Conservapedia talk:Schlafly's alleged Flaws in Lenski's Study

Thanks to those who've already prettied up my humble efforts while I was still pounding away at my screed. If anyone wants to use it, here's the rest of what I had come up with: [I snipped a bunch of text I had cut and pasted into the article.] Moioci 12:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT) Thanks--Moioci 03:01, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

I think this article is a good idea but needs to be written to some standards. For example, there is repeated use of the first person in the Rationalwiki responses that makes the article look as if it is being written by someone with an axe to grind rather than a serious article. I'll go through and make amendments where necessary, unless someone has a particular attachment to the current version. Bondurant 05:07, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I thought the first person as a bit strange as well.--Bobbing up 05:54, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 * There are other things as well. The pronoun choice may change, but the casual tone in general needs to be amended; we should cut back on that habit of starting sentences with "first" and "so".  Which I'll be doing right now, actually.   06:06, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

A correction is called for
It is simply not true that "The Monte Carlo simulations would not even be known to someone who does not have a strong statistical expertise." Computer Science majors in their first year learn about Monte Carlo simulations, and incorporate them into their code. But if you were to ask them when to use non-parametric statistics, you would get a blank stare. Or if you were to point out that you can't use a priori analysis where a posteriori analysis is called for, most users of Monte Carlo simulations would be equally baffled.

One of the reasons there is so much misinformation floating around is that meaningless statistics are everywhere, which impresses most people, and very few are skeptical. This is one big reason why AGW proponents can fool most everybody, including themselves. Next time a newsy quotes statistics, take special note of how he uses the term "average". None of them seem to be aware that there are differences in the mean, mode, and median, and they almost always choose the wrong one -- it's uncanny.

Much of what is passed off as science is pseudo-science, and there is no faith harder to shake than that of someone who believes something because it is called "science" and is backed up by "statistics", and has convinced himself he has arrived at knowledge thru his own thought-processes. I sometimes wondered if my professors were even aware that they were indoctrinating. I know most of their students weren't aware.

-- Rem  Beau  07:53, 14 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Fixed a bit. $\approx$$\pi$ 08:12, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

In some of the text I suggested that the time scale in Fig. 3 in the paper in question was in error, as the potentiating mutation had to have occurred by gen 20,000, as seen in exp 3. On reflection, I believe Fig. 3 represents just what it says; it's an hypothesis, formed a priori. What the authors seem to have neglected to state in the body of the paper ( although it's clearly stated in the abstract), is that this event did have to happen earlier than originally supposed. BFD. Moioci 12:50, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Precisely, as Argon (hmmm...) mentions in the talk section of that page, the figure is a simplified illustration. The exact point when the potentiating mutation(s) arose was not known at the outset of the experiment.--Neon 14:16, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

quotes and italics
FYI: Paper titles go in quotes; journal names are italicized.... Sterilesnore! 17:17, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

namespace
This belongs in the conservapedia namespace. No one else gives a shit who this "Schlafly" character is. Please move (and fix any links) so I don't have to. If I move it I'll delete the redirects and not care about broken links.  ħ uman  01:31, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Thank you. I appreciate whoever did the work.  ħ uman  03:12, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Proposed for deletion
I have been trying to copy edit this "article" for clarity, and I find it so embarrassing that I think it should simply be deleted.

The second time I had to correct the spelling of "Schlafly" made me think this was written with no effort or scholarship whatsoever. Please, prove me wrong, but what I am reading here is a sad travesty, not "rationalism" in any way.  ħ uman  03:26, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I started this page because I thought Schlafly's inanities should be refuted somewhere by people who had read and at least halfway comprehended the Lenski paper. As a newbie, perhaps I could be forgiven for thinking this was in line with the purpose of RationalWiki. Moioci 08:09, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Please don't mind Human. He's not always what you'd call a "people person". ;-) Anyway, I don't see what's so particularly obnoxious about this article. Looks fine to me. -- 08:20, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I don't see any particular problem with the article. I'm not sure Human was being serious.--Bobbing up 09:04, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I think that I've checked every instance of the name "Schlafly". Shall we remove the template on the grounds that "Schlafly" is now spelt correctly?--Bobbing up 09:12, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * I have proactively done so on a going forward basis. -- 10:29, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Great to touch base with you on this leading-edge, user-centred, interpersonal issue.--Bobbing up 10:34, 17 July 2008 (EDT)


 * Indeed. It is essential that we maintain a dynamic approach to developments at all levels of the organization while at all times establishing and maintaining excellent relations with key stakeholders. -- 10:54, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * In response, please imagine any phrase involving the words "synergy" "rightsizing" and "empower".--Bobbing up 11:03, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Bingo!Moioci 12:27, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Congratulations. You may collect your prize when your card has been checked.--Bobbing up 12:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, don't mind Human, he's better when he's drunk. NightFlareStill doesn't have a (nonstub) RWW article. 01:25, 18 July 2008 (EDT)
 * Better, or worse? The typing is much harder... I think I am just more "extreme" when in "my cups".  So my betterness or worseness depends on what I am commenting on...  ħ uman  01:35, 18 July 2008 (EDT)

An Actual Question from One Who's Read the Paper
(I don't know a better place to ask this, so why not?) According to Calvinball logic rules, if you ask the exact opposite of a question that Schlafly has posed, it just might be interesting. Schlafly alleges that any supposed evolution must be the result of contamination in the e. coli cultures. I'm wondering, is it possible that some of the supposed contaminants were actually mutants? I know the authors say that they alternated Ara+ and Ara- strains, so that they could identify that particular kind of cross-contamination. What I'm wondering is, in those cases where the culture's turbidity went up rapidly, suggesting that the cells were using the citrate medium, did they plate out the bugs to be sure they were non- e. coli bacteria? If not, is it conceivable that they missed a number of mutation events? I know. Ignorant question, but that never stopped the Schlaflynauts, did it? Moioci 22:26, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

Point 5 - Bayesian Statistics
A fairly minor point, and I am in no way a microbiologist, but I think the referring to "monte carlo methods not being popular outside the US" due to Bayesian methods being "a recent development" is a bit of a blot on an otherwise excellent article. In my own field of solid state physics, and my own little country of the UK, we have been happily using these methods for years. As have pretty much all my colleagues across Europe. I think this should be removed, leaving only the (valid) part about data set sizing. --Weatherhead (talk) 19:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)