repeated. Scientists want to be sure they can trust the result and not waste years on related experiments. The second reason is to test yourself. A scientist may want to repeat an important experiment before starting their own related experiments. It may also be done to test a new lab or test setup. Thirdly, indications of fraud are an obvious reason. Fourthly, highly complicated experiments that can easily go wrong may be replicated. Fifthly, new scientists are less trusted and more likely to be checked. Now, this experiment is not particularly likely to be repeated. It is not particularly groundbreaking (evolutionary changes have been observed in many other experiments), complicated and there are no indications of fraud. Of course, you/Conservapedia may want to appeal to colleages of mr. Lenski for a repeat of (parts of) the experiment, but I doubt that they will be swayed by your arguments that seem to boil down to: 'I don't understand the science, but I don't like the result, so there must be a mistake'. It would be wiser to point to an actual lack of evidence or methodology flaw in the paper (if it exists), so an experiment can be drafted to test the significance of that mistake. --[[User:Aapje|Aapje]] 07:29, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
-: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?
+== More replies to archived comments ==
-: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
+See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).
-::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis?  It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions.  This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data".  What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want.  This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
+:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
+How do we know that they are not the same species or genus?  "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils.  And size doesn't mean much.  Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.
-::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits.  See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::I'll repeat my specific point.  There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully.  I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received.  Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond?  He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria  was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here.  I'll explain it in a different way:
+::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
+::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
+::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation.  So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
+:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
+{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
+:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim."  None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::There are some flaws in that logic though:
+:::*Simple cells likely first appeared 4 billion years ago. Given how many existed simultaneously (an entire planet at some times v. a few petri dishes) and that simpler living beings have shorter lifespans, going from "microbes to man" (or something as genetically complex as man) is really a matter of time.
+:::*31,500 generations is not a minimum number of generations for a rare, complex trait to manifest. That just happened to be the case here. Dumb luck could have had significant mutations develop at any earlier (or later) point.
+:::*What definition of "ability" are you using here? All of the bacteria also evolved larger cells - would you count that as an "ability"? According to Lenski's work, "enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over"
+:::*Bacteria are asexual. Animals and plants reproduce through sex, which causes significantly more genetic variation.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.
+:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time.  If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane?  Answer:  It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction.  The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it.  See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
+::::: We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here.  As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer.  But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for.  The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
+::::: I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information.  Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
+::::: They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
+::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: "''We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended.''":  So?  Like all analogies, it's not perfect.  Evolution doesn't go around in circles like travelling around the Earth, so that reply is invalid, and the objection remains: mutations go in the wrong direction.
+:::::: "''[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.''": No, they are not good links at all.  From memory of checking the first one out before, it has little of substance.  The second is a disagreement over a particular case, not a general look at information, and has some errors in it that I can identify.
+:::::: "''I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?''":  I said "evidence", not "proof".  If you don't understand the difference, read the relevant sections in my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]].  Creationism ''also'' proposes mutations, so the fact that a mutation happened is not evidence favouring evolution.
+:::::: "''They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.''":  The New Scientist article quoted Jerry Coyne saying "it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events, ... That's just what creationists say can't happen.".  What creationists say "can't happen" is an ''increase in information''.  So if you are claiming that nobody is claiming this to be an increase in information, they you are claiming that Jerry Coyne doesn't know what he's talking about regarding what creationists claim (which could be the case, actually!).  As for your example, a short third leg probably doesn't require new information anyway.  We already have the information for legs, so failure (mutation) of a switch might result in a third one (it's happened with animals), and another fault (mutation) might cause that third leg to be stunted.  So if Lenski's discovery is like this, then it really is the case that it doesn't support evolution, because microbes-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''new'' genetic information.
+:::::: "''[Sexual reproduction] varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.''":  That sounds like hand-waving to me, rather than an argument of substance.
+:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it."  If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::Philip,
+:::::With due respect, I see a fairly serious problem with the position you're taking.  One of the central arguments against evolution is that mutations ''cannot'' produce new information.  Now you're arguing that:
-:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it.  Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise.  I hope that's clear enough.  The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers.  If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply.  So go ahead, make the request, and get the data.  Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::''"According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one."''
-::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly.  Time will tell.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::The problem is that, if it can "very rarely" happen "by chance," then the premise that mutations do not produce new genetic information is simply false.  Instead, we're faced with a debate over ''how frequently'' mutations produce new genetic information.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 10:41, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data.  You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it.  Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+Philip, I see your point about how the creation of new information through mutation does not necessarily contradict creationism at all. However, it hardly seems like evidence ''for'' it; and extrapolating as you did (trying to claim the timeframe for these bacteria applies equally to the supposed evolution of humans) honestly seems like mostly speculation... Which I admit is often overused by evolutionists as well, but it still isn't a good basis for deciding which theory the evidence favors. [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 11:27, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::::"Perhaps"?  I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure?  That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements.  Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request.  In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+: BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule.  For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information.  However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get ''something'' simple that is new.  And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that ''in this case'' it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this ''did'' happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted.  But the question is not ''really'' how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones.  And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction.  That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation?  Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).
+: Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence ''for'' creation?  If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it ''is'' evidence for it!  You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans.  Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours ''individuals'', not ''mutations'', then a less-fit ''individual'' will be selected ''against'' even with the odd "good" mutation.  So really, it will occur a lot ''slower'' for humans than for bacteria.
+: For more information on this, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4473 this] brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".
+: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:: It's amusing to me that you cite Haldane's Dilemma, even though it was debunked at the same time it was given that name.  As Leigh Van Valen pointed out on page in his paper [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2458906 Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis], significant evolutionary changes occur when the environmental changes cause unadapted organisms have less reproductive success. This holds with evolutionary theory, as there is abundant evidence of large changes occurring in organisms at times where their environment changes and their population is small. Mind you, this is the paper which originated the term "Haldane's Dilemma", so with the exception of J. B. S. Haldane's papers, this is the original source. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
-== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==
+: Philip, the massive increase in size is just one (and the most readily visible) aspect of Coelacanthiforme's evolution since the end of the Cretaceous. If you want firm proof, there are significant differences in skeletal structure between the most closely-related ancient and modern species of coelacanth (Macropoma and Latimeria). It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 15:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+:: There have apparently been various ''attempts'' to debunk Haldane's Dilemma, but those attempts have themselves been debunked.  In 1992 (well after Van Valen's paper), George C. Williams wrote of Haldane's Dilemma, "In my opinion the problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."[http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm]
+:: "''It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus''":  Oh?  Because you say so?  Yet you didn't explain how this can be determined without interfertility tests.  No, this "established fact" is by decree, not scientific tests of interfertility.
+:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
+::: "Oh?  Because you say so?" No, because the scientists who know how to determine taxonomy said so. Your argument is unbelievably weak, by that logic humans could be genetically compatible with T-Rex. Rather than simply dismissing everything that disagrees with the Bible, you should probably do some research from reliable sources. The scientific method exists for a reason.
+::: That's fine about someone disagreeing with Van Valen's conclusions, but can you share his reasoning? I found Van Valen's debunking of Haldane's Dilemma to be quite logical and it fits with the data (such as Prof. Lenski's experiment).
+::: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 20:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
-Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:
+==Lead author won't answer simple,  basic questions==
+IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:
+(1) -- whether evolution of citrate-eating (Cit+) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment (I noted that a "goal" does not have to be a sure result),   and
+(2) --  whether the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving insufficient glucose supplies in order to cause alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor the evolution of citrate-eating E. coli bacteria.
+Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions is discussed in the following article on my blog --
+[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]
+More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog  (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
+[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]
+Also,  I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data,   because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research.   IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
+: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827
+:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria.  (I did not find the answer in the paper.)  Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population?  The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal.  They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
+::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well.  [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008
+:::: If you're serious, then please provide some quotes and links to back up your statements.  Also contribute to entries rather than violating the [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:32, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of  19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
+:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added)    I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment.    He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper,  which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing."   And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases,   they are accused of not wanting to learn.
+:''"Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population?"''   As I said,   I asked Blount whether favoring Cit+ evolution was the purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient supplies of glucose so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation),  and he did not answer.
+:''"They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved."''   I disagree with  you here,   for the reasons stated at the end of my first comment in this talk page.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:25, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Another email? ==
+:: Thanks for your insightful comments and continued efforts to obtain the truth.
-Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?
+:: It has been conceded, finally, by Lenski defenders that the data are not too voluminous to turn over.  The underlying data for Figure 1 in the paper for the population expansion during the alleged evolution of the Cit-plus phenotype, for example, could shed light on whether contamination played a role.  There is no legitimate reason to withhold the greater resolution from the public, which funded the study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:15, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-"Dear Dr. Lenski,
+::::People need to stop asking to "turn over the data for public scrutiny" before they've fully read and comprehended the papers and information released to date.  E. Coli don't live off of citrate - it's a characteristic of the species - so there was no "goal to promote the percentage that could do it".  The fact that a certain population were able to after after thousands of generations of reproduction in a controlled, monitored setting was the key observation, and Lenski's team is still investigating the specifics of when and how that characteristic was enabled.  It reflects poorly on an online encyclopedia that the leadership is still questioning whether sufficient data to understand the experiment has been released.  The most relevant data from the experiment is the actual bacteria itself, and Lenski has publicly offered to share samples of them with any scientist qualified to handle them, who follows the proper, professional protocols.  The Consevapedia community has yet to see a specific, professional response to Professor Lenski's second letter other than a flippant remark about attitude and a continued insistence that data has not been revealed when it clearly has.
-I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."
+::::I'll probably earn another 90/10 block for this, but when you continue to question Lenski's work while admitting that you've only skimmed the related paper, you accomplish nothing but setting a poor example of intellectual honesty for the students who use CP as a trustworthy resource.  With all respect, I would ask that instead, you retain the services of a qualified scientist who can engage in a proper review of Lenski's work, whose could then post an ongoing journal of the review process and its findings here on CP.  ''That'' would be an appropriate lesson for the students in the proper application of scientific scrutiny to findings that some find questionable.  Godspeed.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:20, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-Or some such.
+::::The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent (see Lenski's early papers) and it's actually tangential in the overall context of the long-term experiment. Zachary Blount describes the purpose of citrate in the media in his responses at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom. http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php (see replies #115 & #270). Citrate was not added to be a carbon nutrient in the media but as a non-metabolizable chelator (the three carboxyl groups of citrate can bind certain cations in solution). The recipe for the medium was taken from other microbiologists who developed the recipe as a general culture medium back in 1949. Lenski's description of the DM25 media is here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/dm25liquid.html. Glucose was the intended carbon source. If you read the Lenski article cited by Blount (Phenotypic and genomic evolution during a 20,000-generation experiment with the bacterium Escherichia coli. -- available here: https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/, you'll see the setup and reasons for performing the experiments (An earlier article at generation 2000 is here: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/1991,%20AmNat,%20Lenski%20et%20al.pdf). Basically, Lenksi wanted to see how mutations arise and move through populations over time. Even if the media and growth conditions remain pretty consistent over time, the populations continuously shift and change. That is because for a bacterium in the experiment the 'environment' is not just made up of the flask and media but also the *other cells in the flask* with which it must compete. This results in a continuously shifting competitive environment as mutations arise in lineages. Citrate utilization was just one of the many interesting variations acquired over the course of the experiment. Read his other papers for more details and a fuller understanding of the open-ended experiment's scope.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::: I looked at the blog and found it to be remarkably uninformative.  I saw nothing about Blount and Lenski's purpose, nothing that persuasively ruled out non-evolutionary reasons for the citrate-eating bacteria, and nothing to justify the withholding of the data to reveal greater resolution than provided by the figures in the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:00, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.
+::::::Blogging has limits, which is why I also provided references to Lenski's other papers, including some of those Blount mentioned would be worth reading.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::With regard to 'competent scientists' consider that Behe, in his discussions on this topic has not argued about the 'mechanics' and data presented in Lenski's paper. In his review that can be found on the amazon.com website, he calls Lenksi's work 'fascinating' (and means it in a good way).--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again.  You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.
+That was strange -- for several hours I was not able to post here,  but now I can.    Here is my response to Argon's comment of 21:16, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data.  (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.)  SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review.  Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review.  Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them.  Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+Argon said,  "The development of citrate metabolizers wasn't the main intent"
+I didn't ask if Cit+ (citrate-eating E. coli bacteria) evolution was the "main intent" of the experiment -- I only asked if Cit+ evolution was one of the original "goals."     There is a misunderstanding about what the word "goal" means -- a goal does not have to be a sure result.    In searches for the Lost Dutchman Mine and the ivory-billed woodpecker,   finding them are "goals."   A "goal" can be one of many goals,   a secondary goal,   a longshot goal,  or whatever.    And "intent" is not part of the definition of "goal" -- "intent" generally means what one plans to do,  but one cannot plan to achieve an uncertain result.    BTW,  the term "citrate metabolizers" is misleading  because the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate but did not have the ability to pass it through the cell walls.
+Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:
+''"When Dr. Lenski started, he figured the citrate would provide an opportunity that the populations might or might not figure out a way to exploit, thereby presenting a potential point of divergence between the populations (this is my understanding - I will need to check with him to make certain I understand this properly)."''
+Blount then essentially contradicted his above statement by saying that "the intent of the experiment was never to evolve a Cit+ E. coli variant" (comment #115) and that Cit+ evolution was "not a goal" (comment #122).
+Also, the following factors suggest that Cit+ evolution was an original goal of the experiment:
+(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before.    Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog,  ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''
+(2) I and others assumed that a purpose of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria an insufficient glucose supply so as to create alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation) was to favor Cit+ evolution.   I asked Blount if this was in fact a purpose of the glucose-cycling and he did not answer.   I asked what the purpose of the glucose-cycling was if favoring Cit+ evolution was not the purpose,  and he did not answer.
+Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988,    and if so,  what does that proposal say,  if anything,  about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+::British_cons''':'''  Suppose a committee is considering this research for an award or a prize and asks the researchers the same questions I asked''':''' (1) Was Cit+ evolution a goal of the experiment? and (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose of the glucose-cycling?   Are the researchers  going to answer, “No, it was not a goal — it was just an unforeseen accident. We don’t deserve any credit for it.”
+::Also,  IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment.    Also,  the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above,  I did not get straight consistent answers to simple,  basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::There are two possibilities.  It was the goal.  It was not the goal.  The result is that they have produced Cit+.  If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done.  If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science.  Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected.  Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned.  So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.
+::::British_cons''':'''   As I said,  suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident?      Also,  the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as I showed above,  I did not get straight consistent answers to simple,  basic questions.    As I noted above,  Cit+ evolution had been observed before,  so it seems that repeating it was a likely goal of the experiment.      Also,  I asked about the purpose(s) of the glucose-cycling and I got no answer to that question.    Knowing the goals of the research and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the research.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 14:07, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
-First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.
+::::Thudden''':''' ''As I said,  suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident?'' This betrays a unequivocal lack of understanding of scientific process and acclaim. Hundreds of world-altering scientific discoveries have been serendipitous: Pauling and Penicillin, Galvani and neuroelectricity, Nagano's discovery of interferon, Becquerel and Röntgen's discovery of radioactivity and X-rays respectively. If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim, perhaps only with added envy.
+:::::'''Fleming''' and Penicillin (just for the sake of accuracy). [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 17:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)
+::''"If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim,"''  I disagree -- IMO things discovered by intelligent searching are more highly regarded. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 06:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::''Thudden: Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided.
+:::"Identical academic acclaim": Fleming won the Nobel Prize, Becquerel won the Nobel Prize, Rontgen won the first ever Nobel Prize for Physics, Nobel Prizes were awarded for the serendipitous discoveries of restriction endonucleases and RNA interference... Not to mention "Eureka!" The list of people who've won the highest acclaim for accidental discoveries is very, very long. [[User:HSpalding|HSpalding]] 17:56, 8 January 2009 (EST)
-I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.
+::::''"Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided."''
+::::It is just my own personal opinion -- I have no opinion poll results on the question.  Do you have any opinion poll results to back up your statement?
+::::I was especially impressed by the way Neptune was discovered in 1846 -- a mathematician predicted its location on the basis of perturbations of the motion of Uranus,  and Neptune was found in one night very close to the predicted spot.   Also,  Pluto was found on the basis of perturbations in Neptune's motion but the search took much longer.
+::::You should sign your comments at the end, not the beginning -- when you sign them at the beginning,  it looks like you are addressing someone (that is what I originally thought about your preceding comment). [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”
+(unindent) Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? You keep repeating this "no straight answers" argument, and people keep pointing out your error, and you've yet to see this argument through to the end anywhere. Conservapedia is already struggling to maintain its current signal-to-noise ratio, please stop forum-shopping here. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 14:17, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-knows where all the good sales are...''
-Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before
+:: Aziraphale said,  ''"Rather than dispute this with you YET AGAIN, can we wait until you respond to criticisms of your position on other websites first? "''     I have already spent a helluva lot of time responding to those criticisms on Carl Zimmer's blog and my own blog!  (see links in my first comment on this talk page)   But I have been kicked off of Carl Zimmer's blog,   and my own blog gets only about 50 visits per day.    In contrast,  this talk page is getting thousands of visits per day,   so it is obviously a much better forum for publicizing my views.
-For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
+::''"You keep repeating this 'no straight answers' argument, and people keep pointing out your error."''   And I keep pointing out the errors in arguments that attempt to point out my alleged error.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 16:18, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
---[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-:Dear Aschlafly,
+:::Ok, fair enough. Enjoy your time here. :) [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:05, 27 June 2008 (EDT) ''<-o/~know when to hold 'em... o/~''
-:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::''"Enjoy your time here."''   I intend to.    I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question.  You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::How could a random event, Cit+ evolution,  be a "hypothesis"?    Even Zachary Blount used the term "goal."  What is wrong with saying that an experiment has a "goal" (or "goals")? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Because according to the [[Scientific method]] the objective of an experiment is to test an hypothesis. Remember that things are not proved in science - only disproved.  The objective of an experiment is never to "prove" anything - only to test an hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed then it is strengthened, if it not confirmed it is weakened or discarded.  Consequently the fundamental question to ask of an experiment is, "What hypothesis was being tested?" --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::How would you describe Cit+ evolution as a hypothesis,  even assuming that Cit+ evolution had not been observed before (Cit+ evolution was observed prior to Lenski's experiment) ?[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::::I'm afraid that's for you to figure out.  As I've said, the only sensible way for you to ask the question you want answered is to form it as a question about the hypothesis.  How you manage that is down to you. :-)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::''"I'm afraid that's for you to figure out."''   It's your idea that it must be stated as a hypothesis,  so showing how it can be stated as a hypothesis is your responsibility.   Anyway,  Lenski could not hypothesize about whether Cit+ evolution could occur,   because it had been observed prior to the start of his experiment.    All he could do was consider Cit+ evolution to be a "goal" of his experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help.  Anyway, the article on [[Scientific method]] ''on this wiki'' states that the reason for an experiment is to test an hypothesis - so it's not my opinion but what this Wiki states.  I suppose you could edit the article so this it reflects your view of how science works. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::::Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time). The null hypothesis (not supported by the results of the experiments) is that the Cit+ strain arises by a single, exceptionally rare event.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::  ''"Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time)."''
+:::::I was aware that one of the original goals of the experiment was to test for historical contingency -- that was the reason for freezing the populations at each 500th generation.    My questions were about other things:  (1) was Cit+ evolution an original goal of the experiment (remember that this whole experiment started in 1988,   long before the study in the present paper),   (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient glucose supplies so as to cause alternating glucose feeding and starvation),  and (3) what were other purposes -- if any -- of the glucose-cycling.    Zachary Blount did not give a straight answer to the first question and gave no answers at all to the latter two questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:12, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli. The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource. The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you. There is no other purpose to providing the bacteria with a limited supply of glucose. Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer - it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one.<br />
+:::::::You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions - and your response seems to be that he does not deserve praise for this, since he didn't set out with this particular outcome in mind - it's just an accident, if in fact the Cit+ bacteria exist at all. Or maybe you object because you think Lenski somehow 'stacked the deck' in favor of his bacteria becoming Cit+, so the results aren't 'fair' somehow. Or perhaps you think that after 20 years of failing to develop a Cit+ strain of E. coli through selection, Lenski just gave up, genetically engineered such a strain, and then faked his data. If you could clearly state what your suspicions are, rather than simply repeating that Blount won't answer your questions, it would be simpler to address your concerns.<br/>
+:::::::This is utterly beside the point, however, because the importance of this recent paper does not depend on the detail of the strain being Cit+ - it could have been the development of a toxin, or some other event that led the new strain to be markedly, phenotypically different from its ancestors in some way. The importance lies in the work that was done to sketch out the outline of how the new trait developed, and in the re-development of the same trait during a re-running of the experiment from ancestral stock.<br />
+:::::::Is it interesting that the trait seen in Lenski's E. coli is the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions? Yes. Is it remarkable? Yes, since you can count the number of E. coli strains that can do this on one hand. It's so wild and crazy that it might lead one to question whether the bacteria involved should even be called E. coli anymore - it's that striking a difference from 'normal' E. coli behavior. Was the development of the Cit+ strain an accident? Entirely. Would another Cit+ strain arise if the experiment was completely restarted from 1988? Almost certainly not - Lenski's data suggests that this is a staggeringly unlikely event, dependent on a series of merely overwhelmingly unlikely events. Did Lenski wish to develop a Cit+ strain from the beginning? No man can know the inner mind of another, but I would bet the farm that he didn't see this coming. If I were designing an E. coli breeding scheme with the stated purpose of selecting for a Cit+ mutant, I can think of much, much, much better ways to do it than this experimental protocol. The Cit+ trait is a novelty - an interesting one, one that is remarkable because of its rarity, one that resonates - but the value of the research does not depend upon it. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it.  I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it.  Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::''"You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli."''
+::::I am trying to get answers to some simple,  basic questions about the experiment.   Is there something wrong with that?
+::::Also,  the "semantics" -- as you call them -- of "goal" are very important.    A lot of people have the mistaken idea that a goal is necessarily an expected result or is necessarily an intended result.    Just going around telling people that the Cit+ evolution was not a goal can be very misleading.
+:::::If you want to expand the term 'goal' to the point that you include unexpected, unintended results then you rob it of all meaning. By your reasoning, my getting into a fatal car accident is the 'goal' of my driving to the grocery store. If you think that 'goal' is a term of art that describes the entire universe of possible outcomes of an action, you are mistaken. If you want Blount  et al to admit that the emergence of a Cit+ mutant was '''possible''', given the experimental protocol, then I think that you already have your answer: yes. Was it expected? No. Was the experiment designed from the beginning to favor Cit+ mutation over some other pathway? No.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::''"The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource."''
+::::That statement is too vague.
+:::::What part is too vague? The alternatives to glucose cycling are: provide so much glucose that cell growth remains exponential up through the time of the next sampling; provide so little glucose that there is no cell division at all; or use a chemostat setup in which the glucose concentration can be maintained at a constant, arbitrary level indefinitely at the cost of vastly increased material and labor costs to the experimenter.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::''"The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you."''
+::::The glucose cycling gives an especially big advantage to Cit+ bacteria because they have something to eat after the glucose supply is exhausted whereas their Cit- neighbors do not.
+:::::It gives them '''an''' advantage. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how '''big''' an advantage it is, because instead of being unable to metabolize citrate they may merely be terrible at it. If the Cit- cells are better at glucose metabolism than the Cit+ ones are, they may completely swamp out the Cit+ in the early, glucose-dependent phase. Even if the Cit+ cells continue to grow after the glucose is exhausted, they may never completely outcompete the Cit- cells by the time the next population sample is taken. In fact, this appears to be what has happened, as the experiment has shown that two populations of cells originating from the Ara-3 line have reached a temporary equilibrium: a grows-very-fast-on-glucose Cit- population (10%) and a grows-more-slowly-on-glucose-but-keeps-growing-on-citrate Cit+ population (90%). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::''"Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer -- it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one."''
+::::Yes,  I know it is there as a chelating agent -- but I also want to know if Cit+ evolution was a goal (again, a goal does not have to be an expected result and can even be an unlikely result) and if favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (I also would like to know if there were other purposes of the glucose-cycling and exactly how any other purposes work).   The fact that Cit+ evolution was observed once previously adds to my hunch that it was a goal.   Also,  the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate and just needed to evolve a way to pass citrate through the cell wall.
+::::''"You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions"''
+::::Well,  he is getting a lot of acclaim for it,  isn't he?   The paper has been widely ballyhooed all over the Internet.   The Internet has several articles and hundreds of comments about it.
+:::::He does not deserve acclaim because he is a farmer who has a goose that lays golden eggs, but because he can demonstrate in rough form how the goose came to lay golden eggs when it's grandparents could not. In fact, he has gone back and re-bred the grandparents and gotten golden-egg laying geese again and again, even though none of his other geese, or even the great-grandparents of the golden goose, can breed golden-egg-layers. The real achievement is not having the goose, it's reproducing it against all the odds, and showing that there's something special about the grandparents compared to the greatgrandparents, even though the grandparents appear to be normal. The fact that many folks, including those in the media, can't get past the 'ohmygoshgoldeneggs!!!' phase is not Lenski's fault.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::''"If you could clearly state what your suspicions are"''
+::::Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 20:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help."''    You call that "help"?   All you did was clutter up this talk page with your irrelevant "hypothesis" idea.   With friends like you,  who needs enemies? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it. In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::''"When did I call it help?  I said that I thought you were asking for it."''
+:::::::And you thought -- or seemed to think -- that you were giving it.  I am beginning to suspect that you are just a troll.
+:::::::''"In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation."''
+:::::::No, he has not clarified the situation -- see my above response to him. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::I will not stoop to name calling.  Goodbye and good luck with your enquiries.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::Well,  what did you expect?   First you introduced an irrelevant topic, "hypothesis."   Then you contradicted yourself by first saying ''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help"'' and then saying ''"When did I call it help?"'' [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:42, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.
+::::::::Mods, can we get a ruling on this? LarryFarma is harassing other users, talking far more than he is making valid contributions, and generally being a troll. If he was defending Lenski instead of attacking the paper, he would have been blocked a long time ago. Can someone please comment on this? I believe we can all make our points without name-calling. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
+:::::::In fact, the only contributions that Larry has made have been to this talk page. Can we get a 90/10 block please? [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
+::::::::Aaronp:  Is somebody hassling you?    People who don't want to read my comments don't have to read them.
+::::::::Also, the 90/10 rule doesn't apply here because I cannot make any contributions to the project page,   which is reserved for the exchange of letters between Schlafly and Lenski.
+::::::::BTW,  I am not attacking the paper -- I am only attacking the lead author's failure to give straight answers to simple, basic questions about it. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::::: Okay, here's my two-bob's worth.
+::::::::: LarryFarma, this page was started to question the ''validity'' of Lenski's work and claims.  Although I can see how questions about his ''goals'' would be relevant to awarding him a prize, I can't see that they are relevant to the validity of his work.  I think that this might be the cause of some of the angst, as some editors are assuming that you are trying to question the work's ''validity'' with an argument that has no bearing on that point.
+::::::::: Secondly, Aaronp has a point about the so-called 90/10 rule.  It's point is to ensure that editors contribute to the site and don't just argue.  That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site.  The rule is not page-specific in that sense.  So as Aaronp has called for that rule to be invoked, and as you have only contributed on this talk page, I think that his request is fair.  However, I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so.  Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it.
+::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
-::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::''"LarryFarma, this page was started to question the validity of Lenski's work and claims."''
+::::::The opening sentence of my first comment questions the validity of Lenski's work:
+::::::''"IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:"''
+::::::You say,
+::::::''"Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize"''
+::::::That is not the issue here  -- the issue here is that the lead author of the paper,  Zachary Blount,  has not given straight answers to my simple,  basic questions about the experiment.    If I were a peer-reviewer of the paper or in the audience at a presentation of the paper at a scientific conference,  would he be dodging my questions?      And my questions are not just about goals -- for example,   I also would like to know the purposes of the glucose-cycling (alternating glucose feeding and glucose starvation).      These things are all part of understanding the experiment.    Also,  what does the original research proposal -- if there is one -- say about the goals and methodologies of the experiment?    Is Lenski willing to release that proposal?
+:::::: ''"That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site."''
+::::::I am new to the site and therefore have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site.   Would you like me to write an article about co-evolution?    All I would have to do would just copy-and-paste from my blog's several articles about co-evolution.    I have found the issues of co-evolution to be a very effective challenge to evolution theory.
+::::::''" I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it."''
+::::::Are you willing,  then,  to censor all future comments that attack my positions?    If comments attacking my positions are posted in the future here,  then why shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself?   In fact,  while I was writing this comment,  Brossa posted three comments attacking my positions.
+::::::Also,  how do you intend to "enforce" the 90/10 rule -- by IP address blocking?   That is often ineffective and also often unintentionally blocks other Internet users who share the same ISP proxy.
+::::::BTW,  I am very annoyed that Aaronp hypocritically called me a "troll" while criticizing me for using that name to insult another commenter. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 01:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==
+::::::: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in some of my comments.  The first part of my message was not as an administrator, but just to try and clarify the issues.  I didn't mean to suggest that you hadn't addressed the validity of his claims.  It was meant simply to point out that some may be misunderstanding the point of your comments.  And I'm not saying that the questions you are raising are not legitimate questions to raise.
+::::::: It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site".  You've had opportunity every time you've edited.
+::::::: We do allow copying of your own work.  There is a template available to note that it is your own work.  And of course it can be edited by others, as is the case with all articles.
+::::::: If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you.  Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word, and that might be unfortunate, but that's not going to be reason to ignore the so-called 90/10 rule.
+::::::: I'm not suggesting that you are the only one in the wrong here.  Uncivil language happens a fair bit.  But that's peripheral to the issue I'm discussing here.
+::::::: I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics.  And fair warning:  I've referred to the 90/10 rule as the "so-called" 90/10 rule, because it's not a rule against precisely 90% talk vs. 10% contributions, but a rule against "unproductive activity", with 90/10 being an ''example'' of that.  So simply making the odd article edit or posting the odd copied article will not necessarily avoid that rule.  It's something that we administrators make a judgement on, and others will make it more readily that I will.
+::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
-:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::''"I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts,  but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics."''
+:::::That reminds me of the following lawyer joke:
+:::::Customer:  What are your rates?
+:::::Lawyer:  $100 for three questions.
+:::::Customer:  Isn't that kind of steep?
+:::::Lawyer:   Yes.    What is your third question?
+:::::''"If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word"''
+:::::Almost all of my arguments here have been answers to my critics.      What is at stake here is my right to answer critics.  And the reason why I have been making more comments here than other commenters is that other commenters have been using tag-team tactics against me.   Giving me just one more opportunity to answer attacks is unacceptable because those attacks are continuing and will continue.   And how do I know that other commenters here are not violating the 90/10 rule?    Am I being singled out because of Aaronp's rude complaint?
+:::::''"It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited."''
+:::::I would have liked to make some contributions to Conservapedia articles,  but I now have mixed feelings about Conservapedia because of the 90/10 rule,   an arbitrary and unfair rule which is being used to prevent me from defending myself here.    I gave up on Wikipedia a long time ago because of its arbitrary and unfair rules and practices,  and I am now seeing that Conservapedia is no better.
+:::::Anyway,  we can debate my questions here until doomsday,   but nothing can excuse Zachary Blount's failure to give straight answers to those questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:26, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
-[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.]  All kinds of data.  If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such.  Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::While I completely agree with you that the 90/10 rule is somewhat intimidating (I even refrained from removing wikilinks to salted articles from talk pages because I feared that a casual inspection would make those edits look like "talk, talk, talk"!), it should be said that so far, 20 of your 20 edits were on this page. In other words, your contributions outside of this discussion amount to ZERO. This is an encyclopedia project (or at least it says so) and not a discussion forum. Making encyclopedia edits should be your first priority, not an afterthought. If I remember correctly (I have only paid little attention to this trainwreck), people with far better ratios also received 90/10 blocks for making just a few posts here. You on the other hand were given ''edit rights'' just so you could debate here. Look at me, I got more than a 100 edits (according to My Preferences), most of them non-talk, and I still can't edit at night. You have been treated ''extremely'' well, all things considered. It's time that you actually contribute to the site's primary purpose: Building an encyclopedia. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 15:42, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
-::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek
+== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
+I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter,  made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
+: Yes, it was an oversight.  It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page.  It has since been linked.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia?  It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper.  Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+==Archive Link?==
-::::He answered, everybody scramble!  I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW!  You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately!  Move, move, move!  We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
+Can a link be provided to the archive for this page? Thanks. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:48, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested.  It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
+:No, your edits were not a problem.  It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum.  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
-:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+I read this page a while ago - Lensky and ASchaffly's two-and-fro, and have since returned.  Why is it that ASchaffly's second letter this time seems to have been edited to be a lot more polite than when I first read it?  It makes Lenski's second reply seem unnecessarily rude.  When I first read this I felt his tone was justified, now it seems out of place.
+:I don't think the letter has been changed at all. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 22:54, 21 July 2008 (EDT)
-:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper?  Papers don't set forth the data themselves.  At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Whence Lenski? ==
-:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
+Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp]  {{unsigned|Drochld}}
-:::#Be able to understand any of it?
-:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
-:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+:I'm a little confused about the terminology of the survey.  According to the 1998 figures, 7% had "personal belief", 72% had "personal disbelief", and 21% had "doubt (presumably equivalent to atheism) or agnosticism".  I know what atheism and agnosticism are, but what does personal disbelief mean in this case?  It sounds like agnosticism, but agnosticism is in a separate category.  So what is it?  Anyone know?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+::If they're not believers, and they're not agnostics/doubters, then they're atheists. Atheism = disbelief. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::I find it doubtful that are more atheists than agnostics.  Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist.  A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.  I think a survey with more clearly defined choices is called for.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::Actually it is not true to say, ''Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist'' as Conservapedia's article says; [[Weak Atheism]].  Many more scientifically-minded atheists would follow this point of view for the very reasons you state -  ''A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.''--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::I think the distinction to be made here is between personal belief and what can be proven. It is possible to put forward a definition of God that cannot be tested and is therefore neither provable nor falsifiable, however that wouldn't mean an individual couldn't have a personal belief (or disbelief) in God. If I can be forgiven a pop culture reference, I can't prove I don't live in [[The Matrix]] but I have a personal belief that I don't.--<font face = "Verdana">[[User:Boreas|Boreas]]<sup> [[User_Talk:Boreas|'''talk''']]</sup></font> 13:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can.  I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air.  I am not reassured by the withholding of data.
+I'm guessing that 100% of creationist are theists...so? Does this invalidate THEM in any way? No, it does not. I don't see how this line of discussion is pertinent or constructive in any way. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 14:58, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery.  What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+I assume that Bugler's ignoring of Gnostics such as myself was not an attempt to polarise the community into more easily distinguishable sects.  {{unsigned|Scholl}}
-:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?
+== Qualification ==
-:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?
+It is quite clear why Lenski is annoyed at requests for data and questions about the validity of his work. It is that none of those who are asking have any background in biology (please correct me if I'm wrong) and are as such not qualified to evaluate his work.
-:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+If you have questions or doubts about the research, then the *only* way you are going to get any useful result is by finding a biologist who perhaps shares your concerns and asking them to evaluate the research. Do you think, as a historian, that you wouldn't be annoyed by someone with no background in your field questioning your research, having apparently not even thoroughly read it? [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 08:24, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing.  While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information."  You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
+: No, Boatie, I'm confident your suggested reason has nothing to do with it.  I requested making the data available for review by the public, including experts:  "I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students."[Conservapedia:Lenski dialog]  You can reread Lenski's negative response yourself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.
+:: But surely if there are any experts with specific requests then Lenski would provide any additional information that they require, as he has indicated. The fact that he is clearly offended by the initial requests and their implications means that he is now unlikely to cooperate with you, or anyone affiliated with this website, I suspect. [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 09:28, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read  (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.
+::: Boatie, you're awfully naive if think the withholding of the underlying data from public scrutiny has anything to do with anyone being "offended".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.
+:::: I hope you noticed that I didn't resort to petty name-calling. It's not helpful. I didn't suggest that data was being withheld to prevent public scrutiny. Merely I suggested that Lenski is probably not inclined to comply with the demands of a non-expert whose repeated requests may not even be sensible. Note that the report was submitted for peer review, and the paper involved will have since been read by many qualified biologists. [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 09:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::: Boatie, you're clueless.  People withhold data from public scrutiny for one obvious reason: to prevent the public (including experts) from scrutinizing their work.  Feigning offense has nothing to do with it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:53, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: That's simply not true, and has been raised plenty of times, Lenski is not necessarily with holding data from any experts, he's only failing to supply to *you*. Find an *actual biologist* with concerns about his work and maybe things will be different. Further name-calling does nothing to help your argument. [[User:Boatie|Boatie]] 10:00, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: Scientists prefer specifc questions over general ones. In the initial email exchange you had a couple of specific questions that were answered specifically. Asking a general question will only result in "Do you have a question?" Saying "I want to see the data" is not a question. Saying "I want to see the data because I have a question about <i>this specific issue </i>I have" is more likely to get an answer. Prof Lenski has stated multiple times that he would provide samples etc to qualified people if they have questions on his research. Since no one here has demonstrated the required credentials and filed the proper paperwork to obtain a sample of prof lenski's work, this hand waving is all for naught. [[User:Toaster1|Toaster1]] 23:50, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
+:::::: Aschlafly, I think you're rather clueless in this matter yourself. I've read the e-mail correspondence and I don't think Lenski is being evasive or deliberately withholding data from you or making claims he cannot back with evidence. When you think he's holding stuff back, you should be specific about what you feel is missing and why you think that is important for the claim and specifically ask for that data. You can run around screaming about something not being true, but that won't help much in the matter at hand. But then again I get the feeling you really don't want the data to be there at all, but rather make sure everyone follows you in believing the data doesn't exist to begin with. You put too much emphasis on the fact Lenski ''must'' be withholding something, without actually stating what it is and why it would disprove his claims. -- (unsigned by User:DeLight) 09:26, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony.  If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud.  If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
+::::::: We've been extremely specific about which data are being withheld.  See [[Richard Lenski]].  And I found Lenski to be quite clear that he's not going to release his underlying data for public review, even though it was publicly funded.  Perhaps you think Lenski is perfect and there is no chance of flaws in his work that the public might discover when the underlying data are released, but such a position is obviously absurd.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::::Is that correct?
-::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable.  If so, please stop.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::: Sorry for the late reply, but [[User:DeanS|one of your sysops]] found it necessary to block me following my previous critique. To answer your statement, I don't think Lenski is perfect, I hardly know the man, but I do know what I have read in the correspondence between him and you. I don't agree he's not willing to share his work for public review, because he is willing, yet he has some well-founded conditions that should be met first. This is a lack of willingness to share with ''just anyone'', and rather sensible in science. Do you really think it's wise for all scientists to send samples of their work (especially in biology) to any Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it, without knowing if they can actually handle the materials safely?
-::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence.  Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
+:::::::::Three things about your comment:  First, it is a sensible question to ask a scientist for proof of his research when that scientist is getting government funding for his research; second, it is wise for them to send samples of their work; they do send them to other scientists, so why not the general public (unless they have something to hide); and third, you were blocked for a reason, the least of which is a German proxy address to hide your own, which you are not permitted to do so...so bye again!  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 04:25, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony.  I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct.  I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position.  Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives.  If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from?  Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim.  He has produced some information on a website, but not that data.  Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim.  Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+:::::::::: Just to answer a question you posed Karajou "second, it is wise for them to send samples of their work; they do send them to other scientists, so why not the general public (unless they have something to hide)" scientists are liable for the samples they provide.  Thus the reason for MTAs and other inquiries to purpose of use for the samples.  Most work and materials discovered or used by a scientist are not owned by the scientist, the institution normally has control over distribution beyond the scope of the grant or funding source.  It would be foolish for a scientist to hand out potentially infectious material to anyone who asked for it, thus the reason why a qualified institution must used to receive the samples.  I work part time for a company that does biorepository services, LN2 -80 and other long term cold storage.  We have to maintain a license with the FDA and CDC for the bacteria and viruses that we hold.  So to sum up, if the requestor does not have proper credentials for exploring the sample the scientist is legally obligated to withhold said samples till the requester meets qualification.
+::::::::::To keep using the tax funded research claim is misleading.  The military is tax funded and most of its operations are not open for public, most work by the CDC and HHS is funded by tax dollars and once again is not available for the general public.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:33, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
-'''(Unindent)'''
+==MTA==
+Did anyone ask Lenski if a MTA is required by MSU to provide his data?  Most MTAs are used for specific materials like cultures and such but a few are now requiring them for actual analysis results.  Most universities now require specific permissions to be granted for scientific research due to the fear that such information could be used in inappropriate ways.  Perhaps Lenski is bound by the university until a MTA is filed or feels that it is a waste of time to supply data that would only be understood by a few people here, which to my knowledge, care not to spend the time to analyze it.  I could be wrong but I know I would not supply my test results to anyone who asked for it without understanding what they intended to do with it.  I could be held liable for what they did with the information.
-Certainly, Mr. Schlafly.  What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate.  It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence.  Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?
+As for the length of time for the peer review, it is obvious that many here do not understand the process nor do they understand the difference of peer review of a publication verses replication of an experiment.  Most experiments are not replicated for several years due to the need for funding.  Peer review of publications is based on application of sound analysis techniques and clear summery of data analyzed.  Not an actual analysis of the data.  While I do not review papers, my wife does and it is not at all what has been implied here.  I have published in a few journals, each with different standards and different times for the publication to go to press.  Lenski's experiment is not complicated and only required minimal tests, therefore it would be expected to be a quick peer review of the publication due to the simplicity.  If he performed tests using animals, or followed metabolisms then the peer review should have taken much longer.  However, due to the few tests that he performed, all of which are accepted standardized protocol for research microbiologists, the need to dig deeper was not required.  So to sum up, few experiments, easy study, and simple conclusion equals fast turn around for publication.  If you read the paper, Lenski did not make any claims about anything other than the development of the bacteria's ability to metabolize citrate, pretty simple.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:43, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
-With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available.  Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation.  I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Bad motive redux ==
-----
+I was blocked for two weeks for this post:
-I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.
+Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data. The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefore the theory of evolution. The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true. No amount of scientific data is going to change that. So why argue with him? MAnderson 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-<u>Scientific scrutiny works like this:</u><br>
+Mr. Schlafly has since posted these comments:
-{| width="500px"
+“At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive”.--Aschlafly 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-|-
+"If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-|<i>'''Scientist A''' publishes results.<br>
+"Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?<br>
-'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such.<br>
-'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed?<br>
-'''A''': ...<br>
-'''B''': You fraud!</i>
-<u>Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this:</u><br>
+He has said these things even though the data and even the E. Coli samples are available to qualified researchers.  Really my original post was dead on correct!  He doesn’t want the data and merely wants to create the appearance of impropriety on the part of Lenski to discredit him.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 11:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
-<i>
-'''A''' publishes results.<br>
-'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data!<br>
-'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?<br>
-'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
-|-
-|}
--- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+''Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.'' I don't think MAnderson is claiming that Lenski ''welcomes'' independent review of "the data", nor does he need to ''welcome'' it in order to act properly.  He needs to make it available where it will "allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS".  It is evident that you do not wish to either replicate the experiment (which, if Lenski made it up, would fairly conclusively prove him a fraud) nor do you wish to review it in any meaningful way (which may build on the work by revealing its faults).   That is the PNAS requirement.  It appears that Dr. Georgia Purdom of "Answers in Genesis" has plenty of data to perform her intended review[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008] (no doubt very negative) of Lenski's research.
-:This is it.  This one is my favorite post.  Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+''"At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it"'' Agreed.  Can we test that hypothesis?  It hasn't been tested so far (unless Dr. Purdom asked for data, in which case its been falsified) because we have not seen any prospective independent reviewer ask for data.  You are not a reviewer (independent or otherwise) unless you review and you are not a ''prospective'' reviewer unless you ''seek to review''.  Why not develop a plan (with AiG or the Discovery Institute) of just what you are going to do with the data, beyond that already published of course, and ask for the data that lets you do that?  Until you have that plan it is abundantly clear that you are not a "reviewer" and have no entitlement to extra (unspecified by you) data.  --[[User:Billd|Bill Dean]] 08:50, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
-:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+== Why does it matter? ==
+Hello Conservapedians-
+It seems like you are making a huge fuss about Leski's experiment, as if you do not want it to be true.I mean, of course it should be subject to peer review, but it JUST came to the general public. Give it time. However, why exactly does it matter, anyway?
+There are several dozen OTHER recorded examples of the following:
+--Speciation
+--Beneficial Mutation
+--Mutations adding information
+So, while important, it is not like Lenski's data shows us anything new.
+If you would like examples of such, just ask. I assume, however, that you are already aware of the observations, and
+there is something important
+{{unsigned|KevinF}}
+: It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this.  Many others, including me, disagreed with that course.  That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe.  Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it?  Because that is what you are doing.  Creationists ''accept'' speciation.  They also ''accept'' beneficial mutations.  The one that they ''don't'' accept is mutations adding information, because it is ''not'' observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's).  I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated.  When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, ''he was unable to supply any''.  And why do you think Lenski's research was cited as answering creationist criticisms?  If creationist criticism has been answered so much before, so that this is nothing new, then why make a deal about it as though it ''is'' something new?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
-::: Not much, apparently.  I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
+::While Lenski is certainly being quite snarky in his responses, Mr. Aschlafly does not seem to understand that in an experiment like this, the "raw data" isn't something that can be printed out and mailed. The raw data is ''the actual bacterial colonies with the mutation''. Thus, the raw data is completely useless to anyone who does not have a properly equipped biological lab, and indeed is illegal to provide to anyone without a properly equipped biological lab since E. coli bacteria are a potential disease vector. --[[User:JacieCady|JacieCady]] 19:42, 4 December 2008 (EST)
+:::No the bacterial colonies are the samples.  The raw data are the uninterpreted measurements and observations. This claim is little more than misdirection to justify not providing the data.  If I tell you my car can stop on a dime & I know this because I have tested it, my car and a dime are NOT the raw data.  The raw data would be the records of the attempts to stop on a dime including records of where the car stopped in relation to the dime.  If I was asked for this data and said that I cannot send you my car because you don't have a lock up garage, I am merely dodging the question.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 08:06, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==
+:::: Well put, LowKey.  FYI, a chart summarizing how the data were undisclosed is [[Lenski|here]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:37, 5 December 2008 (EST)
-I have.  It pretty fairly lays out all the important data.  Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get.  I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail.  Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-::May I sign-with-qualifier?  As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Something to note ==
-From the AiG article:
-"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."
-Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom.  Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims.  Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.
-{{unsigned|Benp}}
-==Hypothetical==
-Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-==Proposed Follow-up Email==
-Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording.  I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?
-I would suggest something along these lines:
-''Dear Professor Lenski''
-''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations.  We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase.  We are intensely curious about that information.  If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
-''Thank you,''
-''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''
-Is that a reasonable request?  I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
-::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here.  I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
-::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of  your observations for this population.  We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.''  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set.  Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people.  I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible.  If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently.  I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years.  Other comments?  Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==
-One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia?  More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski.  If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available.  While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth.  Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public.  You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary.  I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above.  The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then.  Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question.  There is no plan, is there?  I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"?  Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.
-Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.
-But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)
-This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question.  His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention.  Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument.  Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance.  Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations.  So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:
-{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}
-:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.
-:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.
-:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.
-:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data.  Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.
-::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem.  But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair.  Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data?  I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible.  If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data?  I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
-::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
-::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience".  On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
-::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
-::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''":  Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
-::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''":  On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?).  It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
-::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.
-:::: But Philip, I have a question for you:  do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it?  It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data.  Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.
-:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data.  Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked:  wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data?  And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available?  Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked.  And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''.  But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them.  As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask.  That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
-:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data.  They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results.  Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information.  Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such.  But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence.  So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
-:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available.  So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding.  Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist.  Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws.  For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions.  They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable.  For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question.  And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while.  But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity.  That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
-::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested.  I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
-::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own.  For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-==Question==
-I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data.  I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: Now you're making up things about me.  Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data.  You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so.  There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data.  In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Two Questions for Aschlafly==
-I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
-# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
-# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
-The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::So your answers are
-# you "skimmed" it
-# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data"  should he send it to you
-Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access.  You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-===  Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
-*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php]  Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data.  This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied.  Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto?  Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)?  Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host.  And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown.  In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative.  I recall that one figure is complete speculation.  After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.
-What would I do with the raw data?  I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials.  I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.
-I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-)
-:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect.  On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem.  If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.
-:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.  Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents.  Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc.  Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::: Really?  I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.
-:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).
-:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).
-:::::::* Peter Hess:  PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).
-:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).
-:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).
-:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).
-:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).
-:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).
-:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).
-:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).
-:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).
-::::::: Biologists, yes.  "full of PhD's in biology"?  No.
-::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon.  Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.
-::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools).  I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group.  I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate).  The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper?  This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to?  A scientific research lab or a PR group?
-::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists.  So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point).  And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools.  Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not).  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review.  Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me.  Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names.  I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it.  Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation?  I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.
-:Carl Wieland
-:Don Batten
-:Gary Bates
-:Jonathan Sarfati
-:Tas Walker
-:David Catchpoole
-:Pierre Jerlström
-:Peter Sparrow
-:Russell Grigg
-:Mark Harwood
-:John Hartnett
-:Rod Walsh
-:Barry Tapp
-:Stephen Grocott
-:Richard Fangrad
-:Emil Silvestru
-:Calvin Smith
-:Jeff Chiasson
-:Adrian Bates
-:Johan Kruger
-:Philip Bell
-:Rob Carter
-:Skip Tilton
-:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.
-I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
-==Detractor Lineup==
-Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''
-'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''
-* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
-:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
-:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
-[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-'''Comments'''
-StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible.  Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.
-But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available.  Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy".  No is alleging a "conspiracy".  Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page.  Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave.  Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-== False Claim of a Bad motive ==
-Let's face the truth, there is no real desire here for Andrew Schlafly or anyone on Conservapedia to get the raw data.  The reason that this is even an issue is because placing this demand and getting no response somehow makes Lenski look bad and therefore automatically discredits him and his research and therefor the theory of evolution.  The position of Mr. Schlafly is that the Bible is inerrant and the Genesis creation story is true.  No amount of scientific data is going to change that.  So why argue with him? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 10:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading.  The one at least expresses opinion.  The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up.  That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.
-:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter.  I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas.  Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet.  I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response.  But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.
-:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade?  After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based.  So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data?  Why just Lenski?  Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?
-:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves.  [[User:porkchop]]
-:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: Sorry, Richard.  I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else.  Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it?  Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?
-:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski.  [[User:porkchop]]
-:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data.  If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it.  Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"?  That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results.  If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-: StatsMsn, note that:
-:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
-:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
-:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work
-: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it.  Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility?  It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.
-::*Correct
-::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
-::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.
-::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.
-::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this.  If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data.   I bet you do not receive a clear answer.
-::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it.  If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.
-Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?
-And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers.  By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.
-: You said you would ask Lenski.  Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-----
-[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.
-Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:
-* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
-* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
-* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
-* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results
-If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.
-Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Failure to supply data? ==
-Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-== Piltdown All Over Again ==
-The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.
-As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
-::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp
-:: Well put, Bugler.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review.  I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so.  I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied.  It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data.  I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote).  Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
-::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers.  If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so.  Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.
-::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:
-: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.
-The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see?
-Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:
-: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).
-: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).
-: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).
-In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)
-Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
-"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''":  Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals.  In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity.  So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself.  The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.
-Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth.  Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided.  Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.
-[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
-== General Reply ==
-Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding.  Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review.
-It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data.  I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-: How long does peer review normally take?  And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:
-Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)
-Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells
-approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)
-Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)
-Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)
-Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)
---[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
-The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days.   Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+:"When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, ''he was unable to supply any''"—Oh, give me a break. Do you honestly expect someone to be able to come up with such information on the spot? --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 23:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
+::Good point, AutoFire.--[[User:JackH|JackH]] 17:15, 4 December 2008 (EST)
+:::He shouldn't have to "come up" with anything "on the spot".  He had claimed the existance of examples many times, he should have already known of ''at least one'', but he couldn't.  This is like the editor of a car magazine claiming that the new BMW has many improvements over the previous model, but when asked for one can’t supply any.  Nobody would claim it was unfair to expect him to come up with one on the spot.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 17:56, 4 December 2008 (EST)
-:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review.  2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article.  You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual.  I hope you will post the editor's reply here.  Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page.  Thanks.  [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4 According to Dawkins he stopped to confront the interviewers. {{Unsigned|Vuiasl}}---22:21, 7 December 2008
-:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison.  Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS.  So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+*That link goes to a video that supplies no information about the topic. It merely says questions to Dawkins are hoaxes by Creationists, yet doesn't provide one example or proof. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 00:56, 8 December 2008 (EST)
-:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all.  The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate.  Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+:The interview made Dawkins look a fool.  Of course he has attempted to explain it away.  The CMI website provides plenty of info about this, it even has a timeline showing how much time Dawkins had to come up with something, so even ignoring all of the above "on the spot" is still wildly inaccurate.  It was more a case of Dawkins "realising" he might be talking to creationists because evolutionists would have accepted the elephant-hurling without challenge. Also, the interview was ''11 years'' ago and he ''still'' hasn't provided the examples as asked {<small>With the possible exception of Lenski's experiment, which he ''may'' have mentioned.  But the [in]validity of that is the subject at hand here in the first place. [[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:35, 8 December 2008 (EST)</small>}, so the "on the spot" objection is invalid on that account alone.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:28, 8 December 2008 (EST)
-:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806.   No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly.   I'd invite you to take a look.   [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+::*I'm confused here.  Everyone should know by now Dawkins is a fraud. As they should all know my opinion of him. That video didn't seem a bit different from the two times I have observed lectures by him, and he wondered off his prepared remarks. Results were the same as for Obama. Poor. (not Ed)  --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]<sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk!]]</sup> 18:39, 8 December 2008 (EST)
+:::Ah but everyone should also know that evolution is an invalid conclusion, but millions believe it to be a "fact".  Scripture clearly tells us that people are blinded.[[User:LowKey|LowKey]] 18:48, 8 December 2008 (EST)
+::::What Dawkins does or doesn't do is hardly of any importance.  Evolution doesn't rely on him, or what he does and doesn't do in interviews.  It falls flat on [[Counterexamples to Evolution|its own]]. [[User:RodWeathers|- Rod Weathers]] 18:54, 8 December 2008 (EST)
-::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.
+==Hsdebater comment==
+I think Schlaffy misses the point of why Lenski didn't give him the experiments. He might think it's a conspiracy to silence him, but I (no offense schlaffy) beleive, like many others it seems on this site, it to be the simple explanation that you're not a scientist, and probably never taken a collegecourse on microbiology, evolutionary biology,and just plain biology.--[[User:Hsdebater|Hsdebater]] 10:55, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.
+: Please learn how to spell basic words like "believe" (it's not "beleive"), and then realize that I don't think Lenski made all his taxpayer-funded data available for ''any'' public scrutiny, which of course would have included many knowledgeable people.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:00, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)
+::What do you mean i just read his paper in my science class just yesterday, and i have also read it outside of class.--[[User:Hsdebater|Hsdebater]] 13:02, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?
+::: So you apparently read his ''claims'' ... but where's the data underlying the claims?  Despite my repeated requests, and despite the taxpayer funding of the project, I don't think he ever made all his data available for public scrutiny.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 13:08, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)
+::::So I went ahead and formatted, hope thats alright. [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899/suppl/DCSupplemental Is this] the extra information you were looking for? --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 17:09, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)".  It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
+:::::I don't see real data in your link or answers to the data requests that have been outstanding for nearly two years at [[Richard Lenski]].  Do you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:23, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind.  If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk.  If not, then please rant somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+::::::There is a very small link you must click on to get to the 2 page PDF (1.25 more like it) with the data. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 17:27, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper.
+::::::: (edit conflict) Which specific data requested nearly two years ago in [[Richard Lenski]] do you claim is contained in the mere 1.25-page of text in the pdf?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 17:34, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)
+You can link directly to the PDF.....--<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 17:30, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+:[http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2008/06/02/0803151105.DCSupplemental/0803151105SI.pdf PDF in question] To be honest I can't figure out what more information you would want than what was in the original paper, your point by point rundown doesn't make sense to me. I was just trying to be helpful, not trying to make a point or anything. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 17:46, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here.  If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so.  Otherwise, it's a futile exercise.  Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it.  Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+::If you want to believe whatever a professor says without verifying it, then you don't need to look at any underlying data.  But do you give the Bible at least equal time and trust?
-: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.
+::It took me only a minute or so to look at the first request for data in [[Richard Lenski]] (concerning turbidity), and then search the pdf for "turbid" for me to observe that the actual data are not there.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:08, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.
+:::Sorry I thought you were talking about a different data set. Fig. 1 Is the recreation that they measured. However if you read the paper he said that the turbidity was measured visually, that means that someone looked at it every day to make sure it looked alright, not that someone did a disk test for turbidity which would be impractical in such a small volume. This is standard procedure for liquid culture in a laboratory, something even college sophomores have to learn to do. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 19:30, 15 April 2010 (EDT)
-: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.
+::::Andy, by "raw data," do you mean the bacterial cultures?  If that is the case, the main reason Lenski isn't providing you with the raw data is because he thinks that you do not have the proper infrastructure to analyse and maintain them.--[[User:PRichards|PRichards]] 07:45, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
-: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)
+::::: There's a different between raw data and the actual bacteria PRichards. I doubt anyone would ask for the bacterial samples, suggesting otherwise is just an excuse to not supply the data by playing the "expert" card [[User:RichardKerry|RichardKerry]] 07:57, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
-: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)
+:::::: Right.  PRichards, you take [[liberal denial]] to new depths, and your British spelling is a giveaway.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:44, 16 April 2010 (EDT)
-:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed.   The underlying data are not in the papers.  The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse.  The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski).  Let's see what they analyzed.  We may see things they missed or ignored.  Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose.  In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.
+::::::: andy, answer the question: "''by "raw data," do you mean the bacterial cultures?''" raw data could mean anything, please be specific. --[[User:Johnb|Johnb]] 09:18, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
+== Intelligent design theorists on the implications of Richard Lenski's experiment ==
-:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side.  Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
+The biologist [[Michael Behe]] criticized Richard Lenski's claims concerning the significance of his experiment (see: [http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2008/06/multiple-mutations-needed-for-e-coli/ Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli] by Michael Behe).
-==Note re. article==
+Jonathon Witt of the [[Discovery Institute]] indicates that the biologist Dustin Van Hofwegen punctured the evolutionists' claims for Richard Lenski’s long-term evolution experiment (see: [https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/biologist-dustin-van-hofwegen-punctures-claims-for-lenskis-long-term-evolution-experiment/ Biologist Dustin Van Hofwegen Punctures Claims for Lenski’s Long-Term Evolution Experiment]).
-As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here?   At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski".   The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about.   There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically.   Just an FYI.   [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)