<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
	<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=MickA</id>
	<title>Conservapedia - User contributions [en]</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=MickA"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/MickA"/>
	<updated>2026-10-26T04:57:37Z</updated>
	<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.35.14</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_tools&amp;diff=564100</id>
		<title>Atheistic tools</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_tools&amp;diff=564100"/>
		<updated>2008-11-20T20:12:08Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Atheists]] will use the following [[tools]] in arguments or attempts to defend their [[atheism]]:&lt;br /&gt;
*[[deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[intimidation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[harassment]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[censorship]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[logical fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[brainwashing]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[mass media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[vandalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[&amp;quot;sound&amp;quot; reasoning]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[scientific method]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[compassion (faked)]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[diplomacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[liberal deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[ideology]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[fear mongering]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[hollywood values]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[baloney detection]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[thoughtfulness]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Uncited}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_tools&amp;diff=564085</id>
		<title>Atheistic tools</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_tools&amp;diff=564085"/>
		<updated>2008-11-20T19:55:42Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Atheists]] will use the following [[tools]] in arguments or attempts to defend their [[atheism]]:&lt;br /&gt;
*[[deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[intimidation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[harassment]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[censorship]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[logical fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[brainwashing]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[mass media]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[science]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[vandalism]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[sound reasoning]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[scientific method]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[compassion]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[diplomacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{Uncited}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_tools&amp;diff=563840</id>
		<title>Atheistic tools</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Atheistic_tools&amp;diff=563840"/>
		<updated>2008-11-20T16:35:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;[[Atheists]] will use the following [[tools]] in arguments or attempts to defend their [[atheism]]:&lt;br /&gt;
*[[deceit]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[intimidation]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[harassment]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[censorship]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[violence]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[indoctrination]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[logical fallacy]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[brainwashing]]&lt;br /&gt;
*[[philips head screwdriver]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Atheism]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Useful_idiot&amp;diff=523320</id>
		<title>Talk:Useful idiot</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Useful_idiot&amp;diff=523320"/>
		<updated>2008-09-24T16:32:26Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: New page: It's kind of funny but an atheist like Sam Harris would probably consider the example of the churchians to be sort of &amp;quot;Useless Idiots&amp;quot; in that he thinks their liberal attitudes towards rel...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;It's kind of funny but an atheist like Sam Harris would probably consider the example of the churchians to be sort of &amp;quot;Useless Idiots&amp;quot; in that he thinks their liberal attitudes towards religious tolerance gives cover to the ultra-conservative religous.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:32, 24 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mono_no_aware&amp;diff=523317</id>
		<title>Talk:Mono no aware</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Mono_no_aware&amp;diff=523317"/>
		<updated>2008-09-24T16:25:44Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: It's so true&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Thank you. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:25, 24 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=522328</id>
		<title>Head</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=522328"/>
		<updated>2008-09-22T21:53:18Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The head is the top of the human body containing the [[brain]], [[mouth]], [[eye]]s, and other sensory organs.  It is connected to the rest of the body by the [[neck]]. The human head contains 22 bones, consisting the cranium and the facial bones. The cranium is formed by 8 bones: the frontal bone, two parietal bones, two temporal bones, the occipital bone in the back, the ethmoid bone behind the nose, and the sphenoid bone. The face consists of 14 bones including the maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[scientific]] study of the influence of head shape on intelligence is known as [[phrenology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head was a movie starring the Monkees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the nautical term for toilet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the foamy portion of a glass of beer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the side of a coin with a head on it (the tail is the other side).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is a slang term for oral sex.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{expand}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518801</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518801"/>
		<updated>2008-09-17T15:05:58Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: /* Please provide your statistical analysis */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;amp;curid=73292&amp;amp;diff=517424&amp;amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?   I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is &amp;quot;declining to comment&amp;quot; an indictable offense?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Your comment was not an &amp;quot;indictable offense,&amp;quot; but it violated the rules of this page:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: This is confusing.   Is &amp;quot;I agree with your thesis&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;your methods are 100% correct&amp;quot; a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &amp;quot;Talk Page&amp;quot;.   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments.  Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2.  Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &amp;quot;Substantive postings are welcome&amp;quot;.   It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]].  Are you trying the classic trick of &amp;quot;the answer is over there,&amp;quot; when it isn't?  Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors.  I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question.  Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &amp;quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&amp;quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &amp;quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&amp;quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Point two states: &amp;quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&amp;quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Point two also states &amp;quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&amp;quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind.  Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false.  If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious.  Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect.  Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &amp;quot;underlying thesis&amp;quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2.  Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you.  Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site.  Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::ASchlafly:&amp;quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Me, earlier on this page:&amp;quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&amp;quot; &amp;quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::ASchlafly: &amp;quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Me, earlier on this page: &amp;quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &amp;quot;underlying thesis&amp;quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::ASchlafly: &amp;quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
::::::Me, earlier on this page:&amp;quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&amp;quot;  &amp;quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&amp;quot;&lt;br /&gt;
::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I did.  Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It is not the function of the editorial board to &amp;quot;defend&amp;quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &amp;quot;put his name&amp;quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 11:05, 17 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Improper==&lt;br /&gt;
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler!  Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone.  It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma.  True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others.  We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &amp;quot;elementary&amp;quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &amp;quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&amp;quot;, but neither &amp;quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&amp;quot;.  If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement:  Jesus rose from the dead.  Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view.  Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &amp;quot;expert&amp;quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens.  Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I disagree.  I have found that when people use the word &amp;quot;scholars&amp;quot; that it is very specific to their side.  So what is your definition of a scholar?  In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs.  All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.  Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree)  3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::This is a ridiculous arguement.  The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible.  Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics.  The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith.  Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
(undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &amp;quot;experts&amp;quot;.  I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics.  Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts.  Why?  The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Malarkey.  I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them.  If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it.  His own &amp;quot;biographical sketch&amp;quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were &lt;br /&gt;
in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &amp;quot;Letters to the PNAS&amp;quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::I'm not &amp;quot;anti&amp;quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.  If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error.  Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==&lt;br /&gt;
There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518279</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518279"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T21:52:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;amp;curid=73292&amp;amp;diff=517424&amp;amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?   I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is &amp;quot;declining to comment&amp;quot; an indictable offense?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Your comment was not an &amp;quot;indictable offense,&amp;quot; but it violated the rules of this page:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: This is confusing.   Is &amp;quot;I agree with your thesis&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;your methods are 100% correct&amp;quot; a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &amp;quot;Talk Page&amp;quot;.   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments.  Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2.  Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &amp;quot;Substantive postings are welcome&amp;quot;.   It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]].  Are you trying the classic trick of &amp;quot;the answer is over there,&amp;quot; when it isn't?  Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors.  I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question.  Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I did.  Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It is not the function of the editorial board to &amp;quot;defend&amp;quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &amp;quot;put his name&amp;quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Improper==&lt;br /&gt;
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler!  Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone.  It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma.  True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others.  We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &amp;quot;elementary&amp;quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &amp;quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&amp;quot;, but neither &amp;quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&amp;quot;.  If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement:  Jesus rose from the dead.  Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view.  Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &amp;quot;expert&amp;quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens.  Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I disagree.  I have found that when people use the word &amp;quot;scholars&amp;quot; that it is very specific to their side.  So what is your definition of a scholar?  In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs.  All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.  Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree)  3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc.  &lt;br /&gt;
That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::This is a ridiculous arguement.  The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible.  Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics.  The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith.  Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518278</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518278"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T21:51:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;amp;curid=73292&amp;amp;diff=517424&amp;amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?   I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is &amp;quot;declining to comment&amp;quot; an indictable offense?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Your comment was not an &amp;quot;indictable offense,&amp;quot; but it violated the rules of this page:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: This is confusing.   Is &amp;quot;I agree with your thesis&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;your methods are 100% correct&amp;quot; a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &amp;quot;Talk Page&amp;quot;.   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments.  Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2.  Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &amp;quot;Substantive postings are welcome&amp;quot;.   It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]].  Are you trying the classic trick of &amp;quot;the answer is over there,&amp;quot; when it isn't?  Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors.  I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question.  Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I did.  Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It is not the function of the editorial board to &amp;quot;defend&amp;quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &amp;quot;put his name&amp;quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Improper==&lt;br /&gt;
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler!  Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone.  It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma.  True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others.  We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &amp;quot;elementary&amp;quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &amp;quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&amp;quot;, but neither &amp;quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&amp;quot;.  If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement:  Jesus rose from the dead.  Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view.  Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &amp;quot;expert&amp;quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens.  Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::I disagree.  I have found that when people use the word &amp;quot;scholars&amp;quot; that it is very specific to their side.  So what is your definition of a scholar?  In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs.  All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ.  Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree)  3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc.  &lt;br /&gt;
That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::This is a ridiculous arguement.  The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible.  Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics.  The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith.  Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority.  17:51, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=518264</id>
		<title>Head</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=518264"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T21:35:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The head is the top of the human body containing the [[brain]], [[mouth]], [[eye]]s, and other sensory organs.  It is connected to the rest of the body by the [[neck]]. The human head contains 22 bones, consisting the cranium and the facial bones. The cranium is formed by 8 bones: the frontal bone, two parietal bones, two temporal bones, the occipital bone in the back, the ethmoid bone behind the nose, and the sphenoid bone. The face consists of 14 bones including the maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[scientific]] study of the influence of head shape on intelligence is known as [[phrenology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head was a movie starring the Monkees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the nautical term for toilet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the foamy portion of a glass of beer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the side of a coin with a head on it (the tail is the other side).&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{expand}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518198</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518198"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T20:24:07Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;amp;curid=73292&amp;amp;diff=517424&amp;amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?   I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is &amp;quot;declining to comment&amp;quot; an indictable offense?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Your comment was not an &amp;quot;indictable offense,&amp;quot; but it violated the rules of this page:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: This is confusing.   Is &amp;quot;I agree with your thesis&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;your methods are 100% correct&amp;quot; a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &amp;quot;Talk Page&amp;quot;.   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments.  Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2.  Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &amp;quot;Substantive postings are welcome&amp;quot;.   It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]].  Are you trying the classic trick of &amp;quot;the answer is over there,&amp;quot; when it isn't?  Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors.  I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question.  Why can't you just answer it?  Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points.  The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I did.  Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It is not the function of the editorial board to &amp;quot;defend&amp;quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &amp;quot;put his name&amp;quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Improper==&lt;br /&gt;
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler!  Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone.  It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma.  True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others.  We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &amp;quot;elementary&amp;quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &amp;quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&amp;quot;, but neither &amp;quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&amp;quot;.  If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement:  Jesus rose from the dead.  Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view.  Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &amp;quot;expert&amp;quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens.  Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518140</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=518140"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T19:41:06Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: /* Please provide your statistical analysis */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;amp;curid=73292&amp;amp;diff=517424&amp;amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?   I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is &amp;quot;declining to comment&amp;quot; an indictable offense?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Your comment was not an &amp;quot;indictable offense,&amp;quot; but it violated the rules of this page:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: This is confusing.   Is &amp;quot;I agree with your thesis&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;your methods are 100% correct&amp;quot; a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &amp;quot;Talk Page&amp;quot;.   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments.  Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2.  Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &amp;quot;Substantive postings are welcome&amp;quot;.   It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I did.  Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: It is not the function of the editorial board to &amp;quot;defend&amp;quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &amp;quot;put his name&amp;quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Improper==&lt;br /&gt;
I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=518122</id>
		<title>Head</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=518122"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T19:10:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The head is the top of the human body containing the [[brain]], [[mouth]], [[eye]]s, and other sensory organs.  It is connected to the rest of the body by the [[neck]]. The human head contains 22 bones, consisting the cranium and the facial bones. The cranium is formed by 8 bones: the frontal bone, two parietal bones, two temporal bones, the occipital bone in the back, the ethmoid bone behind the nose, and the sphenoid bone. The face consists of 14 bones including the maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[scientific]] study of the influence of head shape on intelligence is known as [[phrenology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head was a movie starring the Monkees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the nautical term for toilet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the foamy portion of a glass of beer.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{expand}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=517840</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=517840"/>
		<updated>2008-09-16T12:50:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: /* Please provide your statistical analysis */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;amp;curid=73292&amp;amp;diff=517424&amp;amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]?   I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me?   Is &amp;quot;declining to comment&amp;quot; an indictable offense?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: Your comment was not an &amp;quot;indictable offense,&amp;quot; but it violated the rules of this page:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  Got it?  Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else.  Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: This is confusing.   Is &amp;quot;I agree with your thesis&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;your methods are 100% correct&amp;quot; a substantive comment?   It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say.   I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &amp;quot;Talk Page&amp;quot;.   Are there special rules for this Talk Page?  If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed?    [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments.  Your statement of agreement means nothing.  I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier.  I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2.  Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &amp;quot;Substantive postings are welcome&amp;quot;.   It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page.   What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure.  It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct.  WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so.   Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT)  &lt;br /&gt;
::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: I did.  Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=517389</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=517389"/>
		<updated>2008-09-15T21:58:23Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: /* Please provide your statistical analysis */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'll second that. I hold a Ph.D. in complexity theory, and I don't see any problem with the two techniques above. That's just my opinion, but the fact that other opinions exist should at least make people pause for thought on this one. I'm certainly no raving Liberal, as I hope you can see from my edits here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I '''do''' think the PNAS letter was '''very disrespectful''' in its attitude, and perhaps too brief and dismissive, but I think it did make a valid point (in a bad way). Ultimately Andy, as great as you are at other things, from what you've written here you don't appear to have any real expertise in statistics beyond that of a reasonably-gifted layman. I don't think you're going to make any headway against these people until you acknowledge these limitations, and seek out somebody like Behe who has the relevant expertise and can add some academic weight to your arguments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Where do we go from here? I think we should stop, take a step back, reevaluate some of the claims made here (some of which I'm afraid were wrong imho) and seek out heavyweight help. I hope you don't mind this constructive criticism and take it at face value. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:08, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=517364</id>
		<title>Talk:PNAS Response to Letter</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=517364"/>
		<updated>2008-09-15T21:38:59Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: /* Please provide your statistical analysis */ new section&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page.  Substantive comments only, please.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: Thanks, Jpatt.  One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it.  PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &amp;quot;climate scientist&amp;quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: Right.  The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science.  When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed?  None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&amp;quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&amp;quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &amp;lt;includeonly&amp;gt;suckadick moron&amp;lt;/includeonly&amp;gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
: PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software.  When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
:I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward.  Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now.  Oh well.  There is no censorship on Conservapedia.  Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(deleted non-substantive comments).  Again, the heading on this page will be enforced:  &amp;quot;Substantive comments only, please.&amp;quot;  If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment.  Non-substantive comments will be removed.  This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask;  What exactly do you mean by &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot;?   I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter.  Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &amp;quot;having or expressing substance&amp;quot;, but apparently the measure of &amp;quot;substantive&amp;quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not.  That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::  Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn.  You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights.  We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not.  If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way.  This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
ASchlafly- you said above, &amp;quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&amp;quot;.   As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions.  Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free?   I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal?   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &amp;quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&amp;quot;.  What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly.  I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area.  My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed.  A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively.  I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain.  --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors.  The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The math is wrong in the PNAS paper.  No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't.  I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here.  If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine.  If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on.  Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&amp;quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:&amp;quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&amp;quot;  This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I'll second that. I hold a Ph.D. in complexity theory, and I don't see any problem with the two techniques above. That's just my opinion, but the fact that other opinions exist should at least make people pause for thought on this one. I'm certainly no raving Liberal, as I hope you can see from my edits here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I '''do''' think the PNAS letter was '''very disrespectful''' in its attitude, and perhaps too brief and dismissive, but I think it did make a valid point (in a bad way). Ultimately Andy, as great as you are at other things, from what you've written here you don't appear to have any real expertise in statistics beyond that of a reasonably-gifted layman. I don't think you're going to make any headway against these people until you acknowledge these limitations, and seek out somebody like Behe who has the relevant expertise and can add some academic weight to your arguments. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:: Where do we go from here? I think we should stop, take a step back, reevaluate some of the claims made here (some of which I'm afraid were wrong imho) and seek out heavyweight help. I hope you don't mind this constructive criticism and take it at face value. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:08, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this?   Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable.   [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner.  Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish them on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=517093</id>
		<title>Head</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Head&amp;diff=517093"/>
		<updated>2008-09-15T14:52:22Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;The head is the top of the human body containing the [[brain]], [[mouth]], [[eye]]s, and other sensory organs.  It is connected to the rest of the body by the [[neck]]. The human head contains 22 bones, consisting the cranium and the facial bones. The cranium is formed by 8 bones: the frontal bone, two parietal bones, two temporal bones, the occipital bone in the back, the ethmoid bone behind the nose, and the sphenoid bone. The face consists of 14 bones including the maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The [[scientific]] study of the influence of head shape on intelligence is known as [[phrenology]].&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head was a movie starring the Monkees.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Head is the nautical term for toilet.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
{{expand}}&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Anatomy]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=517030</id>
		<title>Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=517030"/>
		<updated>2008-09-15T13:16:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. Why does she think that? Why is that belief held by some people who contribute to Conservapedia? What constitutes sufficient proof of the religous beliefs of anyone? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start the debate I will offer that I am an atheist. My name is Michael Fredlund Anderson. I was raised in the Lutheran church. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I state that I am an atheist. Is that good enough for people to believe that I really am one? Maybe not. Even I might be skeptical if I continue to attend Lutheran services, give money to the Lutheran church and support Lutheran causes in other ways. So, I would at least want to examine my own behavior. In fact, I have not attended church for many years, I give no money to the church and do not support their causes. I just finished reading &amp;quot;The God Delusion&amp;quot; and am currently reading &amp;quot;Letter to a Christian Nation&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My behavior seems to fall in line with my declared atheist point of view. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would contend that Obama's behavior seems to indicate that he is a christian and not a muslim. He has attend a Christian church for years, he give money to that church and supports its causes. On the other hand, he does not pray to Allah facing Mecca everyday, doesn't belong to a mosque and doesn't support muslim causes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you analyse my name, it has some christian meanings. Michael was an archangel and Michael has a literal translation of &amp;quot;who is like God?&amp;quot;. Anderson is &amp;quot;Andrews son&amp;quot;. Andrew was an apostale. Could it be that my name points to my true colors? Am I really a christian and the meaning of my name shows that? Not really. I was just given a popular name by my parents and inherited Anderson and Fredlund from my parents (Fredlund was my mothers maiden name). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same type of approach is used to suggest that Obama is really a muslim. Look at his name right? But just like me, Obama just was given a name by his parents. It was popular. It really has no bearing on his religious beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about slips of the tounge or use of certain expressions? For some reason I have come to say &amp;quot;Oh Lord&amp;quot; when I am exasperated with something. Am I really saying a small prayer and giving away my true colors? Nah. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this type of innuendo about Obama's religious beliefs has gone far enough. I think Conservapedia needs to reverse all of it's edits that use tactic like those described above to paint Obama as a muslim. They are wrong and end up creating wrong thinking in the gullible readers of things like this. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frankly, I don't care if he is a muslim (except that I would think he is wrong just like I think christians are wrong). It doesn't make him a bad person or unfit to lead. But in a christian nation, trying to claim that he is a muslim is clearly a rotten, political trick.  &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;unsigned, by [[user: MickA]].&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with the above sentiments.  This is supposed to be a &amp;quot;no gossip&amp;quot; website, and, by my reckoning, speculating that somebody's religion might secretly be other than what he claims it is constitutes gossip.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama and his politics without resorting to crypto-racist slurs associating him with Islam.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The 'Obama is a muslim' myth is one of those annoying stories that will not die, in part because any attempt to argue against it merely spreads it further. If you explain in public 'Some people believe Obama is a secret muslim, but this cannot be true because...' then most people will many listening soon after 'secret muslim.' It is just part of human political nature to assume the worst of those we consider opponents, and ignore the worst in those we consider allies. Thus strongly republican people will eagerly believe any unfounded slander on Obama, in the same way that the strongly democratic are erecting various lies regarding Palin right now. This isn't a left-v-right thing: Both factions do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In any case, it's really unfounded - Obama is not, and never has been, a muslim. There is a rather tenuous connection - his father was an ex-muslim, and he did attend school in a muslim country (But not a religious school), and that's it. He has explicitly said he is a christian, attended church for years, donated to the church, throws in the required references to God in his speeches from time to time. The best argument they can make is to accidentially-on-purpose misspell his name as 'Osama Hussain.'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I find it entertaining that many of the people who claim that Obama is a muslim also claim his '''christian''' pastor has expressed anti-white views... wouldn't these myths be mutually exclusive? They also demand an impossible standard of proof - arguing that everything Obama does is an elaborate, perfect charade to hide his true religion, and very often claiming that it's impossible for anyone born into Islam (Which he wasn't, anyway) to ever leave it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If these theories appear anywhere on Conservapedia, I hope they are removed before long. Criticise him honestly, don't make up lies. It's hardly difficult. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 11:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree and the conclusion that a former Christian, now atheist, doesn't change his name is a bunk association. A convert to Muslim religion always changes their name. There may be truth in the fact that a Muslim that converts to Christianity doesn't change there name. If the 'now' Christian convert had a confirmation, that person would at least have a middle name that was Christian. Obamas religious beliefs are fair game, at the least due to his non-Christian beliefs in abortion and gay rights. At worst, his association with black liberation theology which targets a hatred toward other classes of people based on their religion or ethnicity, another non-Christian belief. A slip-of-tongue is acceptable and not a basis for being anti-Obama. A pattern of these is cause for concern considering his higher education. I do care that Obama is a Muslim. While the vast majority of 1 billion Muslims are peace loving individuals, it is the only religion still operating under violent oppression of women and capital punishment in the name of God. To a Muslim, non-Muslims are an enemy of God. The very fact that in America and worldwide, Muslims want an Obama presidency (even though he is Christian, an enemy of God) is a cause for alarm. BTW, I love the reconditioned format of the Obama page, very nice.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Are you saying that Obama is a muslim and what evidence do you have? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:38, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't know what to believe, but I don't believe in him. Read his Muslim background at http://newswithviews.com:80/Ryter/jon212.htm  -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:44, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Let's assume that all of what this article says about his upbringing is true.  How does that make him a muslim today?  I was raised a Lutheran and now I am an athiest.  Are you denying this?  What activities in his adult life indicate that he is a muslim?  Does he attend a mosque?  Does he pray to Allah facing Mecca five time a day?  Does he fast during Ramadan?  What does he do now?  Don't many of our leaders travel to countries where the majority are muslims and the leadership is muslim?  Does that make them muslims? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:56, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I think that I have made my point.  I think that Conservapedia needs to retract all allegations that Obama is a muslim and make it clear that there he is a christian.  I think there should be a main page retraction and the silly comment currently on the main page needs to be deleted.  [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:40, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=517014</id>
		<title>Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=517014"/>
		<updated>2008-09-15T12:40:47Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. Why does she think that? Why is that belief held by some people who contribute to Conservapedia? What constitutes sufficient proof of the religous beliefs of anyone? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start the debate I will offer that I am an atheist. My name is Michael Fredlund Anderson. I was raised in the Lutheran church. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I state that I am an atheist. Is that good enough for people to believe that I really am one? Maybe not. Even I might be skeptical if I continue to attend Lutheran services, give money to the Lutheran church and support Lutheran causes in other ways. So, I would at least want to examine my own behavior. In fact, I have not attended church for many years, I give no money to the church and do not support their causes. I just finished reading &amp;quot;The God Delusion&amp;quot; and am currently reading &amp;quot;Letter to a Christian Nation&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My behavior seems to fall in line with my declared atheist point of view. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would contend that Obama's behavior seems to indicate that he is a christian and not a muslim. He has attend a Christian church for years, he give money to that church and supports its causes. On the other hand, he does not pray to Allah facing Mecca everyday, doesn't belong to a mosque and doesn't support muslim causes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you analyse my name, it has some christian meanings. Michael was an archangel and Michael has a literal translation of &amp;quot;who is like God?&amp;quot;. Anderson is &amp;quot;Andrews son&amp;quot;. Andrew was an apostale. Could it be that my name points to my true colors? Am I really a christian and the meaning of my name shows that? Not really. I was just given a popular name by my parents and inherited Anderson and Fredlund from my parents (Fredlund was my mothers maiden name). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same type of approach is used to suggest that Obama is really a muslim. Look at his name right? But just like me, Obama just was given a name by his parents. It was popular. It really has no bearing on his religious beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about slips of the tounge or use of certain expressions? For some reason I have come to say &amp;quot;Oh Lord&amp;quot; when I am exasperated with something. Am I really saying a small prayer and giving away my true colors? Nah. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this type of innuendo about Obama's religious beliefs has gone far enough. I think Conservapedia needs to reverse all of it's edits that use tactic like those described above to paint Obama as a muslim. They are wrong and end up creating wrong thinking in the gullible readers of things like this. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frankly, I don't care if he is a muslim (except that I would think he is wrong just like I think christians are wrong). It doesn't make him a bad person or unfit to lead. But in a christian nation, trying to claim that he is a muslim is clearly a rotten, political trick.  &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;unsigned, by [[user: MickA]].&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with the above sentiments.  This is supposed to be a &amp;quot;no gossip&amp;quot; website, and, by my reckoning, speculating that somebody's religion might secretly be other than what he claims it is constitutes gossip.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama and his politics without resorting to crypto-racist slurs associating him with Islam.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The 'Obama is a muslim' myth is one of those annoying stories that will not die, in part because any attempt to argue against it merely spreads it further. If you explain in public 'Some people believe Obama is a secret muslim, but this cannot be true because...' then most people will many listening soon after 'secret muslim.' It is just part of human political nature to assume the worst of those we consider opponents, and ignore the worst in those we consider allies. Thus strongly republican people will eagerly believe any unfounded slander on Obama, in the same way that the strongly democratic are erecting various lies regarding Palin right now. This isn't a left-v-right thing: Both factions do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In any case, it's really unfounded - Obama is not, and never has been, a muslim. There is a rather tenuous connection - his father was an ex-muslim, and he did attend school in a muslim country (But not a religious school), and that's it. He has explicitly said he is a christian, attended church for years, donated to the church, throws in the required references to God in his speeches from time to time. The best argument they can make is to accidentially-on-purpose misspell his name as 'Osama Hussain.'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I find it entertaining that many of the people who claim that Obama is a muslim also claim his '''christian''' pastor has expressed anti-white views... wouldn't these myths be mutually exclusive? They also demand an impossible standard of proof - arguing that everything Obama does is an elaborate, perfect charade to hide his true religion, and very often claiming that it's impossible for anyone born into Islam (Which he wasn't, anyway) to ever leave it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If these theories appear anywhere on Conservapedia, I hope they are removed before long. Criticise him honestly, don't make up lies. It's hardly difficult. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 11:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree and the conclusion that a former Christian, now atheist, doesn't change his name is a bunk association. A convert to Muslim religion always changes their name. There may be truth in the fact that a Muslim that converts to Christianity doesn't change there name. If the 'now' Christian convert had a confirmation, that person would at least have a middle name that was Christian. Obamas religious beliefs are fair game, at the least due to his non-Christian beliefs in abortion and gay rights. At worst, his association with black liberation theology which targets a hatred toward other classes of people based on their religion or ethnicity, another non-Christian belief. A slip-of-tongue is acceptable and not a basis for being anti-Obama. A pattern of these is cause for concern considering his higher education. I do care that Obama is a Muslim. While the vast majority of 1 billion Muslims are peace loving individuals, it is the only religion still operating under violent oppression of women and capital punishment in the name of God. To a Muslim, non-Muslims are an enemy of God. The very fact that in America and worldwide, Muslims want an Obama presidency (even though he is Christian, an enemy of God) is a cause for alarm. BTW, I love the reconditioned format of the Obama page, very nice.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Are you saying that Obama is a muslim and what evidence do you have? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:38, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't know what to believe, but I don't believe in him. Read his Muslim background at http://newswithviews.com:80/Ryter/jon212.htm  -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:44, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Let's assume that all of what this article says about his upbringing is true.  How does that make him a muslim today?  I was raised a Lutheran and now I am an athiest.  Are you denying this?  What activities in his adult life indicate that he is a muslim?  Does he attend a mosque?  Does he pray to Allah facing Mecca five time a day?  Does he fast during Ramadan?  What does he do now?  Don't many of our leaders travel to countries where the majority are muslims and the leadership is muslim?  Does that make them muslims? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:56, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::::I think that I have made my point.  I think that Conservapedia needs to retrack all allegations that Obama is a muslim and make it clear that there he is a christian. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:40, 15 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=515236</id>
		<title>Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=515236"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T16:56:36Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. Why does she think that? Why is that belief held by some people who contribute to Conservapedia? What constitutes sufficient proof of the religous beliefs of anyone? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start the debate I will offer that I am an atheist. My name is Michael Fredlund Anderson. I was raised in the Lutheran church. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I state that I am an atheist. Is that good enough for people to believe that I really am one? Maybe not. Even I might be skeptical if I continue to attend Lutheran services, give money to the Lutheran church and support Lutheran causes in other ways. So, I would at least want to examine my own behavior. In fact, I have not attended church for many years, I give no money to the church and do not support their causes. I just finished reading &amp;quot;The God Delusion&amp;quot; and am currently reading &amp;quot;Letter to a Christian Nation&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My behavior seems to fall in line with my declared atheist point of view. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would contend that Obama's behavior seems to indicate that he is a christian and not a muslim. He has attend a Christian church for years, he give money to that church and supports its causes. On the other hand, he does not pray to Allah facing Mecca everyday, doesn't belong to a mosque and doesn't support muslim causes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you analyse my name, it has some christian meanings. Michael was an archangel and Michael has a literal translation of &amp;quot;who is like God?&amp;quot;. Anderson is &amp;quot;Andrews son&amp;quot;. Andrew was an apostale. Could it be that my name points to my true colors? Am I really a christian and the meaning of my name shows that? Not really. I was just given a popular name by my parents and inherited Anderson and Fredlund from my parents (Fredlund was my mothers maiden name). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same type of approach is used to suggest that Obama is really a muslim. Look at his name right? But just like me, Obama just was given a name by his parents. It was popular. It really has no bearing on his religious beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about slips of the tounge or use of certain expressions? For some reason I have come to say &amp;quot;Oh Lord&amp;quot; when I am exasperated with something. Am I really saying a small prayer and giving away my true colors? Nah. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this type of innuendo about Obama's religious beliefs has gone far enough. I think Conservapedia needs to reverse all of it's edits that use tactic like those described above to paint Obama as a muslim. They are wrong and end up creating wrong thinking in the gullible readers of things like this. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frankly, I don't care if he is a muslim (except that I would think he is wrong just like I think christians are wrong). It doesn't make him a bad person or unfit to lead. But in a christian nation, trying to claim that he is a muslim is clearly a rotten, political trick.  &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;unsigned, by [[user: MickA]].&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with the above sentiments.  This is supposed to be a &amp;quot;no gossip&amp;quot; website, and, by my reckoning, speculating that somebody's religion might secretly be other than what he claims it is constitutes gossip.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama and his politics without resorting to crypto-racist slurs associating him with Islam.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The 'Obama is a muslim' myth is one of those annoying stories that will not die, in part because any attempt to argue against it merely spreads it further. If you explain in public 'Some people believe Obama is a secret muslim, but this cannot be true because...' then most people will many listening soon after 'secret muslim.' It is just part of human political nature to assume the worst of those we consider opponents, and ignore the worst in those we consider allies. Thus strongly republican people will eagerly believe any unfounded slander on Obama, in the same way that the strongly democratic are erecting various lies regarding Palin right now. This isn't a left-v-right thing: Both factions do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In any case, it's really unfounded - Obama is not, and never has been, a muslim. There is a rather tenuous connection - his father was an ex-muslim, and he did attend school in a muslim country (But not a religious school), and that's it. He has explicitly said he is a christian, attended church for years, donated to the church, throws in the required references to God in his speeches from time to time. The best argument they can make is to accidentially-on-purpose misspell his name as 'Osama Hussain.'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I find it entertaining that many of the people who claim that Obama is a muslim also claim his '''christian''' pastor has expressed anti-white views... wouldn't these myths be mutually exclusive? They also demand an impossible standard of proof - arguing that everything Obama does is an elaborate, perfect charade to hide his true religion, and very often claiming that it's impossible for anyone born into Islam (Which he wasn't, anyway) to ever leave it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If these theories appear anywhere on Conservapedia, I hope they are removed before long. Criticise him honestly, don't make up lies. It's hardly difficult. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 11:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree and the conclusion that a former Christian, now atheist, doesn't change his name is a bunk association. A convert to Muslim religion always changes their name. There may be truth in the fact that a Muslim that converts to Christianity doesn't change there name. If the 'now' Christian convert had a confirmation, that person would at least have a middle name that was Christian. Obamas religious beliefs are fair game, at the least due to his non-Christian beliefs in abortion and gay rights. At worst, his association with black liberation theology which targets a hatred toward other classes of people based on their religion or ethnicity, another non-Christian belief. A slip-of-tongue is acceptable and not a basis for being anti-Obama. A pattern of these is cause for concern considering his higher education. I do care that Obama is a Muslim. While the vast majority of 1 billion Muslims are peace loving individuals, it is the only religion still operating under violent oppression of women and capital punishment in the name of God. To a Muslim, non-Muslims are an enemy of God. The very fact that in America and worldwide, Muslims want an Obama presidency (even though he is Christian, an enemy of God) is a cause for alarm. BTW, I love the reconditioned format of the Obama page, very nice.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Are you saying that Obama is a muslim and what evidence do you have? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:38, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I don't know what to believe, but I don't believe in him. Read his Muslim background at http://newswithviews.com:80/Ryter/jon212.htm  -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:44, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
:::Let's assume that all of what this article says about his upbringing is true.  How does that make him a muslim today?  I was raised a Lutheran and now I am an athiest.  Are you denying this?  What activities in his adult life indicate that he is a muslim?  Does he attend a mosque?  Does he pray to Allah facing Mecca five time a day?  Does he fast during Ramadan?  What does he do now?  Don't many of our leaders travel to countries where the majority are muslims and the leadership is muslim?  Does that make them muslims? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:56, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=515229</id>
		<title>Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=515229"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T16:38:31Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. Why does she think that? Why is that belief held by some people who contribute to Conservapedia? What constitutes sufficient proof of the religous beliefs of anyone? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start the debate I will offer that I am an atheist. My name is Michael Fredlund Anderson. I was raised in the Lutheran church. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I state that I am an atheist. Is that good enough for people to believe that I really am one? Maybe not. Even I might be skeptical if I continue to attend Lutheran services, give money to the Lutheran church and support Lutheran causes in other ways. So, I would at least want to examine my own behavior. In fact, I have not attended church for many years, I give no money to the church and do not support their causes. I just finished reading &amp;quot;The God Delusion&amp;quot; and am currently reading &amp;quot;Letter to a Christian Nation&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My behavior seems to fall in line with my declared atheist point of view. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would contend that Obama's behavior seems to indicate that he is a christian and not a muslim. He has attend a Christian church for years, he give money to that church and supports its causes. On the other hand, he does not pray to Allah facing Mecca everyday, doesn't belong to a mosque and doesn't support muslim causes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you analyse my name, it has some christian meanings. Michael was an archangel and Michael has a literal translation of &amp;quot;who is like God?&amp;quot;. Anderson is &amp;quot;Andrews son&amp;quot;. Andrew was an apostale. Could it be that my name points to my true colors? Am I really a christian and the meaning of my name shows that? Not really. I was just given a popular name by my parents and inherited Anderson and Fredlund from my parents (Fredlund was my mothers maiden name). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same type of approach is used to suggest that Obama is really a muslim. Look at his name right? But just like me, Obama just was given a name by his parents. It was popular. It really has no bearing on his religious beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about slips of the tounge or use of certain expressions? For some reason I have come to say &amp;quot;Oh Lord&amp;quot; when I am exasperated with something. Am I really saying a small prayer and giving away my true colors? Nah. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this type of innuendo about Obama's religious beliefs has gone far enough. I think Conservapedia needs to reverse all of it's edits that use tactic like those described above to paint Obama as a muslim. They are wrong and end up creating wrong thinking in the gullible readers of things like this. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frankly, I don't care if he is a muslim (except that I would think he is wrong just like I think christians are wrong). It doesn't make him a bad person or unfit to lead. But in a christian nation, trying to claim that he is a muslim is clearly a rotten, political trick.  &amp;lt;sub&amp;gt;unsigned, by [[user: MickA]].&amp;lt;/sub&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;
:I agree with the above sentiments.  This is supposed to be a &amp;quot;no gossip&amp;quot; website, and, by my reckoning, speculating that somebody's religion might secretly be other than what he claims it is constitutes gossip.  There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made of Obama and his politics without resorting to crypto-racist slurs associating him with Islam.  [[User:Sideways|Sideways]] 10:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::The 'Obama is a muslim' myth is one of those annoying stories that will not die, in part because any attempt to argue against it merely spreads it further. If you explain in public 'Some people believe Obama is a secret muslim, but this cannot be true because...' then most people will many listening soon after 'secret muslim.' It is just part of human political nature to assume the worst of those we consider opponents, and ignore the worst in those we consider allies. Thus strongly republican people will eagerly believe any unfounded slander on Obama, in the same way that the strongly democratic are erecting various lies regarding Palin right now. This isn't a left-v-right thing: Both factions do it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::In any case, it's really unfounded - Obama is not, and never has been, a muslim. There is a rather tenuous connection - his father was an ex-muslim, and he did attend school in a muslim country (But not a religious school), and that's it. He has explicitly said he is a christian, attended church for years, donated to the church, throws in the required references to God in his speeches from time to time. The best argument they can make is to accidentially-on-purpose misspell his name as 'Osama Hussain.'&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::I find it entertaining that many of the people who claim that Obama is a muslim also claim his '''christian''' pastor has expressed anti-white views... wouldn't these myths be mutually exclusive? They also demand an impossible standard of proof - arguing that everything Obama does is an elaborate, perfect charade to hide his true religion, and very often claiming that it's impossible for anyone born into Islam (Which he wasn't, anyway) to ever leave it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::If these theories appear anywhere on Conservapedia, I hope they are removed before long. Criticise him honestly, don't make up lies. It's hardly difficult. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 11:37, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I disagree and the conclusion that a former Christian, now atheist, doesn't change his name is a bunk association. A convert to Muslim religion always changes their name. There may be truth in the fact that a Muslim that converts to Christianity doesn't change there name. If the 'now' Christian convert had a confirmation, that person would at least have a middle name that was Christian. Obamas religious beliefs are fair game, at the least due to his non-Christian beliefs in abortion and gay rights. At worst, his association with black liberation theology which targets a hatred toward other classes of people based on their religion or ethnicity, another non-Christian belief. A slip-of-tongue is acceptable and not a basis for being anti-Obama. A pattern of these is cause for concern considering his higher education. I do care that Obama is a Muslim. While the vast majority of 1 billion Muslims are peace loving individuals, it is the only religion still operating under violent oppression of women and capital punishment in the name of God. To a Muslim, non-Muslims are an enemy of God. The very fact that in America and worldwide, Muslims want an Obama presidency (even though he is Christian, an enemy of God) is a cause for alarm. BTW, I love the reconditioned format of the Obama page, very nice.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:13, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
::Are you saying that Obama is a muslim and what evidence do you have? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 12:38, 12 September 2008 (EDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Debate_Topics&amp;diff=515156</id>
		<title>Conservapedia:Debate Topics</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Debate_Topics&amp;diff=515156"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T13:56:53Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: /* Political debates */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;'''Debate topic suggestions, organized so that it's not necessary to delete them.'''&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
(Note: If some topic is miscategorized, it can be cut and pasted without affecting the relevant links.)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Philosophical debates==&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[ Can conservapedia become the next wikipedia, is this good or bad]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:If there is no objective truth, then is the claim &amp;quot;there is no objective truth&amp;quot; also not an objective truth?|If there is no objective truth, then is the claim &amp;quot;there is no objective truth&amp;quot; also not an objective truth?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does History Matter?|Does History Matter?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?|Is a first cause of a process necessary, always possible, or sometimes impossible?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?|Can Objectivism develop beyond Ayn Rand's original formulation?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Can any man live without some code of morality?|Can any man live without some code of morality?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does the universe include everything, or does something outside the universe exist?|Does the known physical universe exhaust all that can exist, or does something exist beyond known physical boundaries?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Why is there something rather than nothing?|Why is there something rather than nothing?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Stem Cells| Embryonic Stem Cells: Why or why not?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Why Reason?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Why does the conservative media often an ugly undertone?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should pharmacists be forced to fill legal prescriptions they personally object to on moral grounds?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:What is the real love?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Religious debates==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Should certain books be banned from libraries?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Should the first story of creation be read allegorically or literally?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is Scientology a false religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Why do Moses, Ezra, Jesus, and Paul all disagree on divorce? Moses allowed divorce, Jesus disallowed it and also allowed it, Paul allowed it, and Ezra actually commanded it to appease God (Ezra 10)??? im confused!! whats a christian to do??]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Did Jesus ever claim to be God?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Grave errors/inconsistencies in the Bible make literal translation worthless.]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Was Jesus born in the right time and place?| Was Jesus born in the right time and place?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia : What does Christianity say about homosexuality?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?|If God does not exist, can anything be morally wrong?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?|Is it wrong to have a Christmas tree?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?|Which Christian denomination is the most true to the central teachings of Christianity?]] &lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?|If Jesus were alive to day, where on the political spectrum would he fall?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?|Is religion relevant in todays society? / Should Religion Play a Large Role in Modern Societies?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible (Old and the New Testament) have the infallible words of God?|Bible (New and Old Testament) Words of God]] &lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: AntiSemitism|AntiSemitism]] &lt;br /&gt;
# [[Does Intelligent Design deny the Existence of God?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?|Could God create a rock so heavy that he himself could not lift it?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?|If there were no religion, would we find another reason to kill each other?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Natural Disaster versus Act of God|Natural Disaster versus Act of God]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:What is the Sabbath day?|What is the Sabbath day?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?|Is it possible to be a conservative and not a religious person or even an atheist?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Why do we still perform Baptisms?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does_the_Resurrection_negate_Gods_Sacrifice_of_his_only_son%3F|Does the Resurrection negate Gods Sacrifice of his only son?|Does the Resurrection negate God's Sacrifice of his only son?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Muslims_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Christians%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Muslims learned their religion from their parents, just like us Christians, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:If_most_Christians_learned_their_religion_from_their_parents%2C_just_like_us_Muslims%2C_they_will_probably_be_hard_to_convert._So_what_can_we_do_to_save_their_souls%3F|If most Christians learned their religion from their parents, just like us Muslims, they will probably be hard to convert. So what can we do to save their souls?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does_mainstream_Islam_endorse_violence%3F|Does mainstream Islam endorse violence?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is religion morally wrong?|Is religion morally wrong?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?|Does the Bible display poor ethics and morals?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Why the Bible|What makes the Bible a reliable source of knowledge besides tradition?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Why should we be afraid of God?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Do conservative Christians have an unquestioning faith which is comparable to that of the Party in the book 1984?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Antisemitism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Are Christianity and the Bible superior to other religions and scriptures?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Is &amp;quot;Coercive Interrogation&amp;quot; consistent with Christian Values?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Mary Magdalene - First Witness to the Resurrection - Significance?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Was Christ a fundamentalist?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Atheism vs. Deism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Atheism vs. Pastafarianism]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Why is homosexuality so bad?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[If Noah only brought two of every animal on the ark, wouldn't subsequent generations of animals have become increasingly inbred?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is there 1 God or are there many gods?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Can you be a true Christian and believe in evolution?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should gay marriage be allowed?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is atheism a religion]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Adoption and Abortion]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: If not naturalism, how do we decide which supernatural explanation is correct?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Are Catholics Christians?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Do Atheist believe they have a soul?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Were Judas' actions necessary and foreordained?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Is it possible to voluntarily convert one's religion?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Historical debates==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Was Benjamin Franklin a deist?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Was the European colonization of the Americas good for the native people?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Was President George H. W. Bush wrong to leave Saddam in power in 1991?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Which was worse? the Civil War and it's effects or slavery?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Why are most actors turned politicians Republicans?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Did the Founding Fathers intend to apply their personal faith to the nation &amp;quot;As an institution&amp;quot;?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Political debates==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Did the Founders have a religious motive?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: To what extent should we have obscenity laws]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: Is communism founded on Christian doctrine?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Why do we still have an embargo on Cuba?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain Declined?| Quoting Conservapedia's front page; &amp;quot;The British government just affirmed its ban on mentioning Intelligent Design to students.[3] No one there seems to notice how Britain's decline coincided with its promotion of evolution frauds like the Piltdown Man.&amp;quot; - Has Britain REALLY declined?]] &lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?|Is illegal immigration control the answer to illegal immigration?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?|Has Britain become the 51st State of the US?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:You think these Phd's are nuts?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does the European Union pose a threat to the United States?| Does the European Union pose a threat to United States Security?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Define torture]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War I?|Should the United States have entered World War I?]] &lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have entered World War II?|Should the United States have entered World War II?]]  &lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea|Should the United States have eliminated communism in North Korea as General Douglas MacArthur wanted?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?|Was the United States right to drop atomic bombs so quickly on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Was it wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?|If President Roosevelt had known about the Pearl Harbor attack in advance, would it have been wrong for him to allow the attack in order to wake up the American public and motivate Americans to fight and win the war?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?|Is gun-control the answer to crimes involving guns?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Was world war inevitable?|Was world war inevitable?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Does &amp;quot;free trade&amp;quot; increase wealth rather than simply redistribute it?|Does &amp;quot;free trade&amp;quot; increase wealth or simply redistribute it?]]  &lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?|Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?]] &lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Is democracy even possible in Iraq?|Is democracy even possible in Iraq?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?|Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States leave the United Nations?|Should the United States leave the United Nations?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Crusades... Good or Bad?|Crusades... Good or Bad?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?|Was American soldier Michael New right to refuse to fight wearing part of a United Nations uniform?]]  See [[Michael New]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?|Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or Communism?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?|Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?|Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?|Which has the best philosophy of education: the public school system, private schools, or the home school movement?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?|Should people genetically engineer a cure for homosexuality?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?|Should Bush pardon Scooter Libby?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?|Should We Support Democrats For Life.org?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[conservapedia:Women in the Military?|Women in the Military?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Should students learn a foreign language?|Should students learn a foreign language?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religous?|Why does the right side of the political spectrum tend to be more religious?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should there be a consistent standard on human rights applied to left and right?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?|Should American companies be allowed to send their own troops into a war which America is participating in?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.|Giuliani's lack of social conservative viewpoints should not stop you from voting for him.]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is_President_Bush_good_for_America?|Is President Bush good for America?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_Iraq_War_a_success%3F|Is the Iraq War a success?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does_single_sex_schooling_promotes_homesexuality%3F|Does Single sex schooling promotes homosexuality?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is_the_murder_of_3%2C000_people_just_a_few_or_is_it_a_lot%3F_Does_it_make_a_difference_if_the_murdered_people_are_Americans%3F|Is the murder of 3,000 people just a few or is it a lot? Does it make a difference if the murdered people are Americans?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does the media really have a liberal bias?|Does the media really have a liberal bias?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Who was the last Democrat to quit due to ethics and what year was it? Is it fair for Republicans to due the same?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[What kind of leader will Democrats make if they run from debates on Fox?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Are the Democrats capable of fighting terrorism?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Can a rogue nation be thought of as a sovereign nation?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[ Has Russia reinstalled stealth communism?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Do we all know what Democrat Presidential candidates stand for yet?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Define Civil War]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?|Should gun sales to terror suspects be allowed?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Who would you support for President in 2008?|Who would you support for President in 2008?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?|Is Darwinism liberal or is it conservative?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?|Why did God place most of the world's oil in politically unstable places?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Restoring the USA image in the world, just a fancy phrase that means zilch?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Placing the blame on how America got polarized]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is most government criticism really patriotic?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is environmentalism mostly about preserving natural resources?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is the conservative stance on illegal immigration going to loose the Hispanic vote for the GOP in the 08' election?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Should President Bush Condemn Armenian Genocide? ]] ''New as of October 10, 2007''&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Third Party Debate]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Who kills more innocent people: religious believers or atheists?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Was congress right to override president Bush's veto on the water projects bill?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Preferred Democrat for the White House?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Does Republican equal conservative?  Does Democrat equal liberal?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Obama's preacher.]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Is president Bush ignoring human rights violations in China?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should the United States begin Colonizing Space?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?|Should the federal government have the power to define marriage?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:The Declaration of Independence or Interdependence?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should the U.S.A. abide by a withdrawal timetable if the Iraqi Parliament votes for one?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should U.S. troops be subject to Iraqi law if that allows our continued presence there?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Should government restrictions on smoking be tightened or rolled back?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:If Obama trails McCain in polling before the Democratic convention, will they choose Hillary instead?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is Sarah Palin an asset or a liability to John McCain's candidacy?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is a candidate's military record relevant anymore?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Should politicians be allowed to misspeak?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Scientific debates==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Why haven't intelligent designists published a single scientific article?|If intelligent design is just as valid as evolution, where are all their scientific findings and publishings?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that bigotry is a necessary self-defense mechanism?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?|Does Darwinian natural selection suggest that homosexuality is bad for the survival of a species?]]  &lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?|Is Darwinian natural selection compatible with Marxism?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Is the theory of macroevolution true?|Is the theory of macroevolution true?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?| Is Giving Birth the Bible Way Better?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?|Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?|Is global warming evident, and if so, is this the fault of man, and how must man stop it?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?|If the universe is young and it takes light millions of years to reach us from far off stars, how can we see them?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:God, Earth and Global Warming|God, Earth and Global Warming]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?|Is the evidence in favor of evolution convincing?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?|If the Bible didn't contain a creation story, would anyone even consider the idea of a young earth?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?|Is Relativity in direct conflict with the Genesis account?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?|Who feels that scientific related articles should only reference published research papers instead of websites when dealing with research instead of application?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God?| If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Why are God's works always questioned?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Conservapedia:Are there any elements of choice, when it comes to carrying out homosexual acts?|Are there any elements of choice]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Listing the Earth's most pressing needs in urgent order of fixing]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is homosexuality a mental illness?|Is homosexuality a mental illness?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?|Can the science of evolution be separated from the philosophy of it?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Debates about Conservapedia==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia representing a conservative POV or a Young Earth Creationist POV?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia anti-British?|Is Conservapedia anti-British?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[The liberal quotient of Conservapedia; what is it? Does it matter?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?|Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?|Should the term list entries be included in Conservapedia's entry count?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?|How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Can Conservapedia Succeed?|Can Conservapedia Succeed?]]&lt;br /&gt;
#  [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?|Is Conservapedia fair and balanced?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?|How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:What exactly is Conservapedia?|What exactly is Conservapedia?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Was the media attention needed?|Was the media attention needed?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia Debate Topics full of far left liberal netroots]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Which is true; progressive Liberal or regressive liberal]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Where do you personally look for facts and information on topics &amp;quot;When did Brahms live&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Why did Monet paint grainstacks?&amp;quot;]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is it okay for Conservapedia to have biased articles?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Who deletes entire discussion items from here?  And why?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Why do users, who contribute substantially, choose to leave this community?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Is the use of copyrighted photographs without permission stealing?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Are there too many debates on Conservapedia? | Are there too many debates on Conservapedia?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is it tasteless for Conservapedia to critique the Virginia Tech poem on the Main Page?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Has anyone ever been been banned for pointing out that many of the other entries on this site are in need of citation and evidence to back up statements?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does an encyclopedia define complex subjects, or insert more bias into them?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Do sysops block editing on pages when it seems their opponents are making strong points?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Is Conservapedia a 'Trustworthy Encyclopedia'?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Does altering the record of debate in a wiki 'Encyclopedia' render the entire thing a farce?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Democrats next move, link more stories of heartache like those from Kansas to Gulf Coast.]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Do quotes used to support a theory just make an article look stupid?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is Conservapedia blinkered?|Is Conservapedia blinkered?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does Conservapedia censor opponents the way Expelled says ID advocates are censored?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is the Conservapedia Logo in violation of US Flag Code?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate: should atheists be barred from Conservapedia?]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Funny, maybe?==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Are cats just useless Dogs|Are cats just useless dogs?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?|Is the Platypus evidence that God has a sense of humour?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia: Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault?|Was the shooting at Virginia Tech somehow President Bush's fault? (kind of like he caused hurricane Katrina)]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Are video games getting better or worse as graphics, sound, and gameplay complexity improve?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Favorite old time radio show]]&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Other==&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Are alcohol, marijuana, and nicotine gateway drugs?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Is Rap music torture?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Should marijuana be legalized?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:What are the lessons that we should take away from the Milgram Experiment]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does the Theory of Evolution promote atheism?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Discussion:Colorado Mall Shootings]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Discussion:Creationist]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:Is the Theory of Evolution a conspiricy?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Debate:How should we view the fact leading scientists do not believe in god?]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Conservapedia:Does modern music negatively influence children]]&lt;br /&gt;
# [[Discussion:Propaganda in childrens' television]]&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Conservapedia]]&lt;br /&gt;
#[[Debate:What Is Music?]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=515153</id>
		<title>Debate: What is sufficient proof that Obama is a Muslim?</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Debate:_What_is_sufficient_proof_that_Obama_is_a_Muslim%3F&amp;diff=515153"/>
		<updated>2008-09-12T13:54:55Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: New page: On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. ...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;On the way home last night, I listened to a NPR discussion group about race and the presidential election. One woman said that Obama was a muslim and he will be one until the day he dies. Why does she think that? Why is that belief held by some people who contribute to Conservapedia? What constitutes sufficient proof of the religous beliefs of anyone? &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To start the debate I will offer that I am an atheist. My name is Michael Fredlund Anderson. I was raised in the Lutheran church. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I state that I am an atheist. Is that good enough for people to believe that I really am one? Maybe not. Even I might be skeptical if I continue to attend Lutheran services, give money to the Lutheran church and support Lutheran causes in other ways. So, I would at least want to examine my own behavior. In fact, I have not attended church for many years, I give no money to the church and do not support their causes. I just finished reading &amp;quot;The God Delusion&amp;quot; and am currently reading &amp;quot;Letter to a Christian Nation&amp;quot;. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My behavior seems to fall in line with my declared atheist point of view. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would contend that Obama's behavior seems to indicate that he is a christian and not a muslim. He has attend a Christian church for years, he give money to that church and supports its causes. On the other hand, he does not pray to Allah facing Mecca everyday, doesn't belong to a mosque and doesn't support muslim causes. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If you analyse my name, it has some christian meanings. Michael was an archangel and Michael has a literal translation of &amp;quot;who is like God?&amp;quot;. Anderson is &amp;quot;Andrews son&amp;quot;. Andrew was an apostale. Could it be that my name points to my true colors? Am I really a christian and the meaning of my name shows that? Not really. I was just given a popular name by my parents and inherited Anderson and Fredlund from my parents (Fredlund was my mothers maiden name). &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The same type of approach is used to suggest that Obama is really a muslim. Look at his name right? But just like me, Obama just was given a name by his parents. It was popular. It really has no bearing on his religious beliefs. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about slips of the tounge or use of certain expressions? For some reason I have come to say &amp;quot;Oh Lord&amp;quot; when I am exasperated with something. Am I really saying a small prayer and giving away my true colors? Nah. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this type of innuendo about Obama's religious beliefs has gone far enough. I think Conservapedia needs to reverse all of it's edits that use tactic like those described above to paint Obama as a muslim. They are wrong and end up creating wrong thinking in the gullible readers of things like this. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Frankly, I don't care if he is a muslim (except that I would think he is wrong just like I think christians are wrong). It doesn't make him a bad person or unfit to lead. But in a christian nation, trying to claim that he is a muslim is clearly a rotten, political trick.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Best_Concepts_to_Teach_Teenagers&amp;diff=513311</id>
		<title>Essay:Best Concepts to Teach Teenagers</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Essay:Best_Concepts_to_Teach_Teenagers&amp;diff=513311"/>
		<updated>2008-09-09T20:32:38Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Suppose you had just five new principles to teach a teenager.  Which would you teach?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Here are some suggestions:&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
#Everything has an [[opportunity cost]] (e.g., watching television is expensive)&lt;br /&gt;
#Liberal values have destructive personal consequences (e.g., [[Hollywood Values]])&lt;br /&gt;
#There is more [[deceit]] in the world than you expect&lt;br /&gt;
#Trying an addictive activity is like stepping on a slippery slope: you may be unable to save yourself from destruction&lt;br /&gt;
#If you are with someone who commits a crime, the law may hold you fully responsible&lt;br /&gt;
#Bad ideas will be suggested to you by nearly everyone, including yourself, except a bad idea will never come from both your parents&lt;br /&gt;
#Much of our behavior is governed by habits.  It is therefore critical to consciously cultivate good habits, and to work to overcome bad habits.  Good habits don't just happen.&lt;br /&gt;
#Constant questioning of authority, on the [[Liberal]] notion that authority is necessarily wrong, is counter-productive and destructive. Respect experience and the wisdom that it brings, and you will benefit from it.&lt;br /&gt;
#Resist peer pressure to do things which conflict with the values your family and church taught you. Would you rather be a sheep or a shepherd?&lt;br /&gt;
#It is fine to say No: say No to temptation, to illegal drugs, to underage drinking, to crime, to pre-marital sex and indecent behaviour.&lt;br /&gt;
#Pre-marital virginity isn't 'square' or boring. It's cool to keep yourself for 'the one'.&lt;br /&gt;
#You are the master of your bodily impulses, and not vice-versa. &lt;br /&gt;
#You might think it's fun to make decisions.  But if you make a decision and you decide incorrectly then it’s your fault.  Your friends told you?  Your fault.  Your government told you? Your fault.  Your spouse told you?  Your fault.  I told you? ''Still'' your fault.  Welcome to responsibility.&lt;br /&gt;
#It is OK to ask for help. Particularly from your parents as they are there to guide you.&lt;br /&gt;
#Most adults turn to [[prayer]] in times of need.  It's not any easier being a teenager than an adult, and prayer is available for your benefit.  Don't fool yourself into thinking you're above it. Even if the prayer does not work, it may give you some peace of mind. &lt;br /&gt;
#It is not winning, but being able to take part and give it your best that is most important.&lt;br /&gt;
#Obedience is the path to independence and maturity.&lt;br /&gt;
#Freedom is not free. It carries a tremendous cost. In the case of the United States, that cost has been paid by patriots willing to lay down their lives. These patriots (living and dead) are deserving of our respect.&lt;br /&gt;
#While it is fine to have fun, remember that studying and learning ways to become a mature and well-rounded person are much more important.  By learning new things, you become more fun to talk to!&lt;br /&gt;
#Never take that last piece of cake on the plate. It applies to life too.&lt;br /&gt;
#Love your neighbor as yourself. Who is your neighbor?  Everyone, even those that you consider to be your enemy.  What is love?  Love is care and kindness.  See the Good Samaritan. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Essays]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rhodes_Scholar&amp;diff=510997</id>
		<title>Rhodes Scholar</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Rhodes_Scholar&amp;diff=510997"/>
		<updated>2008-09-05T13:47:11Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;MickA: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;A '''Rhodes Scholar''' is an [[elitist]]{{fact}} holder of a Rhodes Scholarship at the liberal and atheist [[University of Oxford]] in the [[United Kingdom]]. The scholarships are awarded by the Rhodes Trust, endowed by the will of the imperialist statesman [[Cecil Rhodes]] and founded in 1902, and originally open to scholars from the [[British Empire]], the [[United States]] and [[Germany]]. Scholars are eligible to study any postgraduate degree at Oxford (excluding [[MBA]]). Since the foundation of the trust, more than 7,000 Rhodes Scholars have attended Oxford.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Well-known Rhodes Scholars==&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Wesley Clark]], US general&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bill Clinton]], US President&lt;br /&gt;
*[[J.W. Fulbright]], founder of the Fulbright Scholarships&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Bob Hawke]], Australian Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Edwin Hubble]], astronomer&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Kris Kristofferson]], songwriter and actor&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dom Mintoff]], Maltese Prime Minister&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Dean Rusk]], US Secretary of State&lt;br /&gt;
*[[Naomi Wolf]], author&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Further Information==&lt;br /&gt;
http://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/history.htm&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
[[Category:Universities]]&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>MickA</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>