Conservapedia:Lenski affair talk 2

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

1 - 2 - 3

Page Rearranged by Aschlafly
First post: 14:24, 15 June 2008 oldid=474760
Last post : 21:04, 20 June 2008 oldid=479052

The discussion below concerns the letters and response set forth at Conservapedia:Lenski dialog.

Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon[edit]

Dear Prof. Lenski,

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).,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf

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.

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."

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.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.
cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

That was disappointing. Aziraphale 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
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.SugarCup 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Revised draft[edit]

Dear Prof. Lenski,

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).,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf

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.

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."

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.

Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D.

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

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

List of people willing to join an email requesting the public release of Lenski's data[edit]

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.

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?--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.
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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Current total of supporters: 12
Current total of supporters: 17
Current total of supporters: 20
Current total of supporters: 10
Current total of supporters: 7

[1] 14:54, 17 June 2008 Deleted by Jareddr/Bugler - removed blocked user names
*WaltherPPK 12:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • CescF 18:39, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • BKronky 19:40, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • FLampard 20:33, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • AShephard 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
  • SHyypia 10:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Let's tackle this issue head on! RobbieSavage 10:28, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • AlexanderHleb 11:32, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I think we can tower above them RioFerdinand 12:02, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • MBallack 12:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I would ate to see us drop ze ball, so jes, I support this. JLehman 12:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I'd like to support this, though my 'net access is very limited where I am now. I may not be able to stay in touch with the issue, but I'll follow it when I'm allowed get to a PC once a month or so. JoeyBarton 12:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • There's a good basic team here, and I think ASchlalfy's got the email formation really good. I'm a supporter. KKeegan 13:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I am just came to this place - i have not good english, but support idea. Big team! Really! PhilScolari 13:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
  • I'd be over the moon if he actually fessed up. Gerrard 14:44, 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?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 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. 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.--Aschlafly 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. Aziraphale 18:24, 16 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. --Benp 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

OK, we have 7 so far. Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:
OK, we have 8 so far. Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:
OK, we have 9 so far. Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:
OK, we have 11 so far. Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:
OK, we have 12 so far. Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[2] has created interest in the media and among the public We note that the paper acknowledged taxpayer funding and that PNAS has a policy of making data available.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.

Given the significance of the claims, we respectfully request the public release of the data underlying the key claims in the paper for public scrutiny. Like most papers, your paper itself does not disclose the data themselves, and three times your paper expressly states that referenced data are not shown. Your website[3] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.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[4] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this. --Aschlafly 20:15, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:04, 16 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.--Aschlafly 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
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?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 13:26, 17 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. --DinsdaleP 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
oldid=oldid=476495 15:07, 17 June 2008 Deleted by Bugler - Alf Ramsey is not a legitimate signatory not least because he is (a) blocked and (b) dead
*I know I've a lot to learn and probably am too young for the big leagues like this, but I've signed because it seems like a great idea! ARamsey 14:25, 17 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. Philip J. Rayment 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

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. Aziraphale 11:41, 17 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.--Aschlafly 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --Benp 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


Carafe, TomMoore, DinsdaleP 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.

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.--Aschlafly 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

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.
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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 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. --DinsdaleP 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
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.--Aschlafly 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT) 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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--Aschlafly 19:17, 15 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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=475425 09:19, 16 June 2008 Deleted by PJRayment Remove inappropriate post (Reinstated 12:11, 16 June 2008 by Carafe)
Schlafly Scrutiny, n.. The demand to release all relevant and irrelevant data pertaining, or not pertaining to, a particular scientific study, to be analyzed by no one in particular. Schlafly Scrutiny is dissimilar to scientific scrutiny and public scrutiny in that it requires no field knowledge, no verification objectives, no scientific effort, and is unlike any scientific verification process to have ever existed in history. Schlafly Scrutiny usually hampers research and waste tax dollars in making a tremendous amount of irrelevant information available.
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. I do not at all support Schlafly Scrutiny, which is easily identified by any three-year-old to differ from public scrutiny or scientific scrutiny.
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 Schlafly Scrutiny be done. What will it be?
-- Carafe 20:09, 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.
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?
-- Carafe 20:09, 15 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.
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.
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.
Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.
-- Carafe 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
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. --DinsdaleP 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of evolutionist fraud[edit]

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation. In addition, we know know that Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview and he was actually an 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. Conservative 00:14, 15 June 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?
-- Carafe 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
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. --DinsdaleP 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--Aschlafly 11:31, 15 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. --DinsdaleP 14:44, 15 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. --DinsdaleP 14:46, 15 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.
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.--Aschlafly 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
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. --DinsdaleP 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
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. --DinsdaleP 18:07, 15 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?--Aschlafly 19:19, 15 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. --DinsdaleP 22:17, 15 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. None of us here will join in Schlafly Scrutiny, as we do not want our tax dollars wasted on irrelevant information. "I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all (added 12:12, 16 June)-- Carafe 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter[edit]

Here are the responses of creation scientists to the Lenski matter:

Conservative 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Another email?[edit]

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?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

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."

Or some such.

Aziraphale 12:26, 15 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.

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. --SMaines 13:35, 15 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.

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.--Aschlafly 14:21, 15 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.

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.

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.

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?”

Also, have you come across the different peer review tools? Please familiarize yourself with the process before

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. --SMaines 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Dear Aschlafly,
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. Aziraphale 16:16, 15 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?--Aschlafly 16:33, 15 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. Aziraphale 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--Aschlafly 19:20, 15 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.
Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? Aziraphale 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Rants Against Public Release of Data[edit]

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. DannyRedful 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

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!--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek
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. --DinsdaleP 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)
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!--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 17:29, 13 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.--Aschlafly 09:07, 14 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. StatsMsn 09:29, 14 June 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.--Aschlafly 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
  1. Be able to understand any of it?
  2. 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. --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. DanielB 19:28, 14 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.
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.--Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
"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?
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?
-- Carafe 23:08, 14 June 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.--Aschlafly 23:21, 14 June 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.
"(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.
"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.
-- Carafe 00:32, 15 June 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? TonyT 14:36, 15 June 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.
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. --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. TonyT 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
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. Philip J. Rayment 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)'
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. --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?--Aschlafly 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)


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?

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.--Benp 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

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.

Scientific scrutiny works like this:

Scientist A publishes results.

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?
A: x, y, and z are such and such.
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?
A: ...
B: You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny does not work like this:
A publishes results.
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!
A: ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind?
B: A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.

-- Carafe 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Beautiful! What else can I say?--SMaines 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--Aschlafly 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Aschlafly, have you read the paper?[edit]

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.-AShephard 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--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."?-AShephard 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Something to note[edit]

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, by: Benp / talk / contribs


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. DanielB 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--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. DanielB 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

Proposed Follow-up Email[edit]

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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 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. --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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 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. --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?--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?[edit]

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? --DinsdaleP 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

The issue is public release and scrutiny of the data.--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? --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.--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. --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!--Jareddr 11:03, 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!--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. --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. 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:
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. --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.--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. 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.--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. 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’ ..."
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.--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. 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.--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)?
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. 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?--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. 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.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 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.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. 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". Philip J. Rayment 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)


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. 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.--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. 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.--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? 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.--Aschlafly 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Two Questions for Aschlafly[edit]

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:

  1. Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
  2. 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. AndyMann 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

So your answers are

  1. you "skimmed" it
  2. you won't do anything 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. AndyMann 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--Aschlafly 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=477174 09:07, 18 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Reverted edits by AndyMann (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly
That's because I see your position on 'public access' is pure bluster. I'm confident that should someone make a reasonable request Lenski will provide a reasonable response i.e. access to his 'raw data' (what do you think that might be by the way?) My issue is that you are simply seeking to waste Lenski's time to save face. I'm also confident that most adults who bother to read the exchange on this page see right through you. AndyMann 09:05, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others[edit]

  • 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.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?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. They tested 4 trillion cells.[5] 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? --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). Eoinc 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
to clarify, I am not opposed to it in principle. 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???--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? --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. 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. Philip J. Rayment 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
Really, ID theorist are scientist? 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. 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. 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. 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, it seems. 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: no PhD (yet) 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.
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.--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 (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). 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.--Able806 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. If you scroll down a bit Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.
PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. DanielB 19:24, 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. --Aaronp

Detractor Lineup[edit]

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). 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. 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.

Alcari 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)


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.--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. 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.--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. 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. DanielB 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

False Claim of a Bad motive[edit]

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? 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.--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. --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. 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. 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. 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.--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? 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?--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). StatsMsn 08:24, 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). StatsMsn 08:24, 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. 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.--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. 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.--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). 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?--Aschlafly 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=477978 10:46, 19 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Reverted edits by DinsdaleP (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly
Is it me, or has this page degraded into an endless exchange of speculation on all sides. Professor Lenski was sent an initial letter and he responded both courteously and promptly. He was sent a second letter yesterday afternoon, so can we cut back on all the assumptions about what his practices, motivations and intentions are and just let the man respond himself? Also, can we please stop insinuating in the meantime that he is trying to hide something, or that there was fraud in the peer review process? Those accusations are dangerously close to libel, and some of that statements here may have crossed that line already.--DinsdaleP 10:46, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Read below, and I have emailed him. 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. StatsMsn 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Failure to supply data?[edit]

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! Humblpi 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Piltdown All Over Again[edit]

The 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. Dr. Richard Paley 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! Humblpi 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=4778013 12:56, 19 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Reverted edits by UgeBalochs (Talk); changed back to last version by Humblpi
I support the third letter! The scientist must explain the data! UgeBalochs 12:47, 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. --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. 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. 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.--Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=478065 15:45, 19 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Undo revision 478060 by Humblpi
So why don't you send him a third letter, and expose Conservapedia to yet more public ridicule? Humblpi 15:39, 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.--Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=478103 17:13, 19 June 2008 Deleted by Karajou - Reverted edits by AGeologist (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly
This is absurd. ASchlafly, all you are doing is wasting a good man's time. You may as well write to Boeing and ask them for full data on the 747 because you don't believe it can fly, and you would like to have the data so independent scientists can verify that flight is possible. Yes, public funds went into the research, but the normal review process was completed and unless you have specific allegations you wish to make, you should back off and stop making a fool of yourself. Since you no ability whatsoever to comprehend this data and have proposed no-one who is, Prof. Lenski would be irresonsible to the public purse if he were to gather and release any data. This is a total farce. AGeologist 17:05, 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"? --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.

Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

General Reply[edit]

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.--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? 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) --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.--Aschlafly 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

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. Murray 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
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... Philip J. Rayment 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
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?--Able806 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Murray is referring to 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. StatsFan 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=478648 13:01, 20 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Undo revision 478641 by Eyost
Perhaps while you are at it, you can request data to support the breast cancer and abortion link.--Eyost 12:45, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
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.
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.
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.)
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?
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)
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. -- Aaronp

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.--Aschlafly 13:34, 20 June 2008 (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.
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)
: 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. -- Aaronp 13:40, 20 June 2008 (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.--Aschlafly 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

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.
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.
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.
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?)
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)
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.
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.--Aschlafly 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=478788 15:56, 20 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Reverted edits by Rutm (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly
As I understand it, science is about reproducing results - not trying to get a jury to believe what you say is true. The purpose of a paper is to summarize what you have found, what conclusions that has, what questions remain unanswered and how you got there. This way, someone else can do what you did and see if they get is the same or not. What applies in the legal arena doesn't apply in the scientific one. Science is about reproducing results through the same methodology or criticizing the methodology.
With respect to the 14 day time, this is part of a series. One can find Behe commenting on it back in October on a paper published in 2004.[6] The reviewers were likely familiar with the project and the papers it has generated and don't need to read the methodology again. There are also issues of when articles can be published (missing a deadline can push it out to the next issue, or the reviewer could be waiting for another article that compliments or contradicts to arrive before publishing that one). Incidently, Behe claims that Lenski's work supports the claims that Behe has made/[7] --Rutm 15:29, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=478801 16:13, 20 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly - Reverted edits by StatsFan (Talk); changed back to last version by Aschlafly

Re. Rutm's reverted comment, which originally came next in this dialog, would you please consider reverting your removal? Of any comment you have removed, it was calm, collected, not aggressively toned, and made a perfectly reasonable response to your legal analogy above that is utterly salient to the debate. Finally, it was perfectly politely written. I would respectfully ask you to consider reinserting it in the record. (Note that I have no problem with you removing vandalism or aggressively toned comments). StatsFan 16:08, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

(this discussion is limited to those who accept the logical premise repeated above: "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data." Sermons, rants and illogical postings can be made elsewhere. Thanks.--Aschlafly 16:14, 20 June 2008 (EDT))

Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):
After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number 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 were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed 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 of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). 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).
So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).
Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)
The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)
So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)
So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.
As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.
So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.
Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.
So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)
As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)

Thank you, Divaricatum, for putting what I wanted to say so eloquently on the page. I believe that Lenski was being straight when he published his findings, and that barring gross fraud, the paper is very well-researched. -- Aaronp

Note re. article[edit]

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. StatsFan 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's second reply[edit]

Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. DanielB 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. Bugler 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Really, Bugler? After that statement, I have trouble believing you're real. Atheistic pseudo-science? Liberal deceit? Do you even know what you're talking about? This isn't pseudo-science. Just because you don't understand it, it doesn't mean the information is suddenly invalid. In fact, after what is seemingly a post purely to stroke Andy's ego just a little bit more, even in the face of Lenski's reply, I believe that you are just a sock of Aschlafly. By the way, I'm expecting a 90/10 for this. --Aaronp
I wouldn't give you the satisfaction of dignifying such a ridiculous post in that manner. Nor does the exchange require my poor talents to explain it to you. The messages stand by themselves, and Andy's honest intentions and integrity stand out. Bugler 07:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Sir Bugler, why do you cite something called "Liberal Deceit." Please allow me to clarify, explain to me what basis you have to slap on deceit towards liberals. I know that you are not inferring that all liberals engage in deceit, or that deceit is only inherent to liberals, but you are making a statement in some form, am I wrong? For every time that there is a liberal engaging in a form of deceit, there is also a conservative engaging in that same type of deceit.

P.S. You are seeking data to scrutinize the integrity of an "Atheistic" scientist's work, who, as we've learned now from the Lenski's most recent letter that he is in fact, not at all an atheist, but a church attender. SO please accordingly revise your attacks. — Unsigned, by: Eligus / talk / contribs

Ok Bugler, to be fair, I will let go of my frustration and attempt to make a "valid" point. Can we at least respect Lenski for taking the time to write out his replies? The man is incredibly busy (trust me, I know), and still managed to communicate to a random person from the internet who was challenging 20 years worth of work. In addition to this, Lenski was very courteous with his replies! Surely we can't demonize the man purely because of his work on a bacterial strain? I can respect that Andy was doing what he thought was right, but can't we also give the same courtesy to Lenski, who put equal heart into his own work? -- Aaronp
I can't say I noticed sarcasm or mockery in Andy's messages. Bugler 07:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
True, but I did notice some serious (unfounded) allegations of fraud in his statements on the talk page; since the talk page is public domain, it means that Lenski saw them as well. I would say that Andy was being very rude, accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence. -- Aaronp
Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--Aschlafly 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyway back to my question, are you now satisfied in the response? DanielB 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

"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..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- Aaronp Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.

Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--Aschlafly 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! Bugler 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp
The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. Drochld 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp

That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. Bugler 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... ---user:DLerner--- 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? RWilson 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I think you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. Philip J. Rayment 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [8], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --Npstrick 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp

Lenski's reply in a nutshell, once all the talk pollution and ad hominem attacks are removed: No, I will not give you my raw data or my E. Coli samples, not to you or any other non-Darwinist.

And we're still supposed to believe his research is legitimate??? This is exactly what Andy predicted he would do, only not necessarily so rudely. Andy wins. Game. Set. Match. TonyT 10:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think Behe meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. Drochld 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth not guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. TonyT 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. Miles 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I for one am really, really glad that Lenski is not prepared to send dangerous bacteria to someone without checking on their credentials first. Daphnea 18:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Settle down, TonyT. Nobody claimed that he was a creationist, but as one who doesn't believe in naturalistic evolution, he would be a good person to check this out. On the other hand, as I've pointed out already, creationists and ID theorists don't necessarily have a problem with this research, so really, there may be nothing worth checking out. Philip J. Rayment 08:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Oldid=481662 00:07, 25 June 2008 Deleted by Learn together

The Missing Link[edit]

Excuse the pun but could you please provide the link missing from Lenski's second reply. I know your against censorship so assume good faith here. RedDog 06:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

What missing link is that? All the links to Wikipedia are included. I dont think Andy would stoop so low as to remove anything from the letter when Lenski he specifically asked that it be reproduced in its entirety. Lobachevsky 07:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
This one '[Ed.: citation omitted due to spam filter]'. As stated above I am not suggesting anyone is stooping anywhere and assume good faith. I would still like to see the link. RedDog 07:16, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Oh yes, I didn't see that. Well in that case I think I think it should be made known. Even if a spam filter stops it being shown then there could be a couple of asterisks to get round it. Although I doubt that Lenski would use any profanity in his reply so I don't know what could possibly be excised from the original. Without it the terms of Lenski's post have not been complied with. Lobachevsky 07:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
The spam filter blocked it because it consists of a link previously determined by this site to be unacceptable.--Aschlafly 08:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I am concerned that you have chosen to censor an element of Lenski's reply. Could you please be more specific. If Lenski's reply contained vulgarities etc this is of note to the argument at hand. RedDog 08:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
It does seem rather odd that one of his references was omitted. It can hardly be a pornographic site. In general, what other links are subject to censorship?--British_cons (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly has said that the site concerned has been deemed unacceptable. Further questioning on this point will be deemed disruptive and dealt with accordingly. Thank you. Bugler 09:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

It hardly seems fair to censor part of Professor Lenski's full and comprehensive reply. It also seems to be a little heavy-handed to say that people who ask questions about such censorship will be "dealt with accordingly".--British_cons (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
No, the link should definitely not be revealed. Although I, naturally, don't know what the link is to, though we can assume it was a shock site, foul language, pornography, or something in that line. Since Lenski knew that his response would be posted on this family-friendly encyclopedia, he would have purposefully put the link in to aggravate readers. That tells us a lot about his attitude, and by keeping the link intact, we let him "win".
However, I would like to ask mr. Schlafly to reveal the nature of the unacceptable site. I personally find it a bit strange that Lenski would insert a pornographic link in his otherwise relevant response. Etc 09:59, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
If I am allowed to continue questioning this without further threats from sysop:Bugler I would say that it seems to me to be extremely unlikely that the link would be to "shock site". But I agree with you that we should be told why it was necessary to censor the reply. Especially so when Mr Schafly has been arguing for the importance of the disclosure of data all this time.--British_cons (talk) 10:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Deal however you see fit Bugler old fruit. Your censorship of both me and more importantly of Lenski will stand fine testament. RedDog 10:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Censorship? Censorship? Even a good dog needs a tug on the choke chain every now and again - and where on earth am I supposed to have censored the esteemed Prof? Bugler 10:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Bugler. Very obviously the link in Lenski's e-mail has been censored (as per the top of this thread). I have simply asked specifically why this is the case. If that gets me banned it says more about you than me. RedDog 10:31, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Bugler, perhaps rather than trying to speak for Mr. Schlafly, you could stand down and let him respond to questions that were directed at him and that he is more qualified to answer. ZTak 10:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
RedDog, it has been removed as it links to a site deemed unacceptable. I do not know what the link was. I did no remove it. However, one either believes that Andrew Schlafly acted in good faith or not. If you believe not, then why should you be here? I know I wouldn't be. And since he acted in good faith and the best interests of CP, we should leave it at that.

ZTak, MYOB Bugler 10:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

I agree Bugler and I accept good faith. But make no mistake this IS censorship. There is no other word for it. I do accept what you say though and will let the matter drop here. RedDog 10:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

My guess would be RW. I know that it is blocked by the spam filter, and I don't know of any other websites blocked by the filter. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 10:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

What is "RW"? Drochld 10:50, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
If you knew that is the site, it would be improper for you to mention it by name. Since you don't know, it is utterly irresponsible of you to speculate. Do you see what you have started? Bugler 10:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Asking what it is seems a lot different from speculating as to what it is... EBrown 10:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Sorry, that comment was to CPadmin, not Drochld Bugler 11:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
No problem; apology accepted. Drochld 11:15, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

(@Tim)Why would Professor Lenski be linking to RW? Quite frankly, there are many other more reliable websites to be used as sources... --transResident Transfanform! 10:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

RW is a wiki which claims to be rational. It is highly critical of Conservapedia and I had understood that mentioning its existence generally got the poster blocked. Am I correct in this or has that polocy changed?Tolerance 11:09, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Tolerance is correct. The place is the cesspit of the internet. Bugler 11:12, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
I assume you don't visit the cesspit? --Jareddr 11:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
The place exists, and I see no reason to pretend that it doesn't. I was simply guessing as to what the removed link might be. As for mentioning it by name, I did not do so. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 11:18, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Asking for the name of the site that was deliberately not mentioned requires an expectation that the unnamed site will be named, which is clearly ludicrous. My speculation is the same as CPAdmin1's. I don't think anything further can be gained by discussing this particular point, so apart from a totally new take on the issue with good reason, I'm declaring this particular discussion (regarding the site's name) now closed, and further discussion on it will result in blocks. Okay? (Too bad if it's not!). Philip J. Rayment 11:28, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

What is ludicrous is that Lenski's response has been edited for no apparent reason. What is even more ludicrous is that those who ask about it are threatened with being blocked. This smacks of heavily of hypocrisy on a site that constantly decries censorship. --ProfHigginsPhD 18:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
This is "conservative deceit," to reference our friend Bugler. Hey Bugler! --eligus


Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. Jinxmchue 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? AliceBG 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair enough. I think Lenski raises a valid point that honestly hadn't occurred to me--namely, the logistics of transporting and storing biological materials. While a request for data stored in electronic form is one thing, a request for actual samples of the cultures is another. Unless facilities for the storage of such material are available, I don't think this issue can be brought to a conclusion that will be satisfactory for everyone. --Benp 15:54, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

E. coli in our bowels[edit]

So if they're mutating and evolving, why don't they kill us? Our bodies obviously have defenses that protect us from the E. coli in our guts, but with all this evolving supposedly going on, you'd think they'd have evolved into something that could overcome those defenses and kill us so they could feast on our corpses. Jinxmchue 15:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? AliceBG 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.JPohl 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) +
Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Jinxmchue perhaps you should better familiarise yourself with the principles of evolution and basic human biology before making claims such as the above. The theory of evolution states that organisms will undergo mutations, and the process of natural selection will determine which prosper (and hence are carried on) and which do not. A parasitic organism is not going to be doing itself any favours by killing its host, if it did then it would have minimal ability to survive and its genes would not be passed on to future generations.
In addition, some bacteria do evolve (or have evolved in the past) to overcome their host's defences, the thing is that the body contains millions upon millions of variations of white blood cells and eventually one that possesses the capability to destroy the bacteria will encounter it, proliferate and destroy it. This likelihood is increased by the inflammatory response accompanying most organisms. In some caes our bodies cannot fight off infection, and that is the reason we develop modern antibiotics.
Furthermore, a single mutated bacteria, or even a few hundred of its spawn, are not going to be capable of producing sufficient protetin to kill their host. Even if every protein produced was capable of destroying a cell (which never happens) it would take thousands if not millions of bacteria over a long time period to kill the host. Now this is where the catch is, it takes energy to produce proteins which the bacteria could otherwise be utilising for other things, like surviving. If a bacteria is pumping out enough proteins to kill the surrounding cells it will be diverted from its normal tasks (but please remember that a bacteria is not actually capable of thought) and will not stand much of a change of survival.
Oh (and this sort of relates to all of the last three points), you should be aware that bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (our guts) are in most cases not under attack by the human immune system as they are technically outside of the body. Therefore evolving to overcome the host's defences is not going to have any difference, and will just be wasting energy. NormanS 19:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Alice, according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die. And there are no evolutionary dead ends other than those that die off. If it's alive, it's evolving. Yet we don't see any evolving going on despite the fact that the rate of evolution has to be so phenomenally fast that it should easily be seen. In fact, this lack of obvious evolution has led to someone inventing the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain away why we don't see it happening all the time. It's a load of nonsensical, unprovable bull. I used to believe every word of it, but when I approached it with a critical eye (something that is NEVER allowed by the evolutionary dogmatists), I found it to be very, very wanting. This "evolving" E. coli proves nothing. It's still E. coli. Jinxmchue 00:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Jinxmchue, wrong. Evolutionary theory gives various examples of species that have not evolved (or evolved very little) in millions of years; coelacanths are one. Species that fail to evolve when their environment changes die; species in an unchanging habitat have no need to evolve one they have adapted to it sufficiently. bmalee 07:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
The coelacanth is very likely the greatest example of how wrong the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are beside themselves trying to explain how this supposedly millions of years extinct animal showed up in modern times showing absolutely no evolution. Are we to believe that the coelacanths' environment never changed in the millions of years since they were claimed to have died off? That must be quite a stable part of the earth indeed! Jinxmchue 13:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ad hoc explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. Philip J. Rayment 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. Wandering 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Jinxmchue, you need to do some research. 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. --Rspeed 16:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
The whole of Jinxmchue's argument is false, whatever the changes in the Coelacanth. Just because there is one example of a creature that has not changed doesn't mean that no creatures have changed. That would be like finding one person who drives a 1958 Chevvy and concluding from it that car design hadn't changed at all in 50 years. And it is not true that "according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die". Daphnea 16:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Peer Review Process[edit]

My apologies if I am contributing to a debate that has already closed, but skimmed through the letters exchanged and the debate here and noticed a slight discrepancy in understanding. The peer reviewers of a paper do not receive any data other than that which is eventually published in the journal (although some may be removed by the editor, such as for page restrictions). They exist to judge the method and to ensure that the conclusions are accurately drawn from the results provided in the paper. They do not check to make sure the raw data is properly summarised in the results, nor do they ever have access to the raw data. The checking of raw data is carried out after the paper is published, either through scientists reproducing the experiment or (such as in this case) obtaining materials and records directly from the scientist involved.

Hope this clears things up. NormanS 09:06, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Well I don't know the details of the peer review process. I also dunno about anyone else. But I did get a chuckle out of his little anecdote. For what its worth, it lightened my mood after 38 hours without sleep, (recipe for regret, I don't recommend it). Bolly 23:44, 24 June 2008

Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph[edit]

Dr. Lenski, I hope you get to read this.

I have no dispute with most of your second letter (or your first one), and you will note above my objections to the letters being sent to you, but do wish to respond to your second-last paragraph (the P.P.P.S.). You point out earlier in your letter than Andy Schlafly lacks expertise in the relevant fields, but you then proceed to pontificate on an area in which you appear to have no expertise, biblical exegesis.

The main problem with your claim that God may have used evolution is not that He could not have, but that He said that he didn't (or, more precisely, what He said that He did is incompatible with evolution). What is "insulting to God" is rejecting what He has plainly told us that He did.

This point has been made over and over by creationists, so your lack of awareness of this demonstrates that you have little idea of what creationists actually claim and believe, yet it seems that you yourself are willing to go beyond your expertise when it suits you.

Philip J. Rayment 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

P.S. Don't take too much notice of some of the messages posted above, a few of which are likely parodist troublemakers.

He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. Ajkgordon 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. Ajkgordon 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Reading past all the deliberate insults the scientists tossed, we come to the claim that "God created living things via evolution". Taking a stab at theistic evolution, the scientist twists the knife by speculating that God would use set in motion some sort of blind watchmaker mechanism to create everything.
As Philip indicated, this is so obviously incompatible with YE Creationism that you have to wonder how stupid the scientists thinks our readers are. And even OE Creationism (the only major kind left to consider) specifically posits that God intervened creatively.
So, once again, the scientists has made assertions without giving adequate explanation. Everything is either assumed to have been "already explained" or is embargoed information (so he and has colleagues can take credit). If I may use a Jewish expression, God forbid he should every give us a straight answer! --Ed Poor Talk 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Not "speculating", Ed; observing. The speculation lies in the assumption that what someone you trust, who was told by someone they trust who was told by someone they trusted - and so on throughout many generations and translations - told you is an objective fact, and that somewhere down the line, not a single person - most of whose names you will never know - either made an error in judgment about who to trust, mistranslated, took artistic license at filling in the blanks, or at the very least had unwittingly consumed some rather questionable mushrooms. This is precisely why empirical data is valued in science over anecdotal.
You say God said so, I say bring him here to tell me in person. You say God doesn't work that way, I say my how convenient for you, now leave me alone, I'm busy doing science. Cantle 23:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Ajkgordon, did I mention anything about YEC? Lenski was clearly talking about the God of the Bible, and the biblical description of creation, specifically including the length of time taken and the order of creation, is totally incompatible with the evolutionary story. If it is "presumptuous" to claim knowledge of how God created, then why do so many do that very thing by claiming that God used evolution? Rather, it's arrogant and presumptuous to reject His clear revelation for man-made ideas that presume that He wasn't involved!

Cantle, that you must misrepresent the basis for believing in creation suggests that without doing so your case is weak, if valid at all. The evidence is that the Bible has been transmitted through time very accurately. The Bible is not "anecdotal"; it is eye-witness history, exactly the same sort of thing that allows you to know about almost anything that you did not personally experience, such as World War I (assuming you're not old enough to remember that) or even the date of your birth. Yes, your argument is convenient that you arbitrarily require particular evidence and reject all the evidence that is available.

Philip J. Rayment 06:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, you mentioned Creationism and implicitly Biblical inerrancy, therefore, yes , you mentioned YEC by default. In other words, you appear to take any mention of Lenski's about Christianity to de-facto mean that he's talking about YEC, the only form of Christianity that you believe is right. But he wasn't. He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe - that is that evolution and Christianity are not mutually incompatible. Surely you can see this while not agreeing with it. This is the type of Christianity he was talking about and how he can maintain respect for it (which he explicitly states) while carrying out his work. It is not pontification about an expertise he doesn't hold. It is a theological position of many many Christians, some of whom are academics of the highest standing in both science and theology. Again, you may vehemently deny that these Christians are right (or even possibly that they are not real Christians). But that doesn't change the fact that Lenski was talking about that Christian position and not Biblical inerrency. Ajkgordon 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Ed, similar reply. Lenski wasn't talking about Creationism. He was repeating the theological position of many learned Christian theologians that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Many do. Ajkgordon 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
I don't understand the phrase, "evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive." Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism? --Ed Poor Talk 09:17, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity.
What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. Ajkgordon 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)
You thanked me for "the question", but I asked two questions. And you didn't answer either one, so I will repeat them here (with numbers for easy reference):
  1. Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? ::#If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism?
When you respond again, please indicate by number which question(s) you are answering. --Ed Poor Talk 14:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

" mentioned Creationism...": I actually mentioned creationists, with reference to what they've pointed out about what the Bible teaches. And despite the existence of "useful idiots" who try and force the text to say something contrary to what it clearly says, the Bible very clearly—arguably overly clearly—says that creation took six days. That is not (just) a YEC view: That is the clear, unambiguous, indisputable (except by people who don't understand the language and have try and force-fit an anti-biblical view into the Bible) record of Scripture. Any five-year-old can read the Bible and learn that. And experts in Hebrew agree. And the church believed that until the anti-biblical views of uniformitarianism changed that (that is, long ages wasn't something that was learned from Scripture, but from outside).

"He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe...": Yes, but in doing so he was making a theological claim, which is (presumably) outside his area of expertise.

"This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally.": However, this position only arose as an attempt to incorporate what seemed to these non-scientists a scientific fact—which it is not. So basically they've been hoodwinked by scientists proclaiming a supposed scientific truth that is actually an anti-biblical philosophy. Prior to around 200 years ago, the Genesis account was taken literally. Again, the move to taking it non-literally was not based on theological understanding nor a better appreciation of the language, but an attempt to accommodate the supposedly-scientific but actually anti-biblical ideas of fallible men.

"Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity": No, he was referring to the God of the Bible, and that is what I was talking about in response.

"I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC": From what I've seen many times over, I'd be surprised if he did understand.

"...for the scientists among us, NOMA applies." You mean that principle dreamt up by a Marxist that tries to claim for science areas that the Bible claims, such as how things got started? NOMA itself is anti-biblical.[9]

Philip J. Rayment 11:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Philip, it was not my intention to get involved in a debate about YEC and non-YEC Christianity. You appear to have missed my point almost certainly due to my clumsiness. My apologies. Ajkgordon 09:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Fair Warning[edit]

Your own senior sysops warned you repeatedly that this would not go well. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. WaltherPPK 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! Bugler 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.Daphnea 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Please be charitable[edit]

Humblpi was trying to warn you about the risk of ridicule. Please be charitable and unblock him.Veronica 10:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

See this

Veronica, please see my response to 'Fair Warning' above. Bugler 12:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler[edit]

(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)

  • I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?
  • How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?

Please answer... I would love to hear from the top man himself. not any of the acolytes.

thank you in anticipation. --Kajira 14:10, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --Alcari 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. Miles 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Kajira, I realise that you want to hear from Andy, but as for your second question, I guess that you could write to him yourself.

Miles, from a quick bit of research, it seems that although the DI fund a laboratory, it's not part of the DI. Second, as I've mentioned before and repeated just now, the DI is not likely to have too much of an issue with this research (apart from the claims that it supports evolution, which it doesn't), so they may not want to waste their time with it.

Philip J. Rayment 08:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Why do you say that it does not support evolution?JPohl 15:05, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Question concerning deletions[edit]


I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --Benp 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. Bugler 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
Thank you! --Benp 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Liberal Deceit + Atheistic Pseudo-Science[edit]

People on this board have made "broad generalizations" against Lenski and assumed that he is: 1. An atheist, 2. A liberal.

Who says that he doesn't have socially conservative values? Also, he states in his most recent letter that he's also a church-goer. He never said that he's a raging Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers atheist, or an atheist at all. So someone please clarify for me, is it possible to be conservative and also be a scientist who has discovered "alleged" evidence of evolution? Is it also OK for that person to not be an atheist or a liberal? --eligus

Point well-taken. However, I don't see how his faith or lack thereof is at all relevant. The scope of the argument is microevolution in E. coli, not Lenski's personal beliefs. --R2d2fan 23:53, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Evidence of Conservative Christian Evolutionist[edit]

I am relatively new here - I created this account so that I could respond to the above question. Although I have been around here for about a year reading. I graduated from Westmont College in (gasp!) California. It is a Conservative Christian College (because the faculty and staff are Conservative Christians). The keynote speaker for my graduation was Condeleeza Rice. What am I getting at? Well at least two of the Professors in the Biology department believe in Evolution, which I don't find much problem with. I don't see how it makes God any less powerful or awesome if he set Evolution in motion. The Bible speaks of Free will given to mankind so that we might chose to love God. Why couldn't God give Free Will to mentions how all of creation also worships and rejoices God.

I think that this whole Evolution vs. Creationism is an overblown Non-issue. Much like how the Medieval Catholic Church argued against Galileo regarding the Rotation of the Earth around the Sun. Just because the Bible isn't Crystal Clear on this point doesn't mean that we have to accept some very narrow idea of HOW God created everything. If we need something to get rilled up about why aren't we concerned about all the money that we (Conservatives) are losing from the out of control banks and Commodities Speculators (Enron Loophole). That's something we Conservatives should legitimately get pissed off about!

— Unsigned, by: Stgulik / talk / contribs

The issue is not so much what God could have done, but what He said He did. And He said (and this is something that the Bible is "Crystal Clear" about) that He created everything in six days. That by itself (and there's much more) means that evolution is wrong. And why do we need to get "rilled up" about it? Simply because evolution undermines the very foundations of the Bible. According to evolution, death (and suffering, etc.) is a natural part of life, and there was no Adam and Eve. In fact, if creatures didn't die (the less fit ones), then evolution could not have progressed. According to the Bible, death (and suffering, etc.) was not part of the original creation, but the result of sin. So if evolution is true, there was no original sin, and therefore no need of a Saviour—Jesus is out of a job! This is a very simple explanation, but basically if evolution is true, then the entire teaching of the Bible (not just the first chapter or so of Genesis) is dead wrong. Christians need to get "rilled up" about it. And even the atheists realise this:

And the creationists have also shown irrefutably that those liberal and neo–orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam, there was no fall; and if there was no fall there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result, the whole biblical system of salvation collapses.[10]

Philip J. Rayment 09:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Thanks, Philip. Now I think I understand.--Aristotle56 09:19, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
You're welcome. Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Why...[edit] Mr. Schlafly criticizing Professor Lenski's attitude, when it was Mr. Schafley and other Conservapedia editors who rudely accused Prof. Lenski of deliberate fraud, without proof?

Both of Professor Lenski's responses appear to be thoughtful, well-written, and thorough. He addressed the misconceptions regarding the disputed claims and also addressed how other editors on this website had attempted to explain to Mr. Schlafly how such rude behavior is inconsistent with Christian values. He has also made the data from the study available and even offered the actual bacteria themselves - what else is left?

As a Christian, I am disappointed by Mr. Schlafly's behavior and the personal attacks made by his followers and I will pray for them to examine their hearts and see if their motives are prideful or simply overzealous.

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." ~Matthew 5:5

Blessed 23:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)


Given Professor Lenski's second response, it would be good if we can finally achieve closure on this issue. Not only has Professor Lenski identified where the relevant data is in his published work, but he's offered to share additional details and even samples of the bacteria from the experiment, provided the request is made in a professional manner by qualified individuals.

It's unfortunate that the only official response from CP has been a sarcastic comment on the main page news section. That comment is particularly ironic in implying that the tone of Professor Lenski's second response was inappropriate, given the following assertions by Andrew Schlafly on this page:

  • "What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data." --Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
  • "I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld." --Aschlafly 10:16, 17 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)

What would be appropriate is a statement from Andrew Schlafly acknowledging that these statements were out of line, along with a retraction of them. I would hope in any case to have a meaningful statement of response to Professor Lenski's second note come from Mr. Schlafly himself, without the intervention of others looking to speak on his behalf.

What I expect, frankly, is for this entry to be removed and my ID to be blocked, just as it was last week in answer to my request to stop speculating and allow Professor Lenski to respond himself. I appreciated the integrity shown in publishing the text of Lenski's second response, so maybe this request for professional closure will last more than a few minutes after all. --DinsdaleP 23:57, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

Oldid=482543 19:52, 26 June 2008 Deleted by Aschlafly moved from archive back to main page

Reply to the above[edit]

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"[11]
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)

Off for Vacation[edit]

Wow, off for a bit of vacation and I find this when I return, I can not believe how far this has gone. For someone to even suggest testing the bacterial samples without identifying a lab and storage facility is amazing. (I guess not many here know much about -80 freezers, culturing cryopreserved cells, sequencing the genome and associated costs for such work, not to mention MTAs.) I am a bit ashamed that I was associated in the final reply from Lenski due to the stance I held through out this debackaul.

Andy, I hope this finally answers your questions and puts to rest your argument about Lenski withholding data and such. His response was, to say the least, colorful but informative and provided enough information that this argument can be put to rest. It is not Lenski's responsibility to train everyone who inquires about his work in the sciences needed to understand such work. When you could not identify an ARA that should have been an indicator that perhaps you needed a professional biological scientist to assist you. (A BSE will not get you very far in understanding gene expression or differentiating between bacterial mutants) Your insistence that Lenski is still with holding data seems to be without limits; what data would you accept? I believe you are not evaluating what Lenski has said in an objective manner, thus allowing for a limited understanding of the material. If you wish to continue then I recommend this (which seems to have been recommended by Philip), wait till other qualified labs have evaluated the work then question if the Lenski's work is found to be questionable.--Able806 10:31, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

Anyone a biologist?[edit]

Just for the sake of asking is anyone involved in this discussion an actual biologist? You know, like having a bachelor's degree in it or something? Daphnea 12:57, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

I have a BS in Microbiology, but I don't think my credentials matter. If I try to claim that I know more, I'll be blocked for bullying. -- Aaronp

Point 14 of Conservapedia:How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia] says "We do not drive away experts by pretending that some random anonymous user who just signed up is as knowledgeable and authoritative as a scholar with decades of experience in teaching or research.". I would have though your views would be listened to with extra attention. Daphnea 13:35, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Obviously, you have not been at Conservapedia very long.--Fernandez 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

What do you mean, Fernandez? Bugler 14:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=482253 14:39, 26 June 2008 Deleted by Karajou
Editors who have expertise in certain areas are banned if the powers that be at Conservapedia disagree with them. A couple examples that come to mind. One is PalMD, a physician (and who provided his credentials), who attempted to correct the misinformation in Conservapedia's article linking abortion to breast cancer. Another is the historian "franklin" who contested much of the misinformation on the debate page regarding Franklin's deist leanings. You should read that debate page Bugler. You will notice that the person arguing with Franklin kept asking for views on "school prayer" as if that had something to do with the topic. But it does make my point that Conservapedia does not encourage experts to stay, but activly seeks to drive them away.--Fernandez 14:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
Oldid=482274 14:57, 26 June 2008 Deleted by Karajou
Bugler, you must have erased this by mistake. After all, turth is the perfect defense against libel. Besides, you do want the new Conservapedians above to know the truth about conservapedia, right?

Here it is again, for your reading enjoyment: Editors who have expertise in certain areas are banned if the powers that be at Conservapedia disagree with them. A couple examples that come to mind. One is PalMD, a physician (and who provided his credentials), who attempted to correct the misinformation in Conservapedia's article linking abortion to breast cancer. Another is the historian "franklin" who contested much of the misinformation on the debate page regarding Franklin's deist leanings. You should read that debate page Bugler. You will notice that the person arguing with Franklin kept asking for views on "school prayer" as if that had something to do with the topic. But it does make my point that Conservapedia does not encourage experts to stay, but activly seeks to drive them away.--Fernandez 14:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--Thompson 14:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Oldid=482281 15:03, 26 June 2008 Deleted by Karajou
Bugler, you must have erased this by mistake. After all, turth is the perfect defense against libel. Besides, you do want the new Conservapedians above to know the truth about conservapedia, right?

- - Here it is again, for your reading enjoyment: - Editors who have expertise in certain areas are banned if the powers that be at Conservapedia disagree with them. A couple examples that come to mind. One is PalMD, a physician (and who provided his credentials), who attempted to correct the misinformation in Conservapedia's article linking abortion to breast cancer. Another is the historian "franklin" who contested much of the misinformation on the debate page regarding Franklin's deist leanings. You should read that debate page Bugler. You will notice that the person arguing with Franklin kept asking for views on "school prayer" as if that had something to do with the topic. But it does make my point that Conservapedia does not encourage experts to stay, but activly seeks to drive them away.--Fernandez 14:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--Thompson 14:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

The reply by Fernandez was deleted by an Admin. Can we either remove the questions or put the reply back? Otherwise it looks as if Bugler asked a question and Fernandez never replied to it. Daphnea 16:06, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Here, I will put it back: Editors who have expertise in certain areas are banned if the powers that be at Conservapedia disagree with them. A couple examples that come to mind. One is PalMD, a physician (and who provided his credentials), who attempted to correct the misinformation in Conservapedia's article linking abortion to breast cancer. Another is the historian "franklin" who contested much of the misinformation on the debate page regarding Franklin's deist leanings. You should read that debate page Bugler. You will notice that the person arguing with Franklin kept asking for views on "school prayer" as if that had something to do with the topic. But it does make my point that Conservapedia does not encourage experts to stay, but activly seeks to drive them away.--Fernandez 14:34, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--Thompson 14:55, 26 June 2008 (EDT)--Watwood 16:13, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

And there is, of course, the smearing of Dawkins by this site (which persists to this day) manifest in a painfully convoluted and clearly erroneous characterization of the proper use of the title "professor." A characterization that I'll note that is solely applied to Dawkins . . . I'll take my block now. AndyMann 18:49, 26 June 2008 (EDT)


He makes some good points. To be entirely honest I could care less about the "attitude" that my tax dollars appropriate. I just want results. I'll take an effective, mean spirited president any day over an incompetent, polite one (Jimmy Carter anyone?). --RobinGoodfellow 15:46, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

What is important is that Lenski is a superb scientist. I'd be a little testy too if some dweeb asked me for data AFTER I had already provided it. Andy got the smackdown he deserved, and is now the laughing stock of the internet.--Watwood 16:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions[edit]

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)