Difference between revisions of "Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 
:::I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--[[User:JBoley|JBoley]] 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
::::I heard that his assistants, Moe, Larry and Curly spilled Kool-aid in the samples around the 15,000 generation when Moe was trying to poke Larry in the eye.  Curly said "Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk" about it.  Please look into this!  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 11:43, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
(unindent)
 +
 +
I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen.  That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands.  Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 10:52, 13 July 2008

Now, is this page a report over other people thinking Lenski's paper is flawed or is this Aschafly reporting about himself and putting it in the headline of the Front Page? And please specify by references which "two other" experiments are referenced, and explaing how you can see that the "historical contingency" is not true. --Stitch75 23:22, 12 July 2008 (EDT) And if you think you argue that well, why dont you submit it as a comment òn the paper to PNAS. --Stitch75 23:24, 12 July 2008 (EDT)

This article is seriously partisan. I see no outside or third party analysis of the paper in the references, just a bunch of cites to the article or conservapedia itself. Wisdom89 00:34, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Folks, you're in the wrong place if you're more interested in who says what rather than determining the truth itself. A true wiki gets at the substantive truth rather than trying to rely on biased gatekeepers and filters of the truth.

The flaws in the statistical analysis in Lenski's paper are clearly set forth and well-referenced. If you're interested in the truth, then look at the paper and see the flaws yourself. If you're not interested in the truth and think you can distract people's attention from it by using other tactics, then you're wasting your time here.--Aschlafly 00:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Aschlafly on this, there needs to be some kind of admission or response from Lenski but little has been forthcoming and conservapedia itself has taken it on. Notice how no-one, aside from conservapedia (and I think Creationwiki?) has asked such questions of Lenski? All the magazines etc have taken his study at face value without actually taking the time to critique his claims. Aside from the "peer reviewers" of course. JJacob 00:47, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

The "peer reviewers" who spent somewhere between 0 and only 14 days looking at the paper, and missed an obvious contradiction between Figure 3 (specifying the "Historical contingency" hypothesis) and Table 1, Third Experiment. The statistical analysis in the paper appears so shoddy to me that I doubt anyone with real statistical knowledge or expertise even reviewed it.--Aschlafly 00:59, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I have expertise in research and statistics and I'm just not seeing this shoddiness that you make reference to. You are allowed to have your doubts, but we should get a bunch of people familiar with such fields to examine the paper's statistical analysis. Wisdom89 01:01, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I have the same problem. i hold a Dr.Rer.Nat title and did some statistics (although i am no expert on it) and fail to see the "shoddiness" please help my underdeveloped mind, Mr. Schafly and enlighten me. I it is so obvious it should be a one-liner to formulate it. --Stitch75 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
Please try harder then. I've expanded the explanations a bit also.--Aschlafly 10:42, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

I wonder, do the PNAS allow questions to raised and asked of the "peer reviewers" themselves? Are we able to find out who/what experience they themselves have? Perhaps that is an avenue that we could look at? I apologise in advance if this has already been asked or answered. JJacob 01:07, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

Definitly not. Peer reviewers are anonymous and only known to the editor, for good reason. Having peer reviewers non-anonymous would cause reviewers to be very careful to step on nobodys foot to evade revenge. --Stitch75 09:54, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
No, PNAS probably won't disclose who supposedly did the 14-days-or-less peer review on the Lenski paper. You're right that such disclosure could shed some light on the final product.
"Wisdom89", your claim that you "have expertise" and don't see the flaws only makes me conclude that you don't really have the expertise that you claim. Judging by your silly user name, perhaps you've tried that approach before. We're not fooled by it here.--Aschlafly 01:14, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I think this article presents very sound arguments. Conservapedia should now take action, offering to publish a rebuttal of Lenski in the PNAS journal.--JBoley 11:31, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
I heard that his assistants, Moe, Larry and Curly spilled Kool-aid in the samples around the 15,000 generation when Moe was trying to poke Larry in the eye. Curly said "Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk" about it. Please look into this! MAnderson 11:43, 13 July 2008 (EDT)

(unindent)

I agree with JBoley in that if Conservapedia wants to present a formal, professional response to Professor Lenski's paper that questions specifics within his paper, then it should happen. That is the proper execution of the scientific method, and I'm certain that a professional response to PNAS would yield better results than vague "give us all the data " demands. Is a formal response to PNAS from Conservapedia in the works, or is this article the only place these questions/objections were intended to be raised? --DinsdaleP 11:52, 13 July 2008 (EDT)