Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Large Hadron Collider

2008-12-18T03:04:46Z

Rspeed: Mini isn't a terribly descriptive word.

The '''Large Hadron Collider''' (LHC) is the largest and most ambitious piece of machinery ever conceived and built by man. The [[particle accelerator]], with a circumference of 27km, is located at the [[CERN]] facility with straddles the border of [[France]] and [[Switzerland]].

The LHC was powered up on Wednesday 10 September 2008, with the first beams being circulated through the collider. It reached full power in mid-November 2008, which is when scientists were supposed to begin smashing [[particle]]s into each other. This was hampered however as the LHC suffered a mechanical breakdown soon after it was switched on and will not be active again until early 2009.

The LHC has four giant detectors designed to probe new [[dimension]]s, search for the [[Higgs Boson]] (the so called "God Particle", which gives matter and other [[boson]]s mass) and hypothetically to investigate what the [[universe]] might have been like immediately after the [[Big Bang]] (assuming it actually happened).

Legal challenges have been made against the LHC as some believe it could open a microscopic [[black hole]] that would swallow the Earth. However scientists have effectively ruled out this scenario, pointing out - among other things - that such particle collisions take place quite often naturally.<ref>Steven B. Giddings, Michelangelo M. Mangano: [http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.3381 "Astrophysical implications of hypothetical stable TeV-scale black holes"]</ref><ref>Benjamin Koch, Marcus Bleicher, Horst Stoecker: [http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3349 "Exclusion of black hole disaster scenarios at the LHC"]</ref> The LHC seeks to prove or disprove other important concepts and theories, including supersymmetry, [[antimatter]], as well as confirming the existence of many [[lepton]]s, such as the [[muon]] and [[gluon]]. Ethical challenges have been raised as well, with many considering the search for the so-called "God particle" to be a sign of human hubris. An analogy can be made to the Biblical tower of Babel.

==References==
<references/>

==External Links==
[http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc LHC] Homepage at CERN.

[[Category:Physics]]

Talk:Large Hadron Collider

2008-09-12T04:33:36Z

Rspeed: /* Will get to this later */

==Will get to this later==
Just wanted to add, from what I have heard of/researched a bit about the LHC, the actual danger is that stranglets (a theoretical type of quark) could be potentially created and trapped within the earth's gravitational field, thus transforming all matter on earth to strange matter. Will get verification and modify as necessary. Also, I do not believe scientists at CERN actually ''deny'' the possibility, but rather the chances are so monumentally low (I have heard on the order of 1x10^-12%) that it is essentially more likely that the Earth will be destroyed in other ways. I will research this a bit and modify the article with proper citations. Cheers --[[User:AndrasK|AndrasK]] 18:32, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:It was just a start. I know of the "strange matter" issue but I also know the major concern was the mini black holes being formed. [[User:ClarkeD|ClarkeD]] 18:34, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:: To be clear, there is no concern in the scientific community. If there was they wouldn't have built the LHC (or any other supercollider) in the first place. As for the microscopic black holes, even if despite the infinitesimal odds one did form, it would die out nearly instantly due to Hawking radiation. It wouldn't have a large enough mass to sustain itself. You'd need something massive (a star) in order to create a self-sustaining black hole. There is ''nothing'' to be worried about. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 00:33, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Standard Model

2008-09-12T00:01:36Z

Rspeed: There's nothing audacious (risky) about predicting a subatomic particle. Replaced with enigmatic, but there's probably a better adjective to describe it.

[[Image:Mioss.jpg|thumb|400px|right|The Standard Model of Fundamental Particles and Interactions]]
The '''Standard Model''' of [[Particle|particle]] physics is a [[quantum field theory]] that explains [[Electromagnetism|electromagnetism]], [[Strong nuclear force|strong]] and [[Weak interaction|weak]] [[Nuclear|nuclear]] interactions in a unified framework. It is a non-[[abelian]] gauge theory with the gauge [[Group|group]] [[Unitary group|SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1)]].

It was formulated in the 1970s and has withstood all experimental tests. It has only been modified by adding mass to the electron neutrino. Physicists are currently looking for its most enigmatic prediction, the [[Higgs boson]].

[[category: physics]]

Large Hadron Collider

2008-09-11T23:53:15Z

Rspeed: No need to bold that. Also, nobody calls it the Theos Particle.

The '''Large Hadron Collider''' (LHC) is the largest and most ambitious piece of machinery ever conceived and built by man. The particle accelerator, with a circumference of 27km, is located at the [[CERN]] facility with straddles the border of [[France]] and [[Switzerland]].

The LHC was powered up on Wednesday 10 September 2008, with the first beams being circulated through the collider, and will reach full power, when scientists will begin smashing particles into each other, in mid-November 2008.

The LHC has 4 giant detectors designed to probe new dimensions, search for the [[Higgs Boson]] (the so called "God Particle", which gives matter and other bosons mass) and to investigate what the [[universe]] was like immediately after the [[Big Bang]].

Legal challenges have been made against the LHC as some believe it could open a [[black hole]] that would swallow the earth however scientists insist that the chances of this happening are minuscule citing the such particle collisions take place quite often naturally. The LHC seeks to prove or disprove other important concepts and theories, including super-, and sanathsymmetry, antimatter, as well as confirming the existence of many leptons, such as the muon and gluon.

==External Links==
[http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc LHC] Homepage at CERN.

[[Category:Science]]

Talk:Kangaroo

2008-09-11T23:45:28Z

Rspeed: /* The atheist and/or evolutionary view */

== Uncatagorized ==

I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

this has as much scientific backup as the information stated in the article. very nice theory --[[User:Completeliberal|Completeliberal]] 23:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Care to get into specifics? Unless you do, this reply to a six-month-old comment is pointless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

specifics? i'm talking about the theory with regards to the existence of Noah's ark. can you prove this? yeah it might be in the bible. but many things in the bible were scientifically incorrect-for example the stories of adam and eve. these were obviously proved wrong. yeah i respect the bibles teachings of good morals yet the facts in it are wrong. my issue with this site is that it is an educational resource yet encourages ignorance. --[[User:Completeliberal|nomen]] 23:44, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Can I prove that Noah's Ark existed? What sort of proof would you like? I can't give scientific proof, because it's ''history'', i.e. outside the realm of science. But I can point you to ''historical'' evidence, such as the Bible.
: What is "scientifically incorrect" about Adam and Eve? And how and where were they "proved" wrong? And what other supposed "wrong facts" does the Bible contain? I don't know of any, despite studying it for many years.
: And despite me asking for specifics (which you did to some extent), you then come out with another unsubstantiated over-generalisation, that this site "encourages ignorance". Where, specifically, does it do that?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[natural science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mats of vegetation ==

Was the argument that kangaroos floated across the Indian Ocean to Australia on mats of vegetation inserted into the article to make Young Earth Creationism look foolish? It's completely implausible. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:I see that the cited source doesn't actually say that kangaroos traveled on mats of vegetation. (It does cite an anonymous "evolutionist" who says that lemurs ''may'' have traveled this way to Madagascar.) Perhaps this should just be removed? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::Fair enough; I have removed it. One problem is that that source is not talking about kangaroos in particular, but more generally about how various creatures got to Australia. The clear suggestion is that some creatures may have got to Australia on floating mats of vegetation, but without being specific about which creatures, and presumably this is only likely to apply to much smaller creatures. I'm still not altogether happy with some of the remaining wording in that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Evolution should wikilink to [[Theory of Evolution]]. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:01, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
:Done. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Junk the article, start over ==
This article reads like something a second grader would write and needs significant work. Starting with "Kangaroos are the largest Marsupials alive today" is simply un-encyclopedic, if for no other reason than people who want to learn about kangaroos are certainly not likely to know what it means for them to be marsupials.
Then there is the whole section discussing origin, where scientific theory is relegated to a position less worthy of note than aboriginal-Australian myth. It is also mostly composed of questioning of the relevance of its merit, simply by accusing scientists of not believing in a deity. That issue belongs on a whole other page. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:15, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Feel free to suggest a new opening, or even change it yourself, if you have something better, but I'm personally not convinced that your criticism of the reference to marsupials is valid.
:As for the second part of your criticism, however, I flatly reject it, as you are equating the evolutionary view (i.e. the atheist origins myth) with "[[natural science|science]]". Scientists who start from a position that one view is not worthy of being considered because it requires a Creator in Whom they don't believe, are not being scientific, but are imposing their worldview (a.k.a. [[religion]]) on the evidence in an unscientific manner.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming only for the sake of argument that your statement is true, how would that be different from what is going on here? Isn't the assumption of creation just as equally an imposition of world view on aboriginal Australians?
::: Thanks for choosing to address my response instead of ignoring it and pushing your own POV as many do.
::: What I said was that evolutionists are imposing their worldview on ''the evidence''. That is not the same thing as imposing a creationist view on ''the Aboriginal view''. Furthermore, if anyone is imposing a view over the Aboriginal view, its the evolutionists. Aboriginal views (and there is more than one) are all ''creationist'', in that they all believe that kangaroos were ''created''; they don't believe that kangaroos ''evolved''.
::: The parallel that you should be asking about is whether creationists are also imposing their worldview on ''the evidence''. In a sense they are, but there are two differences between what creationists do and what evolutionists do:
:::* Creationists do not claim that every phenomenon is a direct creation by God, even though they believe that He is the ''ultimate'' source. Therefore, they are free to choose between a supernatural explanation (e.g. God directly created grey kangaroos) and a "naturalistic" one (e.g. that grey kangaroos are the result of speciation from the original created "kangaroo kind"). Committed evolutionists, especially atheistic ones, rule out one of these choices before even considering it.
:::* Creationists point out that, ultimately, we all must interpret the evidence within our worldview, so in that sense evolutionists and creationists are both doing the same thing. However, Creationists acknowledge this point, whereas evolutionists deny it, by claiming that their views are "science" and "fact".
::: I hope that clarifies things somewhat.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Delete last section devoted to evolutionists = atheists ==

I have deleted the last section which began with "For example" and continues with a statistical breakup of how many biologists are praying on their knees as contrasted with how many are shaking their fist at the Almighty, as unarguably off topic. This is an article on kangaroos, not the blind bigotry of atheistic biologists. In any case, it is not clear of what the "example" is supposed to be. If necessary, and I don't think it is, there should be a link to one of the "Let's all create a New World - a new medieval world" sites. I might note in passing that I have never seen an article in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia or scientific journal for that matter) on the origins of kangaroos, camels or mole-rats which felt it necessary to expound on the religous beliefs of those individuals who had been responsible for the research. So who are the bigots now? {{unsigned|MylesP}}
: I think the section that you deleted came about by someone adding that the vast majority of biologists believe that 'roos evolved, as a sort of not-so-subtle argument-by-majority-view, so someone else added correctly that this "majority view" was a worldview-based view.
: The "for example" was an indication of the worldviews, to support the claim that their views on 'roo origins was worldview-based. I agree that this thought didn't flow terribly obviously.
: You are only partly correct that Wikipedia (etc.) don't expound on the religious views of the scientists with particular views, but this is because they don't recognise that one's views of origins is based on one's religious views. They work under the false premise that evolution is objective science rather than worldview-based assumptions. You are partly ''incorrect'' because if someone tries to put a creationist view into a Wikipedia article, you will very quickly have the religious basis of the creationist view expounded, as justification for not putting that view in at all.
: As we are not Wikipedia, and do not have this anti-Christian/anti-Creationist bias, we are happy to (a) present both views, and (b) explain why different people have different views.
:Having said all that, I'm generally happy to avoid arguments in articles about which view is best, i.e. simply keep it neutral and, where origins is relevant at all, mention both views briefly.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:46, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::I found the same bit put back in the article. Either someone is very zealous or very confused. I removed it once more.--[[User:Fizz|Fizz]] 16:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Baraminological musings (where are they now?) ==

Re: the following excerpt on Kangaroo origins:

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.
(quote ends)

I gather that the hocus-pocus below is a long-winded way of saying that these estimable baraminological “scientists” have not yet decided if the listed animals all came from one ancestor. I am wondering how long it will take these researchers to determine an answer to this question, and what research has been done to date. Are there any papers published on the baraminological status of such animals? Is there any field research being undertaken trying to interbreed them to see if they are hybrids?

I am also interested in why it is only kangaroos that have been described in baraminological terms in Conservapedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any other animal at all, marsupial or otherwise, that has been given this bizarre treatment? And if not, why not? Surely, every article on an animal should have a similar note on the musings of these tireless researchers? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:49, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:MylesP, your bigotry does you no favours. Some of your questions are valid and I would be happy to answer them, but your sarcasm and putting "scientists" in "scare quotes" as though they are not really scientists is abusive ad hominem, and referring to a scientific discipline that you don't agree with as "hocus-pocus" is arrogance as well. Therefore, you don't deserve an answer. In fact, you've earned yourself a short block [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)

== The atheist and/or evolutionary view ==

Before a revert war breaks out: '''The theory of evolution is not atheistic.''' It makes ''no statement whatsoever'' about the existence of a higher power. One can believe in a higher power and also believe that evolution caused the origin of species on Earth. '''Don't confuse "not Christian" with "not theistic."''' Furthermore, being atheistic does not necessarily mean one subscribes to the theory of evolution. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 17:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
: The theory of evolution is atheistic not primarily because it makes a statement about a higher power, but because it is based on the presumption of no higher power. That is, it is an attempt to describe origins without invoking God. Further, for many people it ''does'' mean just what you say it doesn't mean. Sir Julian Huxley:
{{QuoteBox|In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4322/105/]}}
: What other view than evolution would atheists subscribe to?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

:: That's not true, though. What Julian Huxley described ''isn't'' the Theory of Evolution. It states nothing about either the origin of Earth, the origin of life on it or the existence of a god or gods. It says ''only'' that the variations of life we see today evolved from earlier forms via natural selection. That's all. There is nothing that says that, for example, a deity didn't create the Universe and Earth, plant life on it and created the rules by which evolution would occur. It's compatible with theism in general, just not the majority of creation myths.
:: Atheism means a statement about the nonexistence of gods. Evolution is a biological theory, it doesn't even come ''close'' to touching that topic. You can't have either a theistic or atheistic scientific theory because the scientific method cannot test the supernatural. Secular is the adjective which best describes a scientific theory in regards to the existence of gods. That is, it's entirely unrelated.
:: There are two alternatives (that I can think of) to the Theory of Evolution that an atheist could subscribe to which have also been, at some point, well-accepted: Spontaneous Generation <ref>http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm</ref> and [[Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck|Lamarckism]].
:: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Kangaroo

2008-09-08T21:34:24Z

Rspeed: The atheist and/or evolutionary view

__TOC__
== The atheist and/or evolutionary view ==

Before a revert war breaks out: '''The theory of evolution is not atheistic.''' It makes ''no statement whatsoever'' about the existence of a higher power. One can believe in a higher power and also believe that evolution caused the origin of species on Earth. '''Don't confuse "not Christian" with "not theistic."''' Furthermore, being atheistic does not necessarily mean one subscribes to the theory of evolution. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 17:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)

== Uncatagorized ==

I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --[[User:John|John]] 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::The Truth, perhaps? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=20&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22intelligent+design%22 7790 peer-reviewed articles] on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in ''Science'' or ''Nature''--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=intelligent+design] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::On the other hand...[http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=kangaroo+evolution&word2=kangaroo+intelligent+design][[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::: I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that ''proponents'' were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::::What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

:::::::Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::::::Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[http://objectiveministries.org/creation/propaganda.html]]? I thought that was satire. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

:I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== "religious theories" ==

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

:"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. [[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]] 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up.
[[User:Palmd001|Palmd001]] 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time.
Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--[[User:Joobs|Joobs]] 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia '''IS''' evolution, is it not?
Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? {{unsigned|Loveandpeace}}

:No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the ''design'' of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the ''addition'' of ''brand-new'' genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

::Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation ''is'' evolution. Larger changes over longer times are ''also'' evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
:::The problem is that the [[definition of evolution]] is so woolly it can cover almost anything. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

== Space Ship Theory ==

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)

::So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, [[Scrap]]? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Of course it's not '''just''' for me to make bad jokes. It's '''also''' a source of ''unintentional'' hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of [[Groupthink]]. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --[[User:Scrap|Scrap]] 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

this has as much scientific backup as the information stated in the article. very nice theory --[[User:Completeliberal|Completeliberal]] 23:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Care to get into specifics? Unless you do, this reply to a six-month-old comment is pointless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)

specifics? i'm talking about the theory with regards to the existence of Noah's ark. can you prove this? yeah it might be in the bible. but many things in the bible were scientifically incorrect-for example the stories of adam and eve. these were obviously proved wrong. yeah i respect the bibles teachings of good morals yet the facts in it are wrong. my issue with this site is that it is an educational resource yet encourages ignorance. --[[User:Completeliberal|nomen]] 23:44, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Can I prove that Noah's Ark existed? What sort of proof would you like? I can't give scientific proof, because it's ''history'', i.e. outside the realm of science. But I can point you to ''historical'' evidence, such as the Bible.
: What is "scientifically incorrect" about Adam and Eve? And how and where were they "proved" wrong? And what other supposed "wrong facts" does the Bible contain? I don't know of any, despite studying it for many years.
: And despite me asking for specifics (which you did to some extent), you then come out with another unsubstantiated over-generalisation, that this site "encourages ignorance". Where, specifically, does it do that?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== why is this page locked? ==

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page?
Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

== Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. ==

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 catastrophic continental drift theory]. Please keep that in in the future. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.

== Native?? ==
How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 13:07, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[natural science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

== Genetic bottleneck ==

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)
:I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think [[cheetah]]s went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...
[http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/moments/s40791.htm cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english]
[http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/90/8/3172.pdf the same in scientific terms]
[[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
::A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/bottleneck.html

:However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
:{{unsigned|Wagnerpe}}

::I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine [[baramin|kind]], and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck ''after'' they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
::So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

== Mats of vegetation ==

Was the argument that kangaroos floated across the Indian Ocean to Australia on mats of vegetation inserted into the article to make Young Earth Creationism look foolish? It's completely implausible. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

:I see that the cited source doesn't actually say that kangaroos traveled on mats of vegetation. (It does cite an anonymous "evolutionist" who says that lemurs ''may'' have traveled this way to Madagascar.) Perhaps this should just be removed? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::Fair enough; I have removed it. One problem is that that source is not talking about kangaroos in particular, but more generally about how various creatures got to Australia. The clear suggestion is that some creatures may have got to Australia on floating mats of vegetation, but without being specific about which creatures, and presumably this is only likely to apply to much smaller creatures. I'm still not altogether happy with some of the remaining wording in that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution ==

Evolution should wikilink to [[Theory of Evolution]]. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:01, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
:Done. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)

== Junk the article, start over ==
This article reads like something a second grader would write and needs significant work. Starting with "Kangaroos are the largest Marsupials alive today" is simply un-encyclopedic, if for no other reason than people who want to learn about kangaroos are certainly not likely to know what it means for them to be marsupials.
Then there is the whole section discussing origin, where scientific theory is relegated to a position less worthy of note than aboriginal-Australian myth. It is also mostly composed of questioning of the relevance of its merit, simply by accusing scientists of not believing in a deity. That issue belongs on a whole other page. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:15, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Feel free to suggest a new opening, or even change it yourself, if you have something better, but I'm personally not convinced that your criticism of the reference to marsupials is valid.
:As for the second part of your criticism, however, I flatly reject it, as you are equating the evolutionary view (i.e. the atheist origins myth) with "[[natural science|science]]". Scientists who start from a position that one view is not worthy of being considered because it requires a Creator in Whom they don't believe, are not being scientific, but are imposing their worldview (a.k.a. [[religion]]) on the evidence in an unscientific manner.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming only for the sake of argument that your statement is true, how would that be different from what is going on here? Isn't the assumption of creation just as equally an imposition of world view on aboriginal Australians?
::: Thanks for choosing to address my response instead of ignoring it and pushing your own POV as many do.
::: What I said was that evolutionists are imposing their worldview on ''the evidence''. That is not the same thing as imposing a creationist view on ''the Aboriginal view''. Furthermore, if anyone is imposing a view over the Aboriginal view, its the evolutionists. Aboriginal views (and there is more than one) are all ''creationist'', in that they all believe that kangaroos were ''created''; they don't believe that kangaroos ''evolved''.
::: The parallel that you should be asking about is whether creationists are also imposing their worldview on ''the evidence''. In a sense they are, but there are two differences between what creationists do and what evolutionists do:
:::* Creationists do not claim that every phenomenon is a direct creation by God, even though they believe that He is the ''ultimate'' source. Therefore, they are free to choose between a supernatural explanation (e.g. God directly created grey kangaroos) and a "naturalistic" one (e.g. that grey kangaroos are the result of speciation from the original created "kangaroo kind"). Committed evolutionists, especially atheistic ones, rule out one of these choices before even considering it.
:::* Creationists point out that, ultimately, we all must interpret the evidence within our worldview, so in that sense evolutionists and creationists are both doing the same thing. However, Creationists acknowledge this point, whereas evolutionists deny it, by claiming that their views are "science" and "fact".
::: I hope that clarifies things somewhat.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 3 November 2007 (EDT)

== Delete last section devoted to evolutionists = atheists ==

I have deleted the last section which began with "For example" and continues with a statistical breakup of how many biologists are praying on their knees as contrasted with how many are shaking their fist at the Almighty, as unarguably off topic. This is an article on kangaroos, not the blind bigotry of atheistic biologists. In any case, it is not clear of what the "example" is supposed to be. If necessary, and I don't think it is, there should be a link to one of the "Let's all create a New World - a new medieval world" sites. I might note in passing that I have never seen an article in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia or scientific journal for that matter) on the origins of kangaroos, camels or mole-rats which felt it necessary to expound on the religous beliefs of those individuals who had been responsible for the research. So who are the bigots now? {{unsigned|MylesP}}
: I think the section that you deleted came about by someone adding that the vast majority of biologists believe that 'roos evolved, as a sort of not-so-subtle argument-by-majority-view, so someone else added correctly that this "majority view" was a worldview-based view.
: The "for example" was an indication of the worldviews, to support the claim that their views on 'roo origins was worldview-based. I agree that this thought didn't flow terribly obviously.
: You are only partly correct that Wikipedia (etc.) don't expound on the religious views of the scientists with particular views, but this is because they don't recognise that one's views of origins is based on one's religious views. They work under the false premise that evolution is objective science rather than worldview-based assumptions. You are partly ''incorrect'' because if someone tries to put a creationist view into a Wikipedia article, you will very quickly have the religious basis of the creationist view expounded, as justification for not putting that view in at all.
: As we are not Wikipedia, and do not have this anti-Christian/anti-Creationist bias, we are happy to (a) present both views, and (b) explain why different people have different views.
:Having said all that, I'm generally happy to avoid arguments in articles about which view is best, i.e. simply keep it neutral and, where origins is relevant at all, mention both views briefly.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:46, 30 November 2007 (EST)

::I found the same bit put back in the article. Either someone is very zealous or very confused. I removed it once more.--[[User:Fizz|Fizz]] 16:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)

== Baraminological musings (where are they now?) ==

Re: the following excerpt on Kangaroo origins:

According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.
(quote ends)

I gather that the hocus-pocus below is a long-winded way of saying that these estimable baraminological “scientists” have not yet decided if the listed animals all came from one ancestor. I am wondering how long it will take these researchers to determine an answer to this question, and what research has been done to date. Are there any papers published on the baraminological status of such animals? Is there any field research being undertaken trying to interbreed them to see if they are hybrids?

I am also interested in why it is only kangaroos that have been described in baraminological terms in Conservapedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any other animal at all, marsupial or otherwise, that has been given this bizarre treatment? And if not, why not? Surely, every article on an animal should have a similar note on the musings of these tireless researchers? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:49, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:MylesP, your bigotry does you no favours. Some of your questions are valid and I would be happy to answer them, but your sarcasm and putting "scientists" in "scare quotes" as though they are not really scientists is abusive ad hominem, and referring to a scientific discipline that you don't agree with as "hocus-pocus" is arrogance as well. Therefore, you don't deserve an answer. In fact, you've earned yourself a short block [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)

Kangaroo

2008-09-08T21:10:47Z

Rspeed: Undo revision 510832 by Conservative; Being atheistic doesn't mean subscribing to the theory of evolution.

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[marsupial]]s alive today. Excluding specimens sent overseas, they are only found on the continent of [[Australia]] apart from some species in some areas of [[Papua New Guinea]]<ref>[http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html Australia's kangaroos], Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</ref>. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include [[wallabies]] and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

===Creationism===
Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos. Rebecca Driver writes:

{{QuoteBox|The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)... However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. ''Wabularoo naughtoni'', supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>Driver, Rebecca, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], ''Creation'' 20(3):28–31, June 1998.</ref>}}

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[young earth creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the super-continent of [[Pangea]] broke apart.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>

The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

===Evolution===
The [[Evolution|evolutionary]] view is that kangaroos and other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref>

===Dreamtime===
Some [[Australian Aborigines]] believe that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the [[Dreamtime]].<ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Talk:Essay:Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever

2008-07-15T23:03:55Z

Rspeed: Forgot my signature

== Tiktaalik ==

"Similarly, tiktaalik is simply a fish with slightly better-than-usually-developed pectoral and pelvic fins."

You left out the strong ribcage, wrist joints, lungs and a mobile neck.

-- [[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]]

Talk:Essay:Evolution Is More Vulnerable than Ever

2008-07-15T23:03:35Z

Rspeed: Tiktaalik

== Tiktaalik ==

"Similarly, tiktaalik is simply a fish with slightly better-than-usually-developed pectoral and pelvic fins."

You left out the strong ribcage, wrist joints, lungs and a mobile neck.

User:Rspeed

2008-07-07T03:44:51Z

Rspeed: Cleanup and clarifications

I consider myself to be a strong fiscal conservative and a social moderate. If you call me a liberal I'll call you an idiot.

== Overview of my Ideas ==

These are ideas, not beliefs. I try not to have beliefs as they cause irrational thoughts. Below is the outline of common conservative characteristics and my stance on the topics. A plus indicates that I agree, a minus indicates that I disagree and a plus/minus indicates that I have a neural or partial stance.

'''+ A strong national defense'''

More correctly, I support an ''intelligent'' national defense. The current state of our military is bloated and dominates far too much of our federal budget. I support efforts to decrease the size of our military, but strongly support efforts to maintain its ability to react quickly to significant threats. Both the Second World War and the Cold War caused our military spending to grow, but not enough has been done to recover from that.

'''- Return of prayer in school'''

Though I am not offended by prayer, I do not support prayer in public schools as it is incompatible with the first amendment.

'''+ The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms'''

I disagree strongly with the liberal view that the second amendment only protects militias.

'''Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)'''

'''± Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty'''

'''± Parents, rather than school teachers, educating children about sex'''

As it is a public health issue, educating children about sex should be a free public service.

'''+ Choice in education'''

And I believe we have this in the United States.

'''+ Private medical care and retirement plans'''

The health care issue is a social problem caused by abusive litigation. Universal health care will only exacerbate the issue.

'''+ Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs'''

There are many people who are dependent on social programs who are capable of being self-sufficient.

'''- Prohibition of abortion'''

I see this as a personal issue. I personally disagree with abortion, but it's not my decision to make. Additionally, see my opinion on other types of prohibition below.

'''- Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses'''

Marriage is a contract, and I see no reason to limit a marriage contract based on gender or numbers. The only arguments I have seen against gay marriage are religious in origin (see First Amendment for my opinion).

'''- Support of laws against pornography'''

In general? Absolutely not. This would just be another failed prohibition.

'''+ Generally opposed to the United Nations'''

This is a bit of a mixed bag and I don't want the US to leave the UN, however I do believe it is flawed in a number of significant ways and isn't serving its intended purpose.

'''+ Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration'''

They exist for a very good reason. At the same time, we should make it easier to become a citizen. Either effort alone won't solve the problem.

'''+ Support tightening of border security'''

I'm not so foolish to believe that we can truly seal them. Trying to do so is ineffective and a massive waste of money. Like our military, we need to be smarter about solving the problem.

'''+ Respect for our military ... past and present'''

Absolutely. They've earned our respect. I also disagree with the notion that liberals don't respect our military.

'''+ Low taxes'''

See my stance on the military and social programs. Less spending means less taxes.

'''+ Opening foreign markets to U.S. products'''

It's important to protect our GNP. Though I have a limited knowledge of international trade, my impression is that the best way to accomplish this is a positive foreign policy (something that has been suffering for a long time, especially during George W Bush's administration) and to limit government interference of businesses.

===Other important topics===

'''+ Ending prohibition on drugs and prostitution'''

Although I've never used illegal drugs or hired a prostitute, I believe that their illegal status has no positive effect and only leads to an increase in criminal activity. I believe that both should be treated much like alcohol. Prohibition does not work because you cannot legislate morality.

'''+ Return to the gold standard'''

The US Federal Reserve serves only to devalue the US Dollar. The gold standard maintained the strong US economy during most of the nation's history and should be reimplemented immediately to prevent a collapse of our economy.

User:Rspeed

2008-07-04T17:32:06Z

Rspeed: Outlining my ideas

I consider myself to be a strong fiscal conservative and a social moderate. If you call me a liberal I'll call you an idiot.

== Overview of my Ideas ==

These are ideas, not beliefs. I try not to have beliefs as they cause irrational thoughts. Below is the outline of common conservative characteristics and my stance on the topics. A plus indicates that I agree, a minus indicates that I disagree and a plus/minus indicates that I have a neural or partial stance.

'''+ A strong national defense'''

More correctly, I support an ''intelligent'' national defense. The current state of our military is bloated and dominates far too much of our federal budget. I support efforts to decrease the size of our military, but strongly support efforts to maintain its ability to react quickly to significant threats. Both the Second World War and the Cold War caused our military spending to grow, but not enough has been done to recover from that.

'''- Return of prayer in school'''

Though I am not offended by prayer, I do not support prayer in public schools as it is incompatible with the first amendment. I do not, however,

'''+ The Second Amendment Right to Keep and Bear Arms'''

I disagree strongly with the liberal view that the second amendment only protects militias.

'''Economic allocative efficiency (as opposed to popular equity)'''

'''± Stronger law enforcement and anti-crime laws, including the death penalty'''

'''± Parents, rather than school teachers, educating children about sex'''

I believe that educating children about sex should be a free public service, as it is a public health issue. I'd prefer if this was provided outside the school setting.

'''+ Choice in education'''

And I believe we have this.

'''+ Private medical care and retirement plans'''

The health care issue is a social problem caused by abusive litigation. Universal health care will only exacerbate the issue.

'''+ Weakening or cancellation of failed social support programs'''

'''- Prohibition of abortion'''

I see this as a personal issue. I disagree with abortion, but it's not my decision to make. See my opinion on other types of prohibition below.

'''- Opposition to same-sex marriage licenses'''

Marriage is a contract, and I see no reason to limit a marriage contract based on gender or numbers. The only arguments I have seen against gay marriage are religious in origin.

'''- Support of laws against pornography'''

In general? Absolutely not.

'''+ Generally opposed to the United Nations'''

This is a bit of a mixed bag and I don't want the US to leave the UN, however I do believe it is flawed in a number of significant ways.

'''+ Support enforcement of current laws regarding immigration'''

They exist for a very good reason.

'''+ Support tightening of border security'''

I'm not so foolish to believe that we can completely seal them, however. Trying to do so is a waste of money.

'''+ Respect for our military ... past and present'''

Absolutely. They've earned our respect. I also disagree with the notion that liberals don't respect our military.

'''+ Low taxes'''

See my stance on the military and social programs.

'''+ Opening foreign markets to U.S. products'''

It's important to protect our GNP. Though I have a limited knowledge of international trade, my impression is that the best way to accomplish this is a positive foreign policy (something that has been suffering for a long time, especially during the second Bush administration) and to limit government interference of businesses.

===Other important topics===

'''+ Ending prohibition on drugs and prostitution'''

Although I've never used illegal drugs or hired a prostitute, I believe that their illegal status has no positive effect and only leads to an increase in criminal activity. I believe that both should be treated much like alcohol. Prohibition does not work because you cannot legislate morality.

'''+ Return to the gold standard'''

The US Federal Reserve serves only to devalue the US Dollar. The gold standard maintained the strong US economy during most of the nation's history and should be reimplemented immediately to prevent a collapse of our economy.

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-07-04T00:35:14Z

Rspeed: /* More replies to archived comments */

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]

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

== Reply to comments in archive ==

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

: [[Lenski]] says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

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

::As clearly stated in Professor [[Lenski]]'s second response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

:::::: Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

:::::: Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

:::::: No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

:::::: Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

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

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

:::::: Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper: Books? Magazines? Newspapers? What type of books? What subjects? My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More replies to archived comments ==

:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:
::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
::::: We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here. As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer. But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for. The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
::::: I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
::::: They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: "''We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended.''": So? Like all analogies, it's not perfect. Evolution doesn't go around in circles like travelling around the Earth, so that reply is invalid, and the objection remains: mutations go in the wrong direction.
:::::: "''[http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.''": No, they are not good links at all. From memory of checking the first one out before, it has little of substance. The second is a disagreement over a particular case, not a general look at information, and has some errors in it that I can identify.
:::::: "''I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?''": I said "evidence", not "proof". If you don't understand the difference, read the relevant sections in my [[Essay: Accuracy vs. neutrality on Conservapedia]]. Creationism ''also'' proposes mutations, so the fact that a mutation happened is not evidence favouring evolution.
:::::: "''They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.''": The New Scientist article quoted Jerry Coyne saying "it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events, ... That's just what creationists say can't happen.". What creationists say "can't happen" is an ''increase in information''. So if you are claiming that nobody is claiming this to be an increase in information, they you are claiming that Jerry Coyne doesn't know what he's talking about regarding what creationists claim (which could be the case, actually!). As for your example, a short third leg probably doesn't require new information anyway. We already have the information for legs, so failure (mutation) of a switch might result in a third one (it's happened with animals), and another fault (mutation) might cause that third leg to be stunted. So if Lenski's discovery is like this, then it really is the case that it doesn't support evolution, because microbes-to-microbiologist evolution requires ''new'' genetic information.
:::::: "''[Sexual reproduction] varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.''": That sounds like hand-waving to me, rather than an argument of substance.
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:40, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

: BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule. For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information. However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get ''something'' simple that is new. And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that ''in this case'' it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this ''did'' happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted. But the question is not ''really'' how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones. And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction. That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation? Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).
: Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence ''for'' creation? If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it ''is'' evidence for it! You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans. Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours ''individuals'', not ''mutations'', then a less-fit ''individual'' will be selected ''against'' even with the odd "good" mutation. So really, it will occur a lot ''slower'' for humans than for bacteria.
: For more information on this, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4473 this] brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It's amusing to me that you cite Haldane's Dilemma, even though it was debunked at the same time it was given that name. As Leigh Van Valen pointed out on page in his paper [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2458906 Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis], significant evolutionary changes occur when the environmental changes cause unadapted organisms have less reproductive success. This holds with evolutionary theory, as there is abundant evidence of large changes occurring in organisms at times where their environment changes and their population is small. Mind you, this is the paper which originated the term "Haldane's Dilemma", so with the exception of J. B. S. Haldane's papers, this is the original source. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

: Philip, the massive increase in size is just one (and the most readily visible) aspect of Coelacanthiforme's evolution since the end of the Cretaceous. If you want firm proof, there are significant differences in skeletal structure between the most closely-related ancient and modern species of coelacanth (Macropoma and Latimeria). It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 15:01, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:: There have apparently been various ''attempts'' to debunk Haldane's Dilemma, but those attempts have themselves been debunked. In 1992 (well after Van Valen's paper), George C. Williams wrote of Haldane's Dilemma, "In my opinion the problem was never solved, by Wallace or anyone else."[http://saintpaulscience.com/Haldane.htm]
:: "''It is an established fact that modern species of coelacanth are in a separate genus''": Oh? Because you say so? Yet you didn't explain how this can be determined without interfertility tests. No, this "established fact" is by decree, not scientific tests of interfertility.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
::: "Oh? Because you say so?" No, because the scientists who know how to determine taxonomy said so. Your argument is unbelievably weak, by that logic humans could be genetically compatible with T-Rex. Rather than simply dismissing everything that disagrees with the Bible, you should probably do some research from reliable sources. The scientific method exists for a reason.
::: That's fine about someone disagreeing with Van Valen's conclusions, but can you share his reasoning? I found Van Valen's debunking of Haldane's Dilemma to be quite logical and it fits with the data (such as Prof. Lenski's experiment).
::: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 20:35, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==

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

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

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

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

[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

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

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

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

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog, ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''

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

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::::Thudden''':''' ''As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident?'' This betrays a unequivocal lack of understanding of scientific process and acclaim. Hundreds of world-altering scientific discoveries have been serendipitous: Pauling and Penicillin, Galvani and neuroelectricity, Nagano's discovery of interferon, Becquerel and Röntgen's discovery of radioactivity and X-rays respectively. If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim, perhaps only with added envy.
::''"If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim,"'' I disagree -- IMO things discovered by intelligent searching are more highly regarded. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 06:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::''Thudden: Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided.

::::''"Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided."''
::::It is just my own personal opinion -- I have no opinion poll results on the question. Do you have any opinion poll results to back up your statement?
::::I was especially impressed by the way Neptune was discovered in 1846 -- a mathematician predicted its location on the basis of perturbations of the motion of Uranus, and Neptune was found in one night very close to the predicted spot. Also, Pluto was found on the basis of perturbations in Neptune's motion but the search took much longer.
::::You should sign your comments at the end, not the beginning -- when you sign them at the beginning, it looks like you are addressing someone (that is what I originally thought about your preceding comment). [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

::::''"Enjoy your time here."'' I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::How could a random event, Cit+ evolution, be a "hypothesis"? Even Zachary Blount used the term "goal." What is wrong with saying that an experiment has a "goal" (or "goals")? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Because according to the [[Scientific method]] the objective of an experiment is to test an hypothesis. Remember that things are not proved in science - only disproved. The objective of an experiment is never to "prove" anything - only to test an hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed then it is strengthened, if it not confirmed it is weakened or discarded. Consequently the fundamental question to ask of an experiment is, "What hypothesis was being tested?" --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::How would you describe Cit+ evolution as a hypothesis, even assuming that Cit+ evolution had not been observed before (Cit+ evolution was observed prior to Lenski's experiment) ?[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm afraid that's for you to figure out. As I've said, the only sensible way for you to ask the question you want answered is to form it as a question about the hypothesis. How you manage that is down to you. :-)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::''"I'm afraid that's for you to figure out."'' It's your idea that it must be stated as a hypothesis, so showing how it can be stated as a hypothesis is your responsibility. Anyway, Lenski could not hypothesize about whether Cit+ evolution could occur, because it had been observed prior to the start of his experiment. All he could do was consider Cit+ evolution to be a "goal" of his experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help. Anyway, the article on [[Scientific method]] ''on this wiki'' states that the reason for an experiment is to test an hypothesis - so it's not my opinion but what this Wiki states. I suppose you could edit the article so this it reflects your view of how science works. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time). The null hypothesis (not supported by the results of the experiments) is that the Cit+ strain arises by a single, exceptionally rare event.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: ''"Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time)."''
:::::I was aware that one of the original goals of the experiment was to test for historical contingency -- that was the reason for freezing the populations at each 500th generation. My questions were about other things: (1) was Cit+ evolution an original goal of the experiment (remember that this whole experiment started in 1988, long before the study in the present paper), (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient glucose supplies so as to cause alternating glucose feeding and starvation), and (3) what were other purposes -- if any -- of the glucose-cycling. Zachary Blount did not give a straight answer to the first question and gave no answers at all to the latter two questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:12, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli. The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource. The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you. There is no other purpose to providing the bacteria with a limited supply of glucose. Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer - it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one. 
:::::::You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions - and your response seems to be that he does not deserve praise for this, since he didn't set out with this particular outcome in mind - it's just an accident, if in fact the Cit+ bacteria exist at all. Or maybe you object because you think Lenski somehow 'stacked the deck' in favor of his bacteria becoming Cit+, so the results aren't 'fair' somehow. Or perhaps you think that after 20 years of failing to develop a Cit+ strain of E. coli through selection, Lenski just gave up, genetically engineered such a strain, and then faked his data. If you could clearly state what your suspicions are, rather than simply repeating that Blount won't answer your questions, it would be simpler to address your concerns. 
:::::::This is utterly beside the point, however, because the importance of this recent paper does not depend on the detail of the strain being Cit+ - it could have been the development of a toxin, or some other event that led the new strain to be markedly, phenotypically different from its ancestors in some way. The importance lies in the work that was done to sketch out the outline of how the new trait developed, and in the re-development of the same trait during a re-running of the experiment from ancestral stock. 
:::::::Is it interesting that the trait seen in Lenski's E. coli is the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions? Yes. Is it remarkable? Yes, since you can count the number of E. coli strains that can do this on one hand. It's so wild and crazy that it might lead one to question whether the bacteria involved should even be called E. coli anymore - it's that striking a difference from 'normal' E. coli behavior. Was the development of the Cit+ strain an accident? Entirely. Would another Cit+ strain arise if the experiment was completely restarted from 1988? Almost certainly not - Lenski's data suggests that this is a staggeringly unlikely event, dependent on a series of merely overwhelmingly unlikely events. Did Lenski wish to develop a Cit+ strain from the beginning? No man can know the inner mind of another, but I would bet the farm that he didn't see this coming. If I were designing an E. coli breeding scheme with the stated purpose of selecting for a Cit+ mutant, I can think of much, much, much better ways to do it than this experimental protocol. The Cit+ trait is a novelty - an interesting one, one that is remarkable because of its rarity, one that resonates - but the value of the research does not depend upon it. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli."''
::::I am trying to get answers to some simple, basic questions about the experiment. Is there something wrong with that?
::::Also, the "semantics" -- as you call them -- of "goal" are very important. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that a goal is necessarily an expected result or is necessarily an intended result. Just going around telling people that the Cit+ evolution was not a goal can be very misleading.
:::::If you want to expand the term 'goal' to the point that you include unexpected, unintended results then you rob it of all meaning. By your reasoning, my getting into a fatal car accident is the 'goal' of my driving to the grocery store. If you think that 'goal' is a term of art that describes the entire universe of possible outcomes of an action, you are mistaken. If you want Blount et al to admit that the emergence of a Cit+ mutant was '''possible''', given the experimental protocol, then I think that you already have your answer: yes. Was it expected? No. Was the experiment designed from the beginning to favor Cit+ mutation over some other pathway? No.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource."''
::::That statement is too vague.
:::::What part is too vague? The alternatives to glucose cycling are: provide so much glucose that cell growth remains exponential up through the time of the next sampling; provide so little glucose that there is no cell division at all; or use a chemostat setup in which the glucose concentration can be maintained at a constant, arbitrary level indefinitely at the cost of vastly increased material and labor costs to the experimenter.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you."''
::::The glucose cycling gives an especially big advantage to Cit+ bacteria because they have something to eat after the glucose supply is exhausted whereas their Cit- neighbors do not.
:::::It gives them '''an''' advantage. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how '''big''' an advantage it is, because instead of being unable to metabolize citrate they may merely be terrible at it. If the Cit- cells are better at glucose metabolism than the Cit+ ones are, they may completely swamp out the Cit+ in the early, glucose-dependent phase. Even if the Cit+ cells continue to grow after the glucose is exhausted, they may never completely outcompete the Cit- cells by the time the next population sample is taken. In fact, this appears to be what has happened, as the experiment has shown that two populations of cells originating from the Ara-3 line have reached a temporary equilibrium: a grows-very-fast-on-glucose Cit- population (10%) and a grows-more-slowly-on-glucose-but-keeps-growing-on-citrate Cit+ population (90%). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer -- it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one."''
::::Yes, I know it is there as a chelating agent -- but I also want to know if Cit+ evolution was a goal (again, a goal does not have to be an expected result and can even be an unlikely result) and if favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (I also would like to know if there were other purposes of the glucose-cycling and exactly how any other purposes work). The fact that Cit+ evolution was observed once previously adds to my hunch that it was a goal. Also, the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate and just needed to evolve a way to pass citrate through the cell wall.
::::''"You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions"''
::::Well, he is getting a lot of acclaim for it, isn't he? The paper has been widely ballyhooed all over the Internet. The Internet has several articles and hundreds of comments about it.
:::::He does not deserve acclaim because he is a farmer who has a goose that lays golden eggs, but because he can demonstrate in rough form how the goose came to lay golden eggs when it's grandparents could not. In fact, he has gone back and re-bred the grandparents and gotten golden-egg laying geese again and again, even though none of his other geese, or even the great-grandparents of the golden goose, can breed golden-egg-layers. The real achievement is not having the goose, it's reproducing it against all the odds, and showing that there's something special about the grandparents compared to the greatgrandparents, even though the grandparents appear to be normal. The fact that many folks, including those in the media, can't get past the 'ohmygoshgoldeneggs!!!' phase is not Lenski's fault.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"If you could clearly state what your suspicions are"''
::::Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 20:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help."'' You call that "help"? All you did was clutter up this talk page with your irrelevant "hypothesis" idea. With friends like you, who needs enemies? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it. In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::''"When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it."''
:::::::And you thought -- or seemed to think -- that you were giving it. I am beginning to suspect that you are just a troll.
:::::::''"In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation."''
:::::::No, he has not clarified the situation -- see my above response to him. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I will not stoop to name calling. Goodbye and good luck with your enquiries.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::::::::Mods, can we get a ruling on this? LarryFarma is harassing other users, talking far more than he is making valid contributions, and generally being a troll. If he was defending Lenski instead of attacking the paper, he would have been blocked a long time ago. Can someone please comment on this? I believe we can all make our points without name-calling. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
:::::::In fact, the only contributions that Larry has made have been to this talk page. Can we get a 90/10 block please? [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Aaronp: Is somebody hassling you? People who don't want to read my comments don't have to read them.
::::::::Also, the 90/10 rule doesn't apply here because I cannot make any contributions to the project page, which is reserved for the exchange of letters between Schlafly and Lenski.
::::::::BTW, I am not attacking the paper -- I am only attacking the lead author's failure to give straight answers to simple, basic questions about it. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Okay, here's my two-bob's worth.
::::::::: LarryFarma, this page was started to question the ''validity'' of Lenski's work and claims. Although I can see how questions about his ''goals'' would be relevant to awarding him a prize, I can't see that they are relevant to the validity of his work. I think that this might be the cause of some of the angst, as some editors are assuming that you are trying to question the work's ''validity'' with an argument that has no bearing on that point.
::::::::: Secondly, Aaronp has a point about the so-called 90/10 rule. It's point is to ensure that editors contribute to the site and don't just argue. That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site. The rule is not page-specific in that sense. So as Aaronp has called for that rule to be invoked, and as you have only contributed on this talk page, I think that his request is fair. However, I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

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

::::::The opening sentence of my first comment questions the validity of Lenski's work:
::::::''"IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:"''

::::::You say,
::::::''"Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize"''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in some of my comments. The first part of my message was not as an administrator, but just to try and clarify the issues. I didn't mean to suggest that you hadn't addressed the validity of his claims. It was meant simply to point out that some may be misunderstanding the point of your comments. And I'm not saying that the questions you are raising are not legitimate questions to raise.
::::::: It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited.
::::::: We do allow copying of your own work. There is a template available to note that it is your own work. And of course it can be edited by others, as is the case with all articles.
::::::: If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word, and that might be unfortunate, but that's not going to be reason to ignore the so-called 90/10 rule.
::::::: I'm not suggesting that you are the only one in the wrong here. Uncivil language happens a fair bit. But that's peripheral to the issue I'm discussing here.
::::::: I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics. And fair warning: I've referred to the 90/10 rule as the "so-called" 90/10 rule, because it's not a rule against precisely 90% talk vs. 10% contributions, but a rule against "unproductive activity", with 90/10 being an ''example'' of that. So simply making the odd article edit or posting the odd copied article will not necessarily avoid that rule. It's something that we administrators make a judgement on, and others will make it more readily that I will.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:::::That reminds me of the following lawyer joke:
:::::Customer: What are your rates?
:::::Lawyer: $100 for three questions.
:::::Customer: Isn't that kind of steep?
:::::Lawyer: Yes. What is your third question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive Link?==

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

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Whence Lenski? ==

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp] {{unsigned|Drochld}}

:I'm a little confused about the terminology of the survey. According to the 1998 figures, 7% had "personal belief", 72% had "personal disbelief", and 21% had "doubt (presumably equivalent to atheism) or agnosticism". I know what atheism and agnosticism are, but what does personal disbelief mean in this case? It sounds like agnosticism, but agnosticism is in a separate category. So what is it? Anyone know?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::If they're not believers, and they're not agnostics/doubters, then they're atheists. Atheism = disbelief. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I find it doubtful that are more atheists than agnostics. Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything. I think a survey with more clearly defined choices is called for.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually it is not true to say, ''Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist'' as Conservapedia's article says; [[Weak Atheism]]. Many more scientifically-minded atheists would follow this point of view for the very reasons you state - ''A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.''--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I think the distinction to be made here is between personal belief and what can be proven. It is possible to put forward a definition of God that cannot be tested and is therefore neither provable nor falsifiable, however that wouldn't mean an individual couldn't have a personal belief (or disbelief) in God. If I can be forgiven a pop culture reference, I can't prove I don't live in [[The Matrix]] but I have a personal belief that I don't.--[[User:Boreas|Boreas]] [[User_Talk:Boreas|'''talk''']] 13:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

I assume that Bugler's ignoring of Gnostics such as myself was not an attempt to polarise the community into more easily distinguishable sects. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

== Qualification ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== Bad motive redux ==

I was blocked for two weeks for this post:

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

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

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

''Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.'' I don't think MAnderson is claiming that Lenski ''welcomes'' independent review of "the data", nor does he need to ''welcome'' it in order to act properly. He needs to make it available where it will "allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS". It is evident that you do not wish to either replicate the experiment (which, if Lenski made it up, would fairly conclusively prove him a fraud) nor do you wish to review it in any meaningful way (which may build on the work by revealing its faults). That is the PNAS requirement. It appears that Dr. Georgia Purdom of "Answers in Genesis" has plenty of data to perform her intended review[http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008] (no doubt very negative) of Lenski's research.

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

== Why does it matter? ==
Hello Conservapedians-
It seems like you are making a huge fuss about Leski's experiment, as if you do not want it to be true.I mean, of course it should be subject to peer review, but it JUST came to the general public. Give it time. However, why exactly does it matter, anyway?
There are several dozen OTHER recorded examples of the following:
--Speciation
--Beneficial Mutation
--Mutations adding information
So, while important, it is not like Lenski's data shows us anything new.
If you would like examples of such, just ask. I assume, however, that you are already aware of the observations, and
there is something important
{{unsigned|KevinF}}
: It's mainly Aschlafly that pursued this. Many others, including me, disagreed with that course. That was simply the first of several mistakes you made, and the others relate to you having almost no idea of what creationists believe. Do you support the concept of criticising an idea without knowing much about it? Because that is what you are doing. Creationists ''accept'' speciation. They also ''accept'' beneficial mutations. The one that they ''don't'' accept is mutations adding information, because it is ''not'' observed (apart from some questionable claims, such as this one of Lenski's). I won't ask for examples simply because I've been down this road before, of having supposed examples provided, only to have them not stack up when investigated. When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, ''he was unable to supply any''. And why do you think Lenski's research was cited as answering creationist criticisms? If creationist criticism has been answered so much before, so that this is nothing new, then why make a deal about it as though it ''is'' something new? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:44, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
:"When Richard Dawkins was asked for examples, ''he was unable to supply any''"—Oh, give me a break. Do you honestly expect someone to be able to come up with such information on the spot? --[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|trans]][[User:AutoFire|Resident Transfan]][[User Talk:AutoFire|form!]] 23:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Female genital mutilation

2008-07-04T00:11:12Z

Rspeed: Grammar

'''Female Genital Mutilation''' (FGM) is a practice common in certain parts of the world, especially where traditionalist and [[fundamentalist]] faiths reign. It is seen especially in parts of [[Asia]], the [[Middle East]], and East [[Africa]]. There are many types of FGM, but most share the common characteristics of involuntary mutilation of the clitoris. There are many potential genito-urinary complications, including decreased sexual pleasure, infection, increase in danger of childbirth and urinary incontinence.

==References==
<references/>
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
[[Category:culture]]

Female genital mutilation

2008-07-04T00:10:52Z

Rspeed: Undo revision 484799 by TrueValues (Talk) This was factual. You could argue the totalitarianism point.

'''Female Genital Mutilation''' (FGM) is a practice common in certain parts of the world, especially where traditionalist and [[fundamentalist]] faiths reign. It is seen especially in parts of [[Asia]], the [[Middle East]], and East [[Africa]]. There are many types of FGM, but most share the common characteristics of involuntary mutilation of the clitoris. There are many potential genito-urinary complications, including decreased sexual pleasure, infection, increase in danger of childbirth, urinary incontinence.

==References==
<references/>
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
[[Category:culture]]

Kangaroo

2008-07-04T00:00:06Z

Rspeed: Undo revision 485503 by TrueValues (Talk) This is factual.

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[marsupial]]s alive today. Excluding specimens sent overseas, they are only found on the continent of [[Australia]] apart from some species in some areas of [[Papua New Guinea]]<ref>[http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html Australia's kangaroos], Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</ref>. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include [[wallabies]] and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

===Creationism===
Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos. Rebecca Driver writes:

{{QuoteBox|The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)... However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. ''Wabularoo naughtoni'', supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>Driver, Rebecca, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], ''Creation'' 20(3):28–31, June 1998.</ref>}}

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by [[young earth creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the super-continent of [[Pangea]] broke apart.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>

The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

===Evolution===
The evolutionary view is that kangaroos and other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref> According to their interpretation of genetic and paleontological evidence, a majority of biologists regard [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] as the most likely explanation for the origin of species, including the kangaroo.

===Dreamtime===
Some [[Australian Aborigines]] believe that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the [[Dreamtime]].<ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Kangaroo

2008-07-01T23:23:19Z

Rspeed: /* Creationism */ Cleaned up formatting.

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[marsupial]]s alive today. Excluding specimens sent overseas, they are only found on the continent of [[Australia]] apart from some species in some areas of [[Papua New Guinea]]<ref>[http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html Australia's kangaroos], Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</ref>. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include [[wallabies]] and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

===Creationism===
Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos. Rebecca Driver writes:

{{QuoteBox|The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)... However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. ''Wabularoo naughtoni'', supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>Driver, Rebecca, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], ''Creation'' 20(3):28–31, June 1998.</ref>}}

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by young earth [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the super-continent of [[Pangea]] broke apart.<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>

The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

===Evolution===
The evolutionary view is that kangaroos and other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref> According to their interpretation of genetic and paleontological evidence, a majority of biologists regard [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] as the most likely explanation for the origin of species, including the kangaroo.

===Dreamtime===
Some [[Australian Aborigines]] believe that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the [[Dreamtime]].<ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Kangaroo

2008-07-01T23:21:56Z

Rspeed: /* Dreamtime */ Moved the reference after the period.

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[marsupial]]s alive today. Excluding specimens sent overseas, they are only found on the continent of [[Australia]] apart from some species in some areas of [[Papua New Guinea]]<ref>[http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html Australia's kangaroos], Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</ref>. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include [[wallabies]] and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

===Creationism===
Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos. Rebecca Driver writes:

{{QuoteBox|The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)... However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. ''Wabularoo naughtoni'', supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>Driver, Rebecca, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], ''Creation'' 20(3):28–31, June 1998.</ref>}}

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by young earth [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the super-continent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

===Evolution===
The evolutionary view is that kangaroos and other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref> According to their interpretation of genetic and paleontological evidence, a majority of biologists regard [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] as the most likely explanation for the origin of species, including the kangaroo.

===Dreamtime===
Some [[Australian Aborigines]] believe that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the [[Dreamtime]].<ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

User talk:TrueValues

2008-07-01T23:20:24Z

Rspeed: /* Kangaroo Edits */ forgot sig

Tell me what the liberal drivel is about winning a MacArthur Fellowship or being elected in the US National Academy of Sciences?
Otherwise please stop removing my entries.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Please don't remove cited and relevant material. Thanks, [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:50, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the consideration. --[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:56, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== Kangaroo Edits ==

What made you revert my change (485296) in the first place?--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:20, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

User talk:TrueValues

2008-07-01T23:19:57Z

Rspeed: /* Kangaroo Edits */ new section

Kangaroo

2008-07-01T19:40:35Z

Rspeed: /* Origins */ Reorganized section. Split into three sub-sections.

[[Image:Kangaroo-bree.png|right|Eastern Grey Kangaroo (''Macropus giganteus'')]]

'''Kangaroos''' are the largest [[marsupial]]s alive today. Excluding specimens sent overseas, they are only found on the continent of [[Australia]] apart from some species in some areas of [[Papua New Guinea]]<ref>[http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/kangaroos.html Australia's kangaroos], Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.</ref>. There are at least sixty-nine [[species]] of kangaroo <ref name="kangbio">[http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/biology.html "Kangaroo Biology"], Australian Government</ref>, which include [[wallabies]] and tree-kangaroos.

==Description==

Kangaroos have large ears on top of their small heads, a long snout, and short arms with clawed fingers. Their legs are strong, powerful, and are made for leaping. Their feet have four toes at the end of elongated metatarsi that they rest on when standing. They also have a powerful, thick tail that is used as support when standing, a third-leg when walking slowly, and for counterbalance while leaping. Like all Marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch on their stomachs in which they carry their young.

===Diet===

Kangaroos are [[herbivore]]s, eating grass, roots, and shrubs. They have a chambered stomach similar to [[sheep]] and [[cattle]]. They are able to regurgitate their food, chew it again as [[cud]], and then swallow it for digestion.

===Social Order===

Kangaroos travel in [[mob | mobs]] of about ten or more males and females. The leader of the mob, called a "boomer", is a male determined by age and size. The boomer has access to females in his mob for mating and will wander around the mob intimidating any other males who try to mate with his harem.

===Reproduction===

Female kangaroos usually only have one baby kangaroo (called a "joey") at a time. The newborn joey weighs as little as .03 ounces when first born, after which it crawls into its mothers pouch where it will nurse, grow, and develop. Red Kangaroo joeys will stay in their mothers pouch for about eight months and Grey Kangaroo joeys stay in there for about one year.

===Development of the Young in the Pouch===

Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways. One of the most unusual, is the way females of some species can delay the progress of pregnancy. In this way the female is ready to give birth to a replacement for the young in her pouch if it dies early, or within a week of when it permanently leaves the pouch. This ability to delay births means that there can be up to 12 months between a mating and the birth of the young one resulting from that mating (when the normal gestation period is less than 35 days). It also means that the species can best respond to periods of drought and plenty.

Species which have this unusual ability normally mate again soon after the female gives birth. The tiny newly born kangaroo (less than 25 mm long) moves unaided into its mother's pouch and attaches itself to one of four teats. During the early stages of pouch life the young is permanently attached to the teat, but as it matures and begins to grow hair it also develops the ability to release and reattach itself to the teat.

In the late stages of pouch life, once it has a thin covering of fur, the young one begins to explore the outside world for increasing lengths of time until eventually it is old enough to be excluded permanently from the pouch. Complete weaning may take a number of months more after the young has permanently left the pouch. If the mother gives birth during this time, the newborn young will attach itself to a different teat to that being used by the older young. It is remarkable that when this happens the mother produces two different kinds of milk for the two different-aged young<ref name="kangbio"/>.

==Origins==

===Creationism===
Consistent with their view that the fossil record as a whole does not support the evolutionary position<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/fossils.asp "Fossils Questions and Answers"], Answers In Genesis</ref><ref>[http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/fsslrcrd.html Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record]</ref>, creationists state that there is a lack of transitional fossils showing an evolutionary origin of kangaroos. Rebecca Driver writes:

{{QuoteBox|The Macropod family is alleged to have evolved from either the Phalangeridae (possums) or Burramyidae (pygmy-possums)... However, there are no fossils of animals which appear to be intermediate between possums and kangaroos. ''Wabularoo naughtoni'', supposed ancestor of all the macropods, was clearly a kangaroo (it greatly resembles the potoroos which dwell in Victoria’s forests). If modern kangaroos really did come from it, all this shows is the same as we see happening today, namely that kangaroos come from kangaroos, "after their kind." <ref>Driver, Rebecca, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/755/ Kangaroos: God's amazing craftsmanship], ''Creation'' 20(3):28–31, June 1998.</ref>}}

According to the [[origins theory]] model used by young earth [[creation science | creation scientists]], modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard [[Noah's Ark]] prior to the [[Great Flood]]. It has not yet been determined by [[baraminology | baraminologists]] whether kangaroos form a [[holobaramin]] with the [[wallaby]], [[tree-kangaroo]], [[wallaroo]], [[pademelon]] and [[quokka]], or if all these species are in fact [[Baraminology|apobaramin]]ic or [[Baraminology|polybaramin]]ic.

After the Flood, these kangaroos bred from the Ark passengers migrated to Australia. There is debate whether this migration happened over land<ref name="cab17">[http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter17.pdf "How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia"], Chapter 17 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', by Don Batten (Ed.)</ref> with lower sea levels during the post-flood [[ice age]], or before the super-continent of [[Pangea]] broke apart<ref>[http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2808 "Pangea and the Flood"], Apologetics Press</ref>
The idea that God simply generated kangaroos into existence there is considered by most creation researchers to be contra-Biblical.

===Evolution===
The evolutionary view is that kangaroos and other marsupials evolved from a common marsupial ancestor which lived hundreds of millions of years ago.<ref>[http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/AEPC/WWC/1995/australia.html "Australian Mammals: Evolutionary Development as a Result of Geographic Isolation"]</ref> According to their interpretation of genetic and paleontological evidence, a majority of biologists regard [[Theory of evolution|evolution]] as the most likely explanation for the origin of species, including the kangaroo.

===Dreamtime===
Some [[Australian Aborigines]] believe that kangaroos were sung into existence by their ancestors during the [[Dreamtime]] <ref>[http://www.painsley.org.uk/RE/signposts/y8/1-1creationandenvironment/c-abor.htm "An Aborigine Creation Story"]</ref>.

== External Links ==
*[http://www.exzooberance.com/virtual%20zoo/they%20walk/kangaroo/kangaroo.htm Kangaroo facts]
*[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/kangaroos.html Answers About Kangaroos]
*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/migration.asp How did animals get from the Ark to places such as Australia?]

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Marsupials]]
[[Category:Australia]]

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-30T20:41:04Z

Rspeed: /* More replies to archived comments */ Haldane's dilemma is interesting, but easily rebuked by anyone with more than a 8th grade understanding of biology

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]

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

== Reply to comments in archive ==

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

: [[Lenski]] says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

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

::As clearly stated in Professor [[Lenski]]'s second response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

:::::: Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

:::::: Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

:::::: No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

:::::: Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

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

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

:::::: Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper: Books? Magazines? Newspapers? What type of books? What subjects? My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More replies to archived comments ==

:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:
::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
::::: We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here. As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer. But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for. The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
::::: I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
::::: They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

: BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule. For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information. However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get ''something'' simple that is new. And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that ''in this case'' it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this ''did'' happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted. But the question is not ''really'' how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones. And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction. That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation? Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).
: Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence ''for'' creation? If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it ''is'' evidence for it! You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans. Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours ''individuals'', not ''mutations'', then a less-fit ''individual'' will be selected ''against'' even with the odd "good" mutation. So really, it will occur a lot ''slower'' for humans than for bacteria.
: For more information on this, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4473 this] brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:: It's amusing to me that you cite Haldane's Dilemma, even though it was debunked at the same time it was given that name. As Leigh Van Valen pointed out on page in his paper [http://www.jstor.org/pss/2458906 Haldane's Dilemma, Evolutionary Rates, and Heterosis], significant evolutionary changes occur when the environmental changes cause unadapted organisms have less reproductive success. This holds with evolutionary theory, as there is abundant evidence of large changes occurring in organisms at times where their environment changes and their population is small. Mind you, this is the paper which originated the term "Haldane's Dilemma", so with the exception of J. B. S. Haldane's papers, this is the original source. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:41, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

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

==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==

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

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

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

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

[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

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

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

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

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog, ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''

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

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::::Thudden''':''' ''As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident?'' This betrays a unequivocal lack of understanding of scientific process and acclaim. Hundreds of world-altering scientific discoveries have been serendipitous: Pauling and Penicillin, Galvani and neuroelectricity, Nagano's discovery of interferon, Becquerel and Röntgen's discovery of radioactivity and X-rays respectively. If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim, perhaps only with added envy.
::''"If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim,"'' I disagree -- IMO things discovered by intelligent searching are more highly regarded. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 06:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::''Thudden: Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided.

::::''"Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided."''
::::It is just my own personal opinion -- I have no opinion poll results on the question. Do you have any opinion poll results to back up your statement?
::::I was especially impressed by the way Neptune was discovered in 1846 -- a mathematician predicted its location on the basis of perturbations of the motion of Uranus, and Neptune was found in one night very close to the predicted spot. Also, Pluto was found on the basis of perturbations in Neptune's motion but the search took much longer.
::::You should sign your comments at the end, not the beginning -- when you sign them at the beginning, it looks like you are addressing someone (that is what I originally thought about your preceding comment). [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

::::''"Enjoy your time here."'' I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::How could a random event, Cit+ evolution, be a "hypothesis"? Even Zachary Blount used the term "goal." What is wrong with saying that an experiment has a "goal" (or "goals")? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Because according to the [[Scientific method]] the objective of an experiment is to test an hypothesis. Remember that things are not proved in science - only disproved. The objective of an experiment is never to "prove" anything - only to test an hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed then it is strengthened, if it not confirmed it is weakened or discarded. Consequently the fundamental question to ask of an experiment is, "What hypothesis was being tested?" --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::How would you describe Cit+ evolution as a hypothesis, even assuming that Cit+ evolution had not been observed before (Cit+ evolution was observed prior to Lenski's experiment) ?[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm afraid that's for you to figure out. As I've said, the only sensible way for you to ask the question you want answered is to form it as a question about the hypothesis. How you manage that is down to you. :-)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::''"I'm afraid that's for you to figure out."'' It's your idea that it must be stated as a hypothesis, so showing how it can be stated as a hypothesis is your responsibility. Anyway, Lenski could not hypothesize about whether Cit+ evolution could occur, because it had been observed prior to the start of his experiment. All he could do was consider Cit+ evolution to be a "goal" of his experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help. Anyway, the article on [[Scientific method]] ''on this wiki'' states that the reason for an experiment is to test an hypothesis - so it's not my opinion but what this Wiki states. I suppose you could edit the article so this it reflects your view of how science works. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time). The null hypothesis (not supported by the results of the experiments) is that the Cit+ strain arises by a single, exceptionally rare event.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: ''"Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time)."''
:::::I was aware that one of the original goals of the experiment was to test for historical contingency -- that was the reason for freezing the populations at each 500th generation. My questions were about other things: (1) was Cit+ evolution an original goal of the experiment (remember that this whole experiment started in 1988, long before the study in the present paper), (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient glucose supplies so as to cause alternating glucose feeding and starvation), and (3) what were other purposes -- if any -- of the glucose-cycling. Zachary Blount did not give a straight answer to the first question and gave no answers at all to the latter two questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:12, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli. The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource. The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you. There is no other purpose to providing the bacteria with a limited supply of glucose. Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer - it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one. 
:::::::You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions - and your response seems to be that he does not deserve praise for this, since he didn't set out with this particular outcome in mind - it's just an accident, if in fact the Cit+ bacteria exist at all. Or maybe you object because you think Lenski somehow 'stacked the deck' in favor of his bacteria becoming Cit+, so the results aren't 'fair' somehow. Or perhaps you think that after 20 years of failing to develop a Cit+ strain of E. coli through selection, Lenski just gave up, genetically engineered such a strain, and then faked his data. If you could clearly state what your suspicions are, rather than simply repeating that Blount won't answer your questions, it would be simpler to address your concerns. 
:::::::This is utterly beside the point, however, because the importance of this recent paper does not depend on the detail of the strain being Cit+ - it could have been the development of a toxin, or some other event that led the new strain to be markedly, phenotypically different from its ancestors in some way. The importance lies in the work that was done to sketch out the outline of how the new trait developed, and in the re-development of the same trait during a re-running of the experiment from ancestral stock. 
:::::::Is it interesting that the trait seen in Lenski's E. coli is the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions? Yes. Is it remarkable? Yes, since you can count the number of E. coli strains that can do this on one hand. It's so wild and crazy that it might lead one to question whether the bacteria involved should even be called E. coli anymore - it's that striking a difference from 'normal' E. coli behavior. Was the development of the Cit+ strain an accident? Entirely. Would another Cit+ strain arise if the experiment was completely restarted from 1988? Almost certainly not - Lenski's data suggests that this is a staggeringly unlikely event, dependent on a series of merely overwhelmingly unlikely events. Did Lenski wish to develop a Cit+ strain from the beginning? No man can know the inner mind of another, but I would bet the farm that he didn't see this coming. If I were designing an E. coli breeding scheme with the stated purpose of selecting for a Cit+ mutant, I can think of much, much, much better ways to do it than this experimental protocol. The Cit+ trait is a novelty - an interesting one, one that is remarkable because of its rarity, one that resonates - but the value of the research does not depend upon it. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli."''
::::I am trying to get answers to some simple, basic questions about the experiment. Is there something wrong with that?
::::Also, the "semantics" -- as you call them -- of "goal" are very important. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that a goal is necessarily an expected result or is necessarily an intended result. Just going around telling people that the Cit+ evolution was not a goal can be very misleading.
:::::If you want to expand the term 'goal' to the point that you include unexpected, unintended results then you rob it of all meaning. By your reasoning, my getting into a fatal car accident is the 'goal' of my driving to the grocery store. If you think that 'goal' is a term of art that describes the entire universe of possible outcomes of an action, you are mistaken. If you want Blount et al to admit that the emergence of a Cit+ mutant was '''possible''', given the experimental protocol, then I think that you already have your answer: yes. Was it expected? No. Was the experiment designed from the beginning to favor Cit+ mutation over some other pathway? No.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource."''
::::That statement is too vague.
:::::What part is too vague? The alternatives to glucose cycling are: provide so much glucose that cell growth remains exponential up through the time of the next sampling; provide so little glucose that there is no cell division at all; or use a chemostat setup in which the glucose concentration can be maintained at a constant, arbitrary level indefinitely at the cost of vastly increased material and labor costs to the experimenter.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you."''
::::The glucose cycling gives an especially big advantage to Cit+ bacteria because they have something to eat after the glucose supply is exhausted whereas their Cit- neighbors do not.
:::::It gives them '''an''' advantage. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how '''big''' an advantage it is, because instead of being unable to metabolize citrate they may merely be terrible at it. If the Cit- cells are better at glucose metabolism than the Cit+ ones are, they may completely swamp out the Cit+ in the early, glucose-dependent phase. Even if the Cit+ cells continue to grow after the glucose is exhausted, they may never completely outcompete the Cit- cells by the time the next population sample is taken. In fact, this appears to be what has happened, as the experiment has shown that two populations of cells originating from the Ara-3 line have reached a temporary equilibrium: a grows-very-fast-on-glucose Cit- population (10%) and a grows-more-slowly-on-glucose-but-keeps-growing-on-citrate Cit+ population (90%). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer -- it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one."''
::::Yes, I know it is there as a chelating agent -- but I also want to know if Cit+ evolution was a goal (again, a goal does not have to be an expected result and can even be an unlikely result) and if favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (I also would like to know if there were other purposes of the glucose-cycling and exactly how any other purposes work). The fact that Cit+ evolution was observed once previously adds to my hunch that it was a goal. Also, the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate and just needed to evolve a way to pass citrate through the cell wall.
::::''"You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions"''
::::Well, he is getting a lot of acclaim for it, isn't he? The paper has been widely ballyhooed all over the Internet. The Internet has several articles and hundreds of comments about it.
:::::He does not deserve acclaim because he is a farmer who has a goose that lays golden eggs, but because he can demonstrate in rough form how the goose came to lay golden eggs when it's grandparents could not. In fact, he has gone back and re-bred the grandparents and gotten golden-egg laying geese again and again, even though none of his other geese, or even the great-grandparents of the golden goose, can breed golden-egg-layers. The real achievement is not having the goose, it's reproducing it against all the odds, and showing that there's something special about the grandparents compared to the greatgrandparents, even though the grandparents appear to be normal. The fact that many folks, including those in the media, can't get past the 'ohmygoshgoldeneggs!!!' phase is not Lenski's fault.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"If you could clearly state what your suspicions are"''
::::Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 20:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help."'' You call that "help"? All you did was clutter up this talk page with your irrelevant "hypothesis" idea. With friends like you, who needs enemies? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it. In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::''"When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it."''
:::::::And you thought -- or seemed to think -- that you were giving it. I am beginning to suspect that you are just a troll.
:::::::''"In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation."''
:::::::No, he has not clarified the situation -- see my above response to him. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I will not stoop to name calling. Goodbye and good luck with your enquiries.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::::::::Mods, can we get a ruling on this? LarryFarma is harassing other users, talking far more than he is making valid contributions, and generally being a troll. If he was defending Lenski instead of attacking the paper, he would have been blocked a long time ago. Can someone please comment on this? I believe we can all make our points without name-calling. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
:::::::In fact, the only contributions that Larry has made have been to this talk page. Can we get a 90/10 block please? [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Aaronp: Is somebody hassling you? People who don't want to read my comments don't have to read them.
::::::::Also, the 90/10 rule doesn't apply here because I cannot make any contributions to the project page, which is reserved for the exchange of letters between Schlafly and Lenski.
::::::::BTW, I am not attacking the paper -- I am only attacking the lead author's failure to give straight answers to simple, basic questions about it. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Okay, here's my two-bob's worth.
::::::::: LarryFarma, this page was started to question the ''validity'' of Lenski's work and claims. Although I can see how questions about his ''goals'' would be relevant to awarding him a prize, I can't see that they are relevant to the validity of his work. I think that this might be the cause of some of the angst, as some editors are assuming that you are trying to question the work's ''validity'' with an argument that has no bearing on that point.
::::::::: Secondly, Aaronp has a point about the so-called 90/10 rule. It's point is to ensure that editors contribute to the site and don't just argue. That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site. The rule is not page-specific in that sense. So as Aaronp has called for that rule to be invoked, and as you have only contributed on this talk page, I think that his request is fair. However, I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

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

::::::The opening sentence of my first comment questions the validity of Lenski's work:
::::::''"IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:"''

::::::You say,
::::::''"Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize"''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in some of my comments. The first part of my message was not as an administrator, but just to try and clarify the issues. I didn't mean to suggest that you hadn't addressed the validity of his claims. It was meant simply to point out that some may be misunderstanding the point of your comments. And I'm not saying that the questions you are raising are not legitimate questions to raise.
::::::: It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited.
::::::: We do allow copying of your own work. There is a template available to note that it is your own work. And of course it can be edited by others, as is the case with all articles.
::::::: If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word, and that might be unfortunate, but that's not going to be reason to ignore the so-called 90/10 rule.
::::::: I'm not suggesting that you are the only one in the wrong here. Uncivil language happens a fair bit. But that's peripheral to the issue I'm discussing here.
::::::: I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics. And fair warning: I've referred to the 90/10 rule as the "so-called" 90/10 rule, because it's not a rule against precisely 90% talk vs. 10% contributions, but a rule against "unproductive activity", with 90/10 being an ''example'' of that. So simply making the odd article edit or posting the odd copied article will not necessarily avoid that rule. It's something that we administrators make a judgement on, and others will make it more readily that I will.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:::::That reminds me of the following lawyer joke:
:::::Customer: What are your rates?
:::::Lawyer: $100 for three questions.
:::::Customer: Isn't that kind of steep?
:::::Lawyer: Yes. What is your third question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive Link?==

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

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Whence Lenski? ==

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp] {{unsigned|Drochld}}

:I'm a little confused about the terminology of the survey. According to the 1998 figures, 7% had "personal belief", 72% had "personal disbelief", and 21% had "doubt (presumably equivalent to atheism) or agnosticism". I know what atheism and agnosticism are, but what does personal disbelief mean in this case? It sounds like agnosticism, but agnosticism is in a separate category. So what is it? Anyone know?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::If they're not believers, and they're not agnostics/doubters, then they're atheists. Atheism = disbelief. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I find it doubtful that are more atheists than agnostics. Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything. I think a survey with more clearly defined choices is called for.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually it is not true to say, ''Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist'' as Conservapedia's article says; [[Weak Atheism]]. Many more scientifically-minded atheists would follow this point of view for the very reasons you state - ''A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.''--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I think the distinction to be made here is between personal belief and what can be proven. It is possible to put forward a definition of God that cannot be tested and is therefore neither provable nor falsifiable, however that wouldn't mean an individual couldn't have a personal belief (or disbelief) in God. If I can be forgiven a pop culture reference, I can't prove I don't live in [[The Matrix]] but I have a personal belief that I don't.--[[User:Boreas|Boreas]] [[User_Talk:Boreas|'''talk''']] 13:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

I assume that Bugler's ignoring of Gnostics such as myself was not an attempt to polarise the community into more easily distinguishable sects. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-30T19:01:23Z

Rspeed: /* More replies to archived comments */ More on Coelacanths

[http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog/archive1 Archive 1]

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

== Reply to comments in archive ==

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

: [[Lenski]] says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

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

::As clearly stated in Professor [[Lenski]]'s second response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:::::Regarding the questions highlighted by [[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] to which [[User:Princetonian|Princetonian]] also responded: Many of the techniques questioned are standard procedures that a trained microbiologist would understand. Let's take this apart by question:
:::::'''''...the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time. [DATA ON THESE OBSERVATIONS?]'''''
:::::This is qualitative observation. Every microbiologist does this when they pull their cultures out of the incubator. The evaluation an experimenter asks: Can you see through the test tube or not? Is the culture denser or lighter than the last time you looked? The reported observations are the data.

:::::: Show us the data. Are you suggesting that no record was kept of these observations??? I hope that's not what you mean. But say so if that is your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::I described how the observation was performed. How the observations are recorded is up to the lab or technician culturing the cells.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Owing to the low concentration of glucose in DM25 medium [DATA?]'''''
:::::A reference to the description of the media is provided in the paper and is included on Lenksi's web pages. I linked to that page recently in another comment. It is general knowledge among microbiologists that nutrient limited cultures will reach a peak density that depends on the concentration of the limiting nutrient.

:::::: Again, show us the data. What was the concentration of glucose and, more importantly, did it ever change?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Consider rereading the paper and pull out references provided. It's there.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Occasional contaminants that grow on citrate have been seen over the 20 years of this experiment. [DATA?]'''''
:::::Observation. Either they saw contaminated cultures or not.

:::::: No kidding. The point, obviously, is to disclose the data of what they saw. How many is "occasional"? Show us the records supporting that claim, so we can assess the frequency of contamination compared to alleged evolution. At a minimum, it appears that contamination was significantly more frequent than the alleged evolution.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Contamination is a problem every microbiology lab understands and encounters. What matters and what is particularly relevant to this experiment is the means of detecting and controlling for it. They outline the steps for detecting contaminating and restarting the experiment from uncontaminated stocks in their papers and web pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...(When contamination occurs, the affected population is restarted from the latest frozen sample.) [DATA FOR WHEN THAT OCCURRED?]'''''
:::::Not relevant for the results. It's just the researchers describing how they restarted the experiment whenever they suspected a contamination. It does not alter the experimental outcome.

:::::: It is relevant, at a minimum for reasons stated in my above response. Also, did the restarting ever result in repeats of the observed contamination?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::They controlled for contamination. If their previous stock was contaminated they would likely return to ones before that last stock. Clearly, they would not want to work with contaminated stocks as it would damage the experiment.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1).[HIGHER RESOLUTION DATA UNDERLYING FIGURE?]'''''
:::::Higher resolution is not really necessary. The graph provides a ''qualitative'' visualization that starkly reveals that the cultures underwent a change that allowed them to grow to a significantly higher density than previously. They report in the text the actual generation were the change occurred and that seems to line up with the transition in the figure (take out a ruler, if necessary). Their subsequent experiments bracketed the strains from points before, during and after the obvious population transition.

:::::: Your answer here is absurd. Higher resolution in science is always helpful. The precise rate of change among the population would reveal much about what was really occurring. The data must exist to generate the graph. Disclose it rather than obscuring it with a low-resolution graph.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If one reads the paper, one finds that weakly Cit+ clones arise earlier than the visible transition. Reading the paper one would see that they analyze the emergence times: ''Cit+ clones could be readily isolated from the frozen sample of population Ara-3 taken at generation 33,000. To estimate the time of origin of the Cit+ trait, we screened 1,280 clones randomly chosen from generations 30,000, 30,500, 31,000, 31,500, 32,000, 32,500, and 33,000 for the capacity to produce a positive reaction on Christensen’s citrate agar, which provides a sensitive means to detect even weakly citrate-using cells.'' As for the visible transition: ''After ~33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days''. Note also that they performed 'replay' experiments (which took up the rest of the paper) to specifically analyze the frequency and times when Cit+ strains could be generated. The last half of the paper contains the work that provides information about the possible nature of the mutations and addresses your question.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all [DATA?] were Ara, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2) [DATA ABOUT THESE AND OTHER CHARACTERISTICS'''''
:::::Derived from observation. The phenotypic markers are described elsewhere and the means of testing them are well known by professional microbiologists. The origin of the strain and its markers can be determined by following the references provided. The strain is also referenced on Lenski's pages here: https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/strainsource.html Other information about how they tested markers can also be found starting from here (provided by Lenski): https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

:::::: Disclose the data so that independent reviewers can assess how reliable the claims are here. The methodology may be "well known" but only disclosure of the data will demonstrate whether the methodology was applied in a flawless manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Those are all based on visual observation. Reporting the observation *is* reporting data. Lenksi's group provides information how they performed the tests so that any professional microbiologist would be able to follow the work. The way for someone to test the methodology is to repeat the tests on the strains themselves. Recall that Lenski did say that the strains would be made available to labs. So, for anyone interested in seeing for themselves that "the methodology was applied in a flawless manner", I suggest they go find a friendly microbiologist to request and perform the tests for them.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...DNA sequencing also showed [DATA?] that Cit clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations'''''
:::::Report of observation. They sequenced the specified genes and found no difference in base-by-base comparisons. There is no need in this paper to print all sequences side by side as they're the same. The words, "no difference" transmits the same information in less space as showing all the identical sequences side-by-side with the original, previously released sequence. See also the next lines.

:::::: No one suggested that the DNA be published "in this paper," but rather that the data be made publicly available for independent review and verification.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Again, the sequences are available. If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all [DATA?] of the others (30).'''''
:::::See reference (30) from Lenksi's paper. It describes how the genes in those populations were originally sequenced. The ancestral sequences were uploaded into GeneBank, a publically accessible sequence repository, and the identifying mutations were presented in the supplemental table published on the PNAS web site along with the original paper.

:::::: That's spelled "publicly", not "publically", and again disclosure of the data concerning the mutations is necessary to verify the claims made.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::If someone wants to confirm that the sequencing was done correctly they can request the strains from Lenski and repeat the sequencing. They protocols are published and Lenski has stated he would make the strains available.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::'''''...Therefore, the Cit variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant [THIS CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE CHECKED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF THE ACTUAL DATA, WHICH I DOUBT OCCURRED IN THE BRIEF PEER REVIEW OF THIS PAPER]'''''
:::::The authors reported the actual data in a manner that is readily understood and accepted by microbiologists. The data and analysis is not terribly complex or confusing for someone familiar with the field (and quite a few who aren't expert microbiologists). Andy, I've seen little requested that isn't standard practice & generally understood among microbiologists or not already available if one follows the references provided in the paper.

:::::: You're right that the "data and analysis" are "not terribly complex." Which is why the odd withholding the data merely serves to heighten skepticism towards the claims made.
:::::::YMMV. I've encountered no one on the web or elsewhere and trained in microbiology who thinks the data is being 'oddly' withheld. Most of us manage to locate the references and other sources provided.

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

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

:::::: Your sermon is misplaced. Taxpayers paid for Lenski's study, and any real scientist should reject the inexplicable withholding the data underlying its conclusions.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:22, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::YMMV but in my view, it's like going to a librarian and demanding they provide something made from paper: Books? Magazines? Newspapers? What type of books? What subjects? My opinion is that if someone: doesn't know what one wants, doesn't appear to understand the report, demands to see 'the data' without appearing to know what they're asking for in the first place or how to process the information, I'm not sure how any experimental scientist would comply with that request. Furthermore, I'd find it odd that the requests persist despite the fact that the paper was indeed published in compliance with establish profession standards and the strains were made available (in compliance with journal and university research policy). Again, if someone thinks the work was done incorrectly they can get a lab to request the strains and try to repeat many of the observations. That is why the materials and methods sections exist in papers: To allow others to repeat and confirm the work.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 10:19, 28 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

== More replies to archived comments ==

:"''Why do you say that it does not support evolution?''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler]] (Asked by JPohl of me):
See my post (now in the archive) dated 23:05, 16 June 2008 (search for that text).

:"''The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils''" ([[Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog/archive1#E. coli in our bowels]]) (in a question by Wandering to me)
:"''Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false''" (Same section) (by Rspeed in a response to Jimxchue)
How do we know that they are not the same species or genus? "Species" is defined in terms of interfertility, something that cannot be determined for fossils. And size doesn't mean much. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are in the same ''sub''-species, but the ratio of size difference is greater than 1:3.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:14, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Hi Philip, I read your post and I don't think it addresses anything other than semantics. The bacteria was standard E Coli, and then after tens of thousands of generations, it started to metabolise citrate, which normally ''distinguishes'' E Coli from other species. That's very clearly the process of changing inherited traits over generations - ie, evolution.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:: I can't help wondering if you skimmed it too quickly and didn't pick which bit I was referring to here. I'll explain it in a different way:
::* According to evolution, there must be millions of information-generating mutations to go from microbes to man.
::* According to creation, mutations do ''not'' produce new genetic information, although ''very rarely'', you might by chance get the odd one.
::Lenski has allegedly found ''one'' information-generating mutation. So which of those two competing predictions does this evidence match the best?
:: I also pointed out two weeks ago on Andy's talk page the following:
{{QuoteBox|It took 31,500 generations before the bacteria acquired a single new ability (even assuming they actually do have some new genetic information). 31,500 generations for humans is around 600,000 to 900,000 years (depending on the average time between generations). Yet humans have supposedly evolved ''hundreds'' if not ''thousands'' of new abilities from their supposed primate forbears in a time span only three to five times that long. So this research can be seen as evidence (not absolute proof, of course) that evolution simply does not occur fast enough for us humans to have evolved, which is therefore ''evidence'' that evolution can't explain our existence.}}
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:37, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:::: No, going from microbe to man is ''not'' a matter of time. If you are travelling south from Sydney, how long will it take you to reach Brisbane? Answer: It's not a question of how long, because you are going in the wrong direction. The same applies here: you can't go from microbes to man when mutations destroy information rather than create it. See also [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/431/ here].
::::: We both know the Earth is round, so the trip is still possible, if not extended. [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/infotheory.html This] and [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/apolipoprotein.html this] are good links on information theory.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Yes, perhaps 31,500 generations just ''happened'' to be the case here. As you say, it ''might'' occur sooner, and it ''might'' take longer. But my argument was based on the ''evidence'' of this example, not on what speculation ''might'' allow for. The ''evidence'' is not ''proof'', but the ''evidence'' in this case is ''against'' evolution.
::::: I'm not following your claim here. The mutation happened, and it is proof against evolution?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm talking about the ability claimed by the research, to metabolise citrate, that apparently requires new genetic information. Being bigger presumably does not require that, else they would have trumpeted that as well.
::::: They didn't trumpet the metabolisation of citrate as "new information", but rather as a complex mutation that dramatically distinguished it from earlier generations. It would be like coming back to Earth in 100,000 years and finding that humans suddenly have two-foot-long third legs.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Genetic variation through sexual reproduction is a variation ''within'' the existing genetic information; sexual reproduction does not create ''new'' genetic information.
::::: It varies the gene pool, which allows for different types of mutation and more dramatic diversification.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 12:08, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:31, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

: BenP, it's possible to have both a rule and exceptions to that rule. For all practical purposes, mutations don't create new information. However, that doesn't rule out that, once in a blue moon (actually, far less often), you might actually get ''something'' simple that is new. And yes, I guess that there is then a debate about how frequently mutations produce new genetic information, which is sort of what I've been discussing here, in pointing out that ''in this case'' it took 31,500 generations, and even that assumes that this ''did'' happen, which I think is a long way from being accepted. But the question is not ''really'' how long it takes, but whether or not the extremely rare one is going to be swamped by all the deleterious ones. And especially with more complex creatures, it is easily going to get swamped, especially in creatures with sexual reproduction. That is, even if, once in 30,000 generations, there was the odd information-gaining mutation, then what's the chances that that mutation will get passed on to the next generation? Especially given that this won't be the only mutation being selected for (or against).
: Feebasfactor, why is not not evidence ''for'' creation? If that's the prediction that it best fits, then it ''is'' evidence for it! You're right about the timeframe not applying to humans. Because humans reproduce sexually, and therefore the next generation will not necessarily inherit the mutation, and because natural selection favours ''individuals'', not ''mutations'', then a less-fit ''individual'' will be selected ''against'' even with the odd "good" mutation. So really, it will occur a lot ''slower'' for humans than for bacteria.
: For more information on this, see [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4473 this] brief description of "Haldane's Dilemma".
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

==Lead author won't answer simple, basic questions==

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

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

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

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

[http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/06/co-author-of-e-coli-paper-dodges.html Co-author of E. coli paper dodges questions]

More details concerning Blount's refusal to properly answer these questions are in the comment thread under the following post on Carl Zimmer's "The Loom" blog (note particularly my most recent comments in that thread) --
[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php A new step in evolution]

Also, I think Andy Schlafly is wrong to request all of the raw data, because (1) copying all of the raw data to send to him would be a huge job and (2) the raw data might not even be in a form that could be readily understood by someone who did not participate in the research. IMO the citrate-eating bacteria are the best evidence supporting the paper (such as it is).[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 18:59, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: a reading of the blog reveals that Zachary Blount did indeed address the questions that the above poster named and did so clearly. Please read more carefully next time and don't post falsehoods[[User:DeanWinter|DeanWinter]] 19:10, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. (I did not find the answer in the paper.) Did the researchers figure out, after many years of fruitless attempts, how best to promote the percentage of citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria in a population? The details of the data might shed light on how that goal was achieved, if in fact that was the goal. They should turn over the data for public scrutiny so that questions can be resolved.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Blount's comments on "LarryFarma's" blog make it clear that the evolution of citric eaters was not a goal, but not completely unexpected. The paper, though it was pretty technical for me, seems to indicate that as well. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:15, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:Reply to Aschlafly's comment of 19:33, 26 June 2008 (EDT) --
:''"LarryFarma raises an excellent question about whether a goal of Lenski and Blount's project was to generate citrate-eating E. Coli bacteria. ('''I did not find the answer in the paper.''')"'' (emphasis added) I asked Zachary Blount to clarify his statements about whether evolution of Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria was a goal of the experiment. He answered by asking me to go on a wild goose chase by reading the whole paper, which has 8 pages of fine print -- this is called "bibliography bluffing." And when people balk at going on these wild goose chases, they are accused of not wanting to learn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zachary Blount's following statement in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog indicates that Cit+ evolution was one of the original goals of the experiment:

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

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

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

(1) Cit+ evolution had been observed once before. Blount reported in comment #115 under the [http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php New step in evolution] post on Zimmer's blog, ''"there has been only one report of a spontaneous Cit+ mutant of E. coli in the past century (Hall, B. 1982. Chromosomal mutation for citrate utilization by Escherichia coli K-12. Journal of Bacteriology, 151: 269 ï¿½ 273.)"). ''

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

Was there a research proposal for this whole experiment that started in 1988, and if so, what does that proposal say, if anything, about my questions? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:24, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:I may be missing something here, but why is the supposed "goal" of the experiment important? It's the important thing the result?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:29, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::Also, IMO knowing the goals of the experiment and the purposes of the experimental methodologies are important parts of understanding the experiment. Also, the candor of the researchers is in question here -- as shown above, I did not get straight consistent answers to simple, basic questions.[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 12:27, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
:::There are two possibilities. It was the goal. It was not the goal. The result is that they have produced Cit+. If it was the goal then they have demonstrated what they set out to demonstrate. Well done. If it was not the goal then serendipity has favored them. It is no means unusual in science for unexpected results to further the cause of science. Nobody would reject or question them because they were unexpected. Indeed they are even more welcome if they're unexpected because something new has been learned. So again - well done. I don't see the problem.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:45, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::::Thudden''':''' ''As I said, suppose that a committee is considering this research for an award -- wouldn't this research be much less deserving of an award if Cit+ evolution were just an unforeseen accident?'' This betrays a unequivocal lack of understanding of scientific process and acclaim. Hundreds of world-altering scientific discoveries have been serendipitous: Pauling and Penicillin, Galvani and neuroelectricity, Nagano's discovery of interferon, Becquerel and Röntgen's discovery of radioactivity and X-rays respectively. If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim, perhaps only with added envy.
::''"If you stumble on something marvellous by accident, you receive identical academic acclaim,"'' I disagree -- IMO things discovered by intelligent searching are more highly regarded. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 06:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::''Thudden: Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided.

::::''"Your disagreement would be more convincing if it was backed up by evidence, or engaged with the contrary evidence provided."''
::::It is just my own personal opinion -- I have no opinion poll results on the question. Do you have any opinion poll results to back up your statement?
::::I was especially impressed by the way Neptune was discovered in 1846 -- a mathematician predicted its location on the basis of perturbations of the motion of Uranus, and Neptune was found in one night very close to the predicted spot. Also, Pluto was found on the basis of perturbations in Neptune's motion but the search took much longer.
::::You should sign your comments at the end, not the beginning -- when you sign them at the beginning, it looks like you are addressing someone (that is what I originally thought about your preceding comment). [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:06, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

::::''"Enjoy your time here."'' I intend to. I never before had such a good opportunity to publicize my views. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 02:21, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::It has been brought to my attention that there may be a problem with your question. You wish to know about the "goal" of the experiment. Is that a reasonable way to ask a question of a scientific experiment? Shouldn't the question be "What hypothesis was being tested?"?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 10:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::How could a random event, Cit+ evolution, be a "hypothesis"? Even Zachary Blount used the term "goal." What is wrong with saying that an experiment has a "goal" (or "goals")? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 15:53, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::Because according to the [[Scientific method]] the objective of an experiment is to test an hypothesis. Remember that things are not proved in science - only disproved. The objective of an experiment is never to "prove" anything - only to test an hypothesis. If the hypothesis is confirmed then it is strengthened, if it not confirmed it is weakened or discarded. Consequently the fundamental question to ask of an experiment is, "What hypothesis was being tested?" --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 16:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::How would you describe Cit+ evolution as a hypothesis, even assuming that Cit+ evolution had not been observed before (Cit+ evolution was observed prior to Lenski's experiment) ?[[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:54, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm afraid that's for you to figure out. As I've said, the only sensible way for you to ask the question you want answered is to form it as a question about the hypothesis. How you manage that is down to you. :-)--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 02:27, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::''"I'm afraid that's for you to figure out."'' It's your idea that it must be stated as a hypothesis, so showing how it can be stated as a hypothesis is your responsibility. Anyway, Lenski could not hypothesize about whether Cit+ evolution could occur, because it had been observed prior to the start of his experiment. All he could do was consider Cit+ evolution to be a "goal" of his experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 05:43, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help. Anyway, the article on [[Scientific method]] ''on this wiki'' states that the reason for an experiment is to test an hypothesis - so it's not my opinion but what this Wiki states. I suppose you could edit the article so this it reflects your view of how science works. --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 06:24, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::::Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time). The null hypothesis (not supported by the results of the experiments) is that the Cit+ strain arises by a single, exceptionally rare event.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 10:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: ''"Reading Lenski's recent paper for comprehension reveals that the hypothesis being tested is that development of the Cit+ strain is a historically contingent process (that is, arising by multiple steps separated over time)."''
:::::I was aware that one of the original goals of the experiment was to test for historical contingency -- that was the reason for freezing the populations at each 500th generation. My questions were about other things: (1) was Cit+ evolution an original goal of the experiment (remember that this whole experiment started in 1988, long before the study in the present paper), (2) was favoring Cit+ evolution a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (giving the bacteria insufficient glucose supplies so as to cause alternating glucose feeding and starvation), and (3) what were other purposes -- if any -- of the glucose-cycling. Zachary Blount did not give a straight answer to the first question and gave no answers at all to the latter two questions. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:12, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli. The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource. The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you. There is no other purpose to providing the bacteria with a limited supply of glucose. Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer - it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one. 
:::::::You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions - and your response seems to be that he does not deserve praise for this, since he didn't set out with this particular outcome in mind - it's just an accident, if in fact the Cit+ bacteria exist at all. Or maybe you object because you think Lenski somehow 'stacked the deck' in favor of his bacteria becoming Cit+, so the results aren't 'fair' somehow. Or perhaps you think that after 20 years of failing to develop a Cit+ strain of E. coli through selection, Lenski just gave up, genetically engineered such a strain, and then faked his data. If you could clearly state what your suspicions are, rather than simply repeating that Blount won't answer your questions, it would be simpler to address your concerns. 
:::::::This is utterly beside the point, however, because the importance of this recent paper does not depend on the detail of the strain being Cit+ - it could have been the development of a toxin, or some other event that led the new strain to be markedly, phenotypically different from its ancestors in some way. The importance lies in the work that was done to sketch out the outline of how the new trait developed, and in the re-development of the same trait during a re-running of the experiment from ancestral stock. 
:::::::Is it interesting that the trait seen in Lenski's E. coli is the metabolism of citrate under aerobic conditions? Yes. Is it remarkable? Yes, since you can count the number of E. coli strains that can do this on one hand. It's so wild and crazy that it might lead one to question whether the bacteria involved should even be called E. coli anymore - it's that striking a difference from 'normal' E. coli behavior. Was the development of the Cit+ strain an accident? Entirely. Would another Cit+ strain arise if the experiment was completely restarted from 1988? Almost certainly not - Lenski's data suggests that this is a staggeringly unlikely event, dependent on a series of merely overwhelmingly unlikely events. Did Lenski wish to develop a Cit+ strain from the beginning? No man can know the inner mind of another, but I would bet the farm that he didn't see this coming. If I were designing an E. coli breeding scheme with the stated purpose of selecting for a Cit+ mutant, I can think of much, much, much better ways to do it than this experimental protocol. The Cit+ trait is a novelty - an interesting one, one that is remarkable because of its rarity, one that resonates - but the value of the research does not depend upon it. --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"You continue to dwell on the semantics of 'goal' as though it has some particular relevance to the validity of the research presented in Lenski's latest paper. The experiment was started in '88 to track the evolution of a population of E. coli."''
::::I am trying to get answers to some simple, basic questions about the experiment. Is there something wrong with that?
::::Also, the "semantics" -- as you call them -- of "goal" are very important. A lot of people have the mistaken idea that a goal is necessarily an expected result or is necessarily an intended result. Just going around telling people that the Cit+ evolution was not a goal can be very misleading.
:::::If you want to expand the term 'goal' to the point that you include unexpected, unintended results then you rob it of all meaning. By your reasoning, my getting into a fatal car accident is the 'goal' of my driving to the grocery store. If you think that 'goal' is a term of art that describes the entire universe of possible outcomes of an action, you are mistaken. If you want Blount et al to admit that the emergence of a Cit+ mutant was '''possible''', given the experimental protocol, then I think that you already have your answer: yes. Was it expected? No. Was the experiment designed from the beginning to favor Cit+ mutation over some other pathway? No.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The purpose of the 'glucose cycling' is to provide the bacteria with an environment that will favor those mutants that are better able to exploit a limited critical resource."''
::::That statement is too vague.
:::::What part is too vague? The alternatives to glucose cycling are: provide so much glucose that cell growth remains exponential up through the time of the next sampling; provide so little glucose that there is no cell division at all; or use a chemostat setup in which the glucose concentration can be maintained at a constant, arbitrary level indefinitely at the cost of vastly increased material and labor costs to the experimenter.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"The glucose cycling does not inherently favor the development of a Cit+ strain any more than it favors other potential solutions to the problem - like secreting a toxin to kill your competitors, or faster reproduction to outbreed them, or photosynthesis, or cannibalism, or what have you."''
::::The glucose cycling gives an especially big advantage to Cit+ bacteria because they have something to eat after the glucose supply is exhausted whereas their Cit- neighbors do not.
:::::It gives them '''an''' advantage. It's impossible to predict ahead of time how '''big''' an advantage it is, because instead of being unable to metabolize citrate they may merely be terrible at it. If the Cit- cells are better at glucose metabolism than the Cit+ ones are, they may completely swamp out the Cit+ in the early, glucose-dependent phase. Even if the Cit+ cells continue to grow after the glucose is exhausted, they may never completely outcompete the Cit- cells by the time the next population sample is taken. In fact, this appears to be what has happened, as the experiment has shown that two populations of cells originating from the Ara-3 line have reached a temporary equilibrium: a grows-very-fast-on-glucose Cit- population (10%) and a grows-more-slowly-on-glucose-but-keeps-growing-on-citrate Cit+ population (90%). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 12:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"Citrate is present in the growth medium as a chelating agent and buffer -- it was not added solely to serve as a potential carbon source, although it is one."''
::::Yes, I know it is there as a chelating agent -- but I also want to know if Cit+ evolution was a goal (again, a goal does not have to be an expected result and can even be an unlikely result) and if favoring Cit+ evolution was a purpose or one of the purposes of the glucose-cycling (I also would like to know if there were other purposes of the glucose-cycling and exactly how any other purposes work). The fact that Cit+ evolution was observed once previously adds to my hunch that it was a goal. Also, the bacteria already had the ability to metabolize citrate and just needed to evolve a way to pass citrate through the cell wall.
::::''"You seem to believe that the reason that Lenski is getting acclaim for this research is just that has isolated a strain of E. coli that can metabolize citrate under unusual conditions"''
::::Well, he is getting a lot of acclaim for it, isn't he? The paper has been widely ballyhooed all over the Internet. The Internet has several articles and hundreds of comments about it.
:::::He does not deserve acclaim because he is a farmer who has a goose that lays golden eggs, but because he can demonstrate in rough form how the goose came to lay golden eggs when it's grandparents could not. In fact, he has gone back and re-bred the grandparents and gotten golden-egg laying geese again and again, even though none of his other geese, or even the great-grandparents of the golden goose, can breed golden-egg-layers. The real achievement is not having the goose, it's reproducing it against all the odds, and showing that there's something special about the grandparents compared to the greatgrandparents, even though the grandparents appear to be normal. The fact that many folks, including those in the media, can't get past the 'ohmygoshgoldeneggs!!!' phase is not Lenski's fault.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::''"If you could clearly state what your suspicions are"''
::::Right now I am just trying to understand the experiment. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 20:46, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::''"I'm sorry, I thought you were asking for help."'' You call that "help"? All you did was clutter up this talk page with your irrelevant "hypothesis" idea. With friends like you, who needs enemies? [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 10:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it. In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:38, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::''"When did I call it help? I said that I thought you were asking for it."''
:::::::And you thought -- or seemed to think -- that you were giving it. I am beginning to suspect that you are just a troll.
:::::::''"In any event Brossa seems to have clarified the situation."''
:::::::No, he has not clarified the situation -- see my above response to him. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 13:29, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::I will not stoop to name calling. Goodbye and good luck with your enquiries.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 14:07, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::::::::Mods, can we get a ruling on this? LarryFarma is harassing other users, talking far more than he is making valid contributions, and generally being a troll. If he was defending Lenski instead of attacking the paper, he would have been blocked a long time ago. Can someone please comment on this? I believe we can all make our points without name-calling. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
:::::::In fact, the only contributions that Larry has made have been to this talk page. Can we get a 90/10 block please? [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
::::::::Aaronp: Is somebody hassling you? People who don't want to read my comments don't have to read them.
::::::::Also, the 90/10 rule doesn't apply here because I cannot make any contributions to the project page, which is reserved for the exchange of letters between Schlafly and Lenski.
::::::::BTW, I am not attacking the paper -- I am only attacking the lead author's failure to give straight answers to simple, basic questions about it. [[User:LarryFarma|LarryFarma]] 21:17, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: Okay, here's my two-bob's worth.
::::::::: LarryFarma, this page was started to question the ''validity'' of Lenski's work and claims. Although I can see how questions about his ''goals'' would be relevant to awarding him a prize, I can't see that they are relevant to the validity of his work. I think that this might be the cause of some of the angst, as some editors are assuming that you are trying to question the work's ''validity'' with an argument that has no bearing on that point.
::::::::: Secondly, Aaronp has a point about the so-called 90/10 rule. It's point is to ensure that editors contribute to the site and don't just argue. That you are unable to contribute to this project page doesn't mean that you can't contribute elsewhere on the site. The rule is not page-specific in that sense. So as Aaronp has called for that rule to be invoked, and as you have only contributed on this talk page, I think that his request is fair. However, I will allow you to make another post or two to wind up your arguments before doing so. Beyond that, I will feel obliged to enforce it.
::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:35, 29 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)

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

::::::The opening sentence of my first comment questions the validity of Lenski's work:
::::::''"IMO the paper has no credibility because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has refused to give straight consistent answers to the following simple, basic questions about the experiment:"''

::::::You say,
::::::''"Although I can see how questions about his goals would be relevant to awarding him a prize"''

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::::: Perhaps I wasn't sufficiently clear in some of my comments. The first part of my message was not as an administrator, but just to try and clarify the issues. I didn't mean to suggest that you hadn't addressed the validity of his claims. It was meant simply to point out that some may be misunderstanding the point of your comments. And I'm not saying that the questions you are raising are not legitimate questions to raise.
::::::: It's not true to say that you "have not had an opportunity to contribute elsewhere on the site". You've had opportunity every time you've edited.
::::::: We do allow copying of your own work. There is a template available to note that it is your own work. And of course it can be edited by others, as is the case with all articles.
::::::: If you stop making arguments, your critics will stop disagreeing with you. Yes, it will likely mean that they will get the last word, and that might be unfortunate, but that's not going to be reason to ignore the so-called 90/10 rule.
::::::: I'm not suggesting that you are the only one in the wrong here. Uncivil language happens a fair bit. But that's peripheral to the issue I'm discussing here.
::::::: I've unblocked you, because it wasn't fair for you to be blocked for 90/10 when I'd given you a warning and permission to make one or two more posts, but you used one on responding to me, so that gives you one left to respond to your critics. And fair warning: I've referred to the 90/10 rule as the "so-called" 90/10 rule, because it's not a rule against precisely 90% talk vs. 10% contributions, but a rule against "unproductive activity", with 90/10 being an ''example'' of that. So simply making the odd article edit or posting the odd copied article will not necessarily avoid that rule. It's something that we administrators make a judgement on, and others will make it more readily that I will.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
: Yes, it was an oversight. It was archived, but the archive was not linked to on this page. It has since been linked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:53, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Archive Link?==

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

Oops. Did my edits delete the earlier sections? If so, I'm sorry. Could someone restore the original? --[[User:Argon|Argon]]
:No, your edits were not a problem. It was the edits of those individuals who decided to use this talk page as an attack forum. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:02, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

== Whence Lenski? ==

Lenski's article was published in the PNAS, which is from the National Academy of Sciences. Just [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22national+academy+of+sciences%22+god Google their name and "god"] and see why they care so much about "proving" evolution: 93% are atheists! Maybe PNAS isn't a professional organization at all, but a fraternity designed to influence American public policy away from Christian principles. [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html] [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3506.asp] {{unsigned|Drochld}}

:I'm a little confused about the terminology of the survey. According to the 1998 figures, 7% had "personal belief", 72% had "personal disbelief", and 21% had "doubt (presumably equivalent to atheism) or agnosticism". I know what atheism and agnosticism are, but what does personal disbelief mean in this case? It sounds like agnosticism, but agnosticism is in a separate category. So what is it? Anyone know?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 13:31, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::If they're not believers, and they're not agnostics/doubters, then they're atheists. Atheism = disbelief. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:10, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
:::I find it doubtful that are more atheists than agnostics. Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist. A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything. I think a survey with more clearly defined choices is called for.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 23:34, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
::::Actually it is not true to say, ''Atheists are 100% certain that God doesn't exist'' as Conservapedia's article says; [[Weak Atheism]]. Many more scientifically-minded atheists would follow this point of view for the very reasons you state - ''A good scientist is not 100% certain of anything.''--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 12:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::I think the distinction to be made here is between personal belief and what can be proven. It is possible to put forward a definition of God that cannot be tested and is therefore neither provable nor falsifiable, however that wouldn't mean an individual couldn't have a personal belief (or disbelief) in God. If I can be forgiven a pop culture reference, I can't prove I don't live in [[The Matrix]] but I have a personal belief that I don't.--[[User:Boreas|Boreas]] [[User_Talk:Boreas|'''talk''']] 13:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

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

I assume that Bugler's ignoring of Gnostics such as myself was not an attempt to polarise the community into more easily distinguishable sects. {{unsigned|Scholl}}

Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog

2008-06-26T20:31:05Z

Rspeed: /* E. coli in our bowels */ Refuting Jinxmchue

== Final Copy of Letter Sent Wednesday afternoon ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for your data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of ''Escherichia coli''," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

Your work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interest in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request access to the data that was made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and to the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper and referenced in your first reply to me. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key underlying data available for independent review. Your response, or lack thereof, will be posted due to the public interest in this issue. Thank you.

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

:That was disappointing. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I don't blame him if he doesn't respond. What is this about Aschafly wanting to review the information himself. I thought he said that he wouldn't understand it, or something to that effect.[[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:21, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:Well, I guess he didn't really need people to sign on with him, after all. Added to the project page.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== Draft letter ==

Dear Prof. Lenski,

This is my second request for the data underlying your recent paper, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli," published in PNAS (June 10, 2008) and reported in New Scientist ("Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in lab," June 9, 2008).
 http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf
 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

This work was taxpayer-funded, and PNAS represents that its authors will make underlying data available. I'd like to review the data myself and ensure availability for others, including experts and my students. Others have expressed interested in access to the data in addition to myself, and your website seems well-suited for public release of these data.

If the data are voluminous, then I particularly request that access to the data made available to the peer reviewers of your paper, and data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony supposedly developed Cit+. As before, I'm requesting the organized data themselves, not the graphs and summaries set forth in the paper. Note that several times your paper expressly states, "data not shown."

Given that this is my second request for the data, a clear answer is requested as to whether you will make the key data available for independent review. Thank you.

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

cc: PNAS, New Scientist publications

:Given that he was very gracious in his last reply, you think maybe it would be a good idea to at least TRY not to sound like he's being accused of malfeasance? I'd suggest new wording but something much better is already available below. -Drek

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

Schedule permitting, a better version of the draft letter below (which someone diluted) will be sent tomorrow to Lenski, noting support by others (unspecified whom) at Conservapedia. Obviously Conservapedia rejects the limits on access to data proposed by several below. Public access to data means access by all, not merely by people having certain preferred credentials or education.

This will be the second request for the data from Lenski. Given that the research was publicly funded and published in a Journal that has a policy of access to data, the expectation is that Lenski will release the data. But will he?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:40, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
: I'm not sure that you've ever spelt out exactly what data you are expecting. Somebody mentioned on this page that we might be talking about terabytes of data. Is that what you are asking for? Or what?
: Also, I don't recall anybody actually said that the access to the data should be limited (and if you are talking about my comments and those of others that ''we'' should leave it to those who are qualified to see it, then I reject that we are proposing limits as such).
: Neither have you responded to my comments about how it will make creationists look.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:58, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I "diluted it. I thought it needed to be more specific and polite. Since it is neither again, I am hesitant to put my name to it. There's no need to be brusque, and every reason to be as polite as possible.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 12:35, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Current total of supporters: 7'''

*[[User:Aschlafly]]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:13, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 20:55, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*--[[User:DeanS|DeanStalk]] 14:05, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
*[[User:Conservative]]---[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::Wait a second... if I put my name on this list, is it going to get attached to some combative email? I don't want to just agree, when you seem to be ignoring my attempts to help draft this email. What were you proposing to send, Andy? If you wouldn't mind, could you post the text here before I have to decide if I want to attach my good name to it?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 14:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
::QFT. I likewise said earlier that I'd be happy to sign on, pending a review of the actual text to be sent. So long as the tone remains professional and polite I'm in. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: It will be polite and professional, of course. In fact, someone else can draft the text if he likes, as long as it simply requests '''public release of the data for public scrutiny''' and is free of any obfuscation like that displayed by some detractors on this page.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::There's a draft that some folks are working on, below. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 18:24, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Provisionally willing, pending review of the finished draft. I make it a policy never to sign my name to anything I haven't read. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 18:49, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's work up a draft. Here's a start, and improvements are welcome:

Dear Prof. Lenski,

Your recent paper in PNAS, "Historical contingency and the evolution of a key
innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli,"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf] has interested us greatly. Knowing PNAS policy of making data available, we were hoping you would accordingly oblige us with your recorded observations for a few key points.

We respectfully request the data relating to the period during which the bacterial colony developed cit+; while we see excerpts in the paper, we were hoping to examine them in context. Your website[https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] already discloses some older data, and seems well-suited for public release of the data underlying your recent paper.

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

:I think we should probably be more specific, Andy. We're obviously not asking for twenty years' worth of notes, right? Or at least, I don't think we should ask for that.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I think it's reasonably obvious what the key claims are in the paper, and what the key data are underlying those claims. But, if you like, perhaps you can revise the above letter. The paper itself is not long and feel free to cite to it, if you think that is necessary.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I just think it helps to be as specific as possible. But I have edited a bit with slightly more polite wording and more specificity. I hope it is acceptable?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 21:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::If we send that version, put my name on the list :) --[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll add my name to that version as well. It's encouraging to see what teamwork can achieve when we're all focused on the same goal. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:39, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

----

Is it acceptable for the people co-signing this letter to use their Conservapedia user names? I noticed earlier that Arizaphale did not want to use his real name. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:54, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, Philip. I'm also willing to sign with a generic "John Doe" or even an old-fashioned "X". Or, the letter could simply be signed "Members of the Conservapedia Community," since I'm feeling confident that two or more others aren't sporting their actual names on that list. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 11:41, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Right, that's no problem. We're polite and professional around here, and signing as "Members of the Conservapedia Community" is a good suggestion, with a number added.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:51, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'd be more comfortable with that, as well. You can't be too careful with putting personal information online nowadays. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

== Recap ==

Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines all defend the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim. Moreover, note how insulting some of them have become in response below to a request for public scrutiny of the data. No more insults will be allowed here, and their talk pollution may be removed.

Public scrutiny has obvious benefits, and none of them have given any reason for denying that scrutiny. Journals and even government policy encourage or require it. Ah, but [[evolutionists]] feel they can play by their own rules, and make public claims without making the data public. Rest assured that no one here is fooled by this "make the claim but hide the data from the public" approach.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just for the record, the above as it refers to my own statements is untrue. I think public scrutiny is excellent. I believe, in fact, that given that Lenski so promptly answered your questions, he would probably comply with any specific requests you might make. It does not seem reasonable to demand he send you what must be gigabytes of data off the cuff. If you were a professional in a field even tangentially related, I imagine he might be happy to do so immediately, but as it is, I suspect you are not at the top of the list for someone as busy as he undoubtedly must be.
:Perhaps if you sent him an email asking him a specific question: ("I wonder if you would send me the relevant records from the time at which you believe the bacteria became Cit+" might be one, but I am not a biologist) he would answer it with the records or say why he wouldn't. Or if you wait, they might have time to organize the data into a coherent manner for presentation and make it available on the internet or by request. Cordiality is key, we agree on that much.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:05, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::While I appreciate having my name removed from the top list because my position was acknowledged, it's pointless while Carafe, TomMoore, and SMaines are still being represented in the way they are. I'm in agreement with them, and now Philip Rayment too, that simply asking "for all your data" is not only unscientific, but wasteful and disrespectful if there's no meaningful plan in place to use the data productively. None of these people are against disclosure or proper scientific review, so as long as that statement above remains you're continuing to make false statements about CP editors. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:21, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: If you supported public scrutiny of the data, then you would send Lenski an email requesting it. That you have not, and will not, speaks volumes about your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:40, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::I assure you, Andy, I do support it. I see no reason to think it isn't forthcoming, even though he didn't send all of the data to Some Internet Guy who demanded it offhand.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Andy, I will not join in your support in the wasting of the tax dollars of mine and others to provide irrelevant information which you will then proceed to not use. Your version of "scrutiny", unlike scientific scrutiny, accomplishes nothing but to waste our tax dollars.

::::: You can either participate with other scientists in public scrutiny by identifying rational weaknesses in Lenski's work and doing verification experiments, or you can continue to ignore public scrutiny and demand that your version of "scrutiny" be done. What will it be?

::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:09, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Although I support the public release of data, there is no way that I would ask for it or put my name to a request for it unless I first knew that someone was available to analyse it. I mentioned earlier (when this discussion was on Aschlafly's talk page) that creationists might not review Lenski's work because of lack of funding and numbers of creationary scientists available to do the work. Nevertheless, two creationary scientists have or are in the process of critiquing it (and I think an ID proponent has also). But the first (Don Batten) has apparently not seen the need to ask for all the data, and if either of the other two feel the need, they can ask for themselves. But given the aforementioned lack of funding and availability, it would be pointless asking for the data if there was nobody available to analyse it. Of course, if Conservapedia, or someone known to Conservapedia, is offering to fund the analysis, that might change things.
::::: Furthermore, most problems with evolutionary conclusions are not because of misrepresenting the data, but with the conclusions being based on the materialistic worldview. It is usually not necessary to analyse the (in this case) 20 years' worth of data in order to find this fault.
::::: I'm also concerned about the impression this will give of creationists. We cop enough criticism as it is simply by holding creationist views without giving our critics real reasons such as unreasonable demands for data that we will probably never use.
::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: Finally. Someone who makes sense. I'll gladly join in an email requesting any relevant data from Lenski, as needed by an identified/funded creationist scientist for Conservapedia.

:::::: Until that time, Andy's "public scrutiny" just wastes tax dollars.

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 12:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Unfortunately, Philip, you've proven to be right on this. If you google "schlafly lenski" there's plenty of criticism over the way this has been handled by CP, and the credibility of the latter. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Request of Examination of raw data is reasonable given the history of fraud related to the evolutionary position ==

I do think a request of examination of the alleged raw data is reasonable [[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation|given the history of fraud in relation to the evolutionary position]]. In addition, we know know that [[Charles Darwin|Charles Darwin was deceitful regarding his public pronouncements regarding his worldview]] and he was actually an [[atheism|atheist]]. So given the history of [[deceit]] in connection with the evolutionary position and its promotion, I do think Andy is quite justified in requesting to see the raw data of Lenski's alleged work. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 00:14, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: As I wrote above, I'm pretty sure the relevant data would be happily provided as soon as a request a bit more specific than "give me all the data" is given. Some particular weakness that Andy identified in Lenski's reasoning, perhaps? Or some experimental procedure that you deemed especially prone to mistake, or even forgery? What is this "skepticism" that has been "expressed" based on? Or is it some sort of... dogmatic skepticism?

: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::I had asked a question above that was never answered, so I'll repeat it here: Who does Conservapedia plan on retaining to review the data from on scientific basis? It would be a lot more professional to select a qualified scientist or panel of scientists to do the job, and let them have a ''professional'' dialog with Prof. Lenski to review the raw data and conclusions. This is just grandstanding - "You haven't delivered gigs and gigs of raw data as requested, so you're withholding data". What it comes down to is that the CP leadership wants anything BUT a professional, qualified review of professor Lenski's work, because the outcome of that is not likely to be what they want. This reminds me of Kent Hovind's "Evolution Challenge" - set up ridiculous demands, and then claim victory because reasonable people don't meet them. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Public scrutiny has obvious benefits. See "recap" above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:31, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I'll repeat my specific point. There's nothing improper about requesting that Professor Lenski share his raw data, but it's disrespectful of his time if there's no intention of using that data purposefully. I had asked what the plan was for having the data reviewed once it's received. Are there any qualified professionals lined up to review it and respond? He showed courtesy and professionalism in responding intra-day to the original request, so it's disrespectful to accuse him of withholding information after a single exchange of emails. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:44, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::It's also disrespectful to claim that Carafe, TomMoore, SMaines and I are all defending "the withholding from public scrutiny of data underlying a scientific claim." None of us have made that statement, so please remove it since it's untrue. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:46, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: DinsdaleP, clearly state that you support the public release of the data, and retract any comments to the contrary, and I'll remove your name.

:::::: Your comment above suggests that you only support requests for data that have a proper purpose (whatever that is), a proper plan for review (whatever that is), and "qualified professionals lined up to review it." If you cling to that very limited approach, then you do oppose "public scrutiny" of data underlying a scientific claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:38, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::I thought my comments were self-explanatory, but I'll try to simplify it. Yes, I support the public release of the data, and never claimed otherwise. I hope that's clear enough. The point we disagree on is that after a single exchange of emails, it's wrong to accuse Prof. Lenski of withholding data when he made a reasonable attempt to answer your questions and point you to the supporting data in his papers. If you ask him in a courteous manner how the underlying raw data can be made available, I'm sure you'll get a prompt and professional reply. So go ahead, make the request, and get the data. Frankly, I don't care what you do with it, but at least it will stop the insulting accusations of data being withheld. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:03, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::A last clarification - my point about having a "proper purpose" in requesting the data simply meant that if you were asking Prof. Lenski to take the time and effort to collect the raw data and send it to you, I'd hope the effort wasn't going to be a waste of time because it never got into the hands of people qualified to evaluate it properly. Time will tell. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 18:07, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::: Perhaps you're saying you don't oppose public release of the data. You haven't demonstrated you would "support" it, as in joining an email requesting it. Or would you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:19, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::::"Perhaps"? I thought my statement above was plain enough, but instead of retracting your false accusation, you're just adding new conditions - now I have to add my signature to an email I haven't seen to show my support for disclosure? That's a sad way to avoid accountability for making false statements. Show me the email and a plan for using the data that doesn't make this a waste of time and taxpayer money, and I'll consider signing the request. In the meantime, please remove the false statements at the top of this page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:17, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::: I'm sure all of us here will gladly join in an email requesting public release of the data in a scientific scrutiny process. I will not however join in your version of "scrutiny", which has nothing to do with scientific scrutiny at all. -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 20:11, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== responses of creation scientists to Lenski matter ==

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

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5827

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2008/06/14/news-to-note-06142008

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:48, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

== Another email? ==

Is there going to be one? It's entirely possible that, having received a request from a lawyer for data, a scientist might very well think that the data provided in the report would be sufficient. Before deciding that he's hiding something, why not give him enough rope to conclusively hang himself?

"Dear Dr. Lenski,

I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear enough in the first place. We were hoping to see the entirety of the raw data in order to assess it ourselves."

Or some such.

[[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 12:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::If you are running a study on the genetics of a rapidly multiplying bacterial species over many years, the data accumulated will run into many many gigabytes. I don't believe it is practical to hand it out to any Tom, Dick and Harry requesting it. If there are concerns about any particular area of the study which raised suspicion of fraud or misinterpretation of data, then Mr. Schlafly should be asking the raw data pertaining to that particular area.

::I have published in many medical journals and actively peer review for 2 of them. This is how it works in the field of science. Being a lawyer, Mr. Schlafly may not be familiar with the practice. So I do not think the email Aziraphale prepared is appropriate. This is my opinion and most of the users seem to agree with this as well. --[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:35, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

In response to Aziraphale, my email was clear and there is no reason for me to say the same thing again. You're welcome to make your request of Lenski if you really don't think he understood my email.

In response to SMaines, I'll add your name to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data underlying public claims about the data. (The amount of the data is no obstacle to its release.) SMaines' approach prevents mistakes and fraud from being identified by independent public review. Apparently SMaines does not even request availability of the data when he does peer review. Perhaps he could tell us which journals he does peer review for so that others can have a healthy skepticism about claims made in them. Of course, SMaines is unlikely to disclose the names of those journals.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

It is true that I do not ask for raw data from all the authors that I have peer reviewed articles for. You do not seem to understand how the peer review process works. The role of the peer reviewer is not to repeat all the work the authors have already done.

First I check whether the authors are asking a relevant question regarding the hypothesis, whether the hypotheses are falsifiable, whether the methodology is sound without any obvious flaws, were the data collected ethically and whether they obtain informed consent of all involved. I also aim to determine the experiments performed adhering to protocol and statistical methods used were sound. Then I determine whether their results actually conclude what they have listed as their conclusions. I check whether the bibliography is complete and up-to-date. Finally I recommend to the editor whether the paper is significant and relevant to the journal. I may have omitted a few steps, but that is in nutshell how a peer review process works.

I have worked in academic circles for years and I am yet to come across any referee who will ask for the whole set of raw data for all the papers reviewed. Raw data is only asked for if we have any concerns regarding the validity of methodology or conclusions. I have in the past asked for set of raw data to run some specific calculations myself. I have never known any one who will ring an author and ask to send the whole set of data covering years of data collection.

It works like Carafe described “A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they?”

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

For record, I am not against public scrutiny at all, but you have not even pointed out what your concerns or skepticisms are. What you have effectively said is you paper does not fit my belief patterns, so I do not believe you. Hand over all the raw data. This is childish and silly.
--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 15:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:Dear Aschlafly,

:You've mistaken me for someone who thinks he could diagnose Lenski's work in a meaningful way. You are one who can do so, so I was offering advice. It was free, and worth every penny. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 16:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Aziraphale, you still don't get it. I support the public release of the data, so that the public can analyze it. Got it now?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::One of us is certainly not getting something - my suggestion was meant to encourage the release of the data, rather than allowing the conversation to die with a possibility existing that there was a miscommunication rather than a denial of the request. What's more important here: that a political point is scored, or that the data be released? You are 100% mistaken if you think I'm opposed to the release of the data. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 17:50, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:20, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Absolutely, but I won't divulge my identity to you. If using a pseudonym is alright with you I'll gladly attach my support. If my particular handle is too silly, I could be appended as a John Doe instead. That said, you and I have different ideas of what language is appropriate, so I'd expect to see the exact text in advance. For example, until ''proven'' a liar or charlatan he deserves not to be accused of anything. Rather, just as when a motion for discovery is not compeletely fulfilled to your satisfaction, a firm but courteous clarification of your expectations would be appropriate.

::::Would you care for me to draft something instead, and you can sign off, or not, as you see fit? [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 21:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Rants Against Public Release of Data ==

:While you're at it, you might do well to explain to Lenski what exactly a "Conservapedia" is. Unless he really likes Lewis Black's "The conservatives think that YOU, THE PUBLIC, HAVE A LIBERAL BIAS." quote, he's unlikely to know. After all, this site gets most of its views from a small group of devout sysops and the snarkers over at RW. Godspeed. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 13:49, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf Paper 180.] All kinds of data. If you want, I can also link to the protocols and such. Prof. Lenski is way more obliging than we would have any right to expect... I sent him a letter of congratulations, and he even took the time to reply thanking me!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 15:27, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::So, Andy, when can we expect your in-depth analysis of paper #180? -Drek

:::With a professional and comprehensive reply having been sent promptly by Professor Lenski, what would be the intended follow-up from Conservapedia? It seems like he answered the letter's first two questions and pointed out that the third was based on a misunderstanding of his paper. Since his study's data and methodology are freely available for review, I'm wondering who CP is looking to engage to independently review and assess his work, which has already passed peer review in order to be published. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 16:03, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

::::He answered, everybody scramble! I need that Lack of Evidence in the air NOW! You call artillery and tell them to deploy the Inconclusive Data immediately! Move, move, move! We've got a battle against science to fight, people!--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 17:29, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Lenski's reply did not provide the data as requested. It did clarify that his claims are not as strong as some [[evolutionists]] have insisted.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:07, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:"You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper." If this statement is true then I hardly think he's going to go to the trouble of sending us all his data when it is readily available. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:29, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, have you ever read a scientific paper? Papers don't set forth the data themselves. At most, they set forth summaries of data, which can be flawed or self-serving.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Supposing he gave you access to the gigs of raw data, would you:
:::#Be able to understand any of it?
:::#Be prepared to accept that the data accurately reflects the physical facts of the matter in the lab, were you to find it consistent with his conclusions?
:::Given your educational background, I have serious doubts about 1), and given your behaviour on this site, I find myself incapable of believing 2). Please feel free to offer me some reassurance. --[[User:Leda|Leda]] 10:26, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::I find this ironic that you suddenly want data to support someone else's claim, given your "Mystery: Young hollywood stars and breast cancer" ballpark figure. The paper provides more than ballpark figures you have previously used to support your hypothses in the past. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:28, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: In response to Leda, if for some unexplained reason I can't understand the data, then I'll find someone who can. I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air. I am not reassured by the withholding of data.

::::: In response to DanielB, I presented my data and described it as a mystery. What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: ''"I don't know how to fly an airplane but obviously that does not stop me from traveling by air."'' Oh, nobody's objecting to you flying when clueless. But a modicum of flight knowledge might expected of you if you, say, suddenly rush into the cockpit and demand that the pilot repeat to you every single flight procedure done for the last 12 hours, lest you declare him fraudulent and/or incompetent. I mean, isn't that what you're implying?

:::::: I mean, what are you expecting when you demand "data" of the Cit+ mutation occurance other than a log entry of "Jan 24th, 2008, 2:03pm. Generation 2026 confirmed to express Cit+ mutation"? Then what you do oh-so-politely request? That all of his collaborator's minds be read so you can make sure there is no mistakes?

:::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 23:08, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Your attempt to defend the withholding of data underlying a scientific claim is amusing. While you're at it, perhaps you should also protest the Submission guidelines for the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: "(viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information." You might also protest policies that recommend or require taxpayer-funded data to be made available.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: You thought my poking fun at your inability to form a coherent analogy was supposed to be a defense? The amusement is all on this side of the table, trust me. You see, there is no defending going on here, because there is no withholding going on here.

:::::::: ''"(viii) Materials and Data Availability..."'' Yes, you can stop repeating yourself now. This was in your letter, which I did in fact read (something that might not be said of you and the myriad articles Richard provided). I did wonder why that was in your letter. I mean, did you think that normal scientific discourse doesn't occur unless by your legal coercion? I'm pretty sure if you had, say, a request just a tad more specific than "give me all your data", Richard would have been more than happy to reply. "Give me all your data" is as an absurd of a data request as demanding that Richard must "right now tell me all you know about E. coli", which, come to think about it, would be pretty much the same thing.

:::::::: '''''"To allow others to replicate and build on''' work published in PNAS, authors must..."'' Out of curiosity, which part of his experiment are you trying to replicate that need additional information not available in the paper? Maybe you should tell him, he could easily help you with that. If you are not replicating the experiment, then did you have a real question or concern, or a weakness that you identified, like "I had a concern about this-and-that procedure of the strain selection, it seems particularly vulnerable to contamination" he would be quite happy to help you too. But hey, that requires that you have a clue about the subject matter.

:::::::: -- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 00:32, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::::You really go out of your way to defend a guy who's clearly a fraudulent hack. Even if he released his so called "raw data" it would just be a huge load of numbers no one is going to take the time to analyze. If it took him years and years to do this experiment he can be pretty sure no one is going to waste that much time trying to replicate it, so everyone can assume he's right and the atheist Darwinists can pretend they've proved evolution, even when we know it's impossible. Do you believe everything you read? If someone claimed they had a mountain of evidence that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster had a baby, I suppose you'd believe that too if it were published somewhere? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 14:36, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::So let me see if I understand you correctly, Tony. If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
::::::::::Is that correct?
::::::::::Given this and other comments you have made, I suspect that you're a satirist attempting to make conservatives look unreasonable. If so, please stop. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:06, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::::I resent being called a satirist. You assume that anyone who doesn't hold your liberal views must be joking! Well, the majority of the people in this country are "satirists" if that is the case. It doesn't much matter if Lenski releases his data or not. Us right thinking people know he's a fraud because he claims to have witnessed evolution, and we know that is impossible. That is a fact! I'd like to see his data. I bet it's so seriously flawed even someone with little background in biology will be able to tell. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 21:54, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::::::: Do not call Lenski or anyone else a fraud without good evidence. Evolution is impossible, but for Lenski to be a fraud he would have to be claiming something that he ''knows'' to be wrong, and you've provided no evidence of that, and I doubt that it exists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:46, 16 June 2008 (EDT) (Administrator)
::::::::::::: Not at all, Tony. I assume that anyone who is genuinely conservative is going to present a reasonable and rational demeanor, refrain from a priori reasoning, and generally engage in mature conduct. I assume that those who wish to promulgate a stereotype of conservatism with an eye to demonization is going to engage in name-calling, refuse to engage in rational discussion, and declare himself right without adequate support for the position. Such actions are entirely consistent with liberals masquerading as conservatives. If you resent being called a satirist, I would suggest attempting to conduct yourself in a manner becoming a conservative. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:22, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::::: Where did the 20 years come from? Lenski was asked for the data supporting his claim. He has produced some information on a website, but not that data. Yes, making a claim while withholding the data, even after a request, can reasonably lead one to doubt the claim. Wouldn't you agree with that?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:23, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

'''(Unindent)'''

Certainly, Mr. Schlafly. What I'm taking issue with is Tony's claim that even if Lenski releases his data, it's not worth taking the time to analyze or "waste the time" trying to replicate. It seems very much to me as if he's trying to portray conservatives as closed-minded and unwilling to look at the evidence. Perhaps I'm mistaken on that point, but I certainly think you'd agree that such individuals have turned up here before, wouldn't you?

With respect to the 'twenty years' portion: I was under the impression that you wanted the full and complete data to be made available. Given that the experiment took twenty years, I assumed that you would want the full twenty years of data included for evaluation. I apologize if I was mistaken.--[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:28, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

----

I was wondering how anyone possibly could conclude from this exchange that Lenski was hiding something. I came to the conclusion that some people must not understand how scientific scrutiny works. I wrote a guide.

Scientific scrutiny works like this: 
{| width="500px"
|-
|'''Scientist A''' publishes results. 
'''Scientist B''': A, I tried duplicating your experiment, but parameters x, y, and z that I need were not in your article. I need you to disclose to me x, y, and z that you used at the time. What are they? 
'''A''': x, y, and z are such and such. 
'''B''': Using x, y, and z, my result doesn't agree with yours at all. Are you sure you did the procedures that you claimed? 
'''A''': ... 
'''B''': You fraud!

Scientific scrutiny ''does not'' work like this: 

'''A''' publishes results. 
'''B''': I have Generic Skepticism toward your article. Under code viii of the Publication Criteria, I demand that you give me all of your data! 
'''A''': ... ok...? It seems that everything you would need is already in the article. Did you have something specific in mind? 
'''B''': A has refused to attach all data he has ever used for the experiment. He is withholding information and thus hiding something.
|-
|}

-- [[User:Carafe|Carafe]] 01:42, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:This is it. This one is my favorite post. Carafe has won Conservapedia, roll the credits.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 01:49, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Beautiful! What else can I say?--[[User:SMaines|SMaines]] 13:37, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Not much, apparently. I think you've exhausted your meaningful comments.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Aschlafly, have you read the paper? ==

I have. It pretty fairly lays out all the important data. Unless you want to run the experiments yourself - which I don't know if you could do, given the equipment he used - I think it's probably the best you'll ever get. I think a fair reply to Lenski would be point out elements of his analysis that you don't like, and put that in a reply e-mail. Otherwise, your lack of reply makes it look like you've given up, and your defensive parries here ("he didn't give all his data!") look like a losing rearguard action.-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 17:10, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::May I sign-with-qualifier? As in, signed, "A. Shephard - please do show as much as reasonably possible; the truth will out and convince those who doubt you, and this will hasten it along."?-[[User:AShephard|AShephard]] 22:24, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

== Something to note ==

From the AiG article:

"AiG’s Dr. Georgia Purdom is studying the research for an upcoming semi-technical article in the journal Answers In Depth."

Apparently, Lenski has released his data to Purdom. Presumably, Dr. Purdom wouldn't settle for fragmentary data that wouldn't allow her to fully evaluate the claims. Had Lenski refused to disclose, it seems certain that AiG would have made note of it.

{{unsigned|Benp}}

==Hypothetical==
Let's say that a second email is enough for Lenski to release his data. What are you going to do with it all? Previous discussions show you don't what you are doing with small, simple to analyse data sets. You would need a degree in biochemistry and biostats to even begin to know what you are going to do with it. The people who have peer reviewed the paper a by far better qualified and if they had concerns they would have asked specifically for what they wanted without sounding like .... Well I want say what you sound like writting emails singed with a law degree demanding data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:16, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

: Would you join an email requesting public release of the data, or not?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Sure, but like the human genome it will probably be released in time anyway in a way that is useful. You standing there making demands, signing letters JD, makes you look like some lawyer with an axe to grind rather than someone interested in research. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:33, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

==Proposed Follow-up Email==
Since Andy wants to send a second email for some of the rest of us to sign as well, here is a space to work out the wording. I wonder if MainS and Carafe would help us write something that seems reasonable and polite, since you guys seem to have sufficient knowledge in the field to describe what we are looking to find out?

I would suggest something along these lines:

''Dear Professor Lenski''
''We are writing in regards to your recent experiment with cit+ development in observed E. coli populations. We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data from your observations during the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase. We are intensely curious about that information. If it will be made available through some other venue and you wish to direct us to that instead, then we would very much like to be made aware of that.''
''Thank you,''
''Andy Schlafly, Thomas Moore, etc.''

Is that a reasonable request? I am afraid biology protocol is quite beyond me, so some help would be appreciated.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 22:47, 15 June 2008 (EDT)

::Looks like a good start, Tom, but from the comments so far it seems like nothing short of the full set of observations is going to be satisfactory for some of the skeptics here. I'd suggest the following revision to the second and third sentences:
::''We were wondering if you would oblige us by sending the relevant raw data for the full set of your observations for this population. We are intensely curious about the period in which the bacteria population developed the ability to utilize citrase, but would like the complete set of observations instead of a subset to facilitate an independent analysis of the research.'' --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:07, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
:::It doesn't seem reasonable to demand twenty years' worth of observations, which would be the full set. Or at least, it doesn't seem reasonable to me.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 00:09, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::::It doesn't seem reasonable to me, either, which is why Professor Lenski's response pointed readers to the relevant subsets of data, and that would be sufficient for most reasonable people. I was just pointing out that unreasonable people here will consider anything less than all 20 years to be withholding data, so what's needed to satisfy the skeptics is a way for that full body of observations to be accessible. If the response is that it would take too much time and/or money to satisfy the request, then the burden of proof falls on the skeptics to justify why they can't start with the data already made available and only request additional data when they have specific questions that require it for an answer. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 00:32, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Well, maybe they will feel differently. I think this is the polite and reasonable approach, rather than asking for all twenty years. Other comments? Andy?--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 18:51, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

==What is the plan for a Conservapedia review of Lenski's work?==

One thing that keeps getting lost in the rhetoric - who is looking at the Lenski work on behalf of Conservapedia? More than a few people here, including a CP sysop, have pointed out that a proper scientific review can begin using the data already made available by Professor Lenski. If this review surfaces any questions or criticisms, then that would prompt an exchange with Lenski on the specifcs, and I'm sure the related data would be made available. While I see that there are reviews of the work being done by some creationist groups (who apparently see no need to have all the raw data first), the Conservapedia approach is more like a set of lawyers looking for discovery than a set of scientists looking for truth. Why can't CP review Lenski's work in a scientific manner like AiG instead? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:31, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

: The issue is '''public''' release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::No one investigating Lenski's work in a scientific manner is accusing him of withholding any data from them, or from the public. You're setting a new, and unprofessional, precedent in expecting a scientist to take the time to collect and send you decades of raw data on his research simply because you're asking him to, when you haven't even shown the courtesy of demonstrating why this effort is necessary. I repeat the question you keep avoiding - is this exercise going to be a waste of Lenski's time so you can make a point, or do you have a plan to use that raw data and a timetable for publishing your findings? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:52, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

::: DinsdaleP, it sounds like your name should be added back to the list of those who oppose public release and scrutiny of the data above. The questions you keep harping on are irrelevant to the issue of public release and scrutiny of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:02, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Feel free to add me back to your ridiculous list, then. Anyone who can read knows where I stand, just as they can see your continued avoidance of my question. There is no plan, is there? I'll be glad to stand corrected if I'm wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:17, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: How is asking about "scrutiny of the data" irrelevant to the issue of "public release and '''scrutiny of the data'''"? Color me confused!--[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:03, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

You don't seem to understand the scientific method at all. There is a reason peer review is so called. It is a review of work by your peers, that is fellows engaged in similar fields of research. You are not a peer of Dr. Lenski. You don't even hold an undergraduate degree in a related field. You aren't even qualified to be a research assistant in his lab. You're a lawyer, and I'm sure you're good at your job and all, but don't try to pretend to qualifications you simply do not have to serve a political purpose.

Lets face it, the good doctor has been extremely kind to you thus far. I would not recommend pushing your luck. Had it been me, your email would have hit the bit bucket faster than you can say "plunk". As far as I can tell, you haven't even had the good grace to read the poor guy's paper as he suggested. I did, and I found it extremely accessible compared to the cryptography papers I'm used to reviewing. I believed I followed the bulk of it, and I'm sure you could too if you were so minded.

But of course, you aren't minded to. You're not at all interested in his findings, because you assume they're false before you even know the details. If he were correct, it would yet further discredit your young earth creationist beliefs. Here is research that gives the lie to the old "mutations never produce new information" talking point, while at the same time demonstrating how a feature that seems incredibly unlikely were it to happen in one big bang, can in fact become trivial via building up a "potentiated genome" as alluded to by Lenski in his email (see the section headed "Historical Contingency in the Evolution of Cit+" for details of the experiments they performed to confirm this.)

This experiment yet again confirms the predictions of the theory of evolution, while contradicting your own creation hypothesis (The capacity for citrate utilisation starts out weak and gets stronger over time, via additional mutations that out compete the peers they fissioned from.) This result scares you. You aren't interested at all in Dr. Lenski's data are you? All you want is to make an unreasonable request, and then when it is sensibly refused or ignored to trumpet that clearly the scientists working on LEE are attempting to hide something. Nobody is impressed by your transparent posturing. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 15:08, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
: Although some of your comments, such as those about peer review, are reasonable, the last half particularly is begging the question. His research is ''claimed to'' give the lie to the "mutations never produce new information" claim, but whether they ''actually'' do is one of the points that are in contention. Trying to make your point by assuming your point and simply restating it is not a valid form of argument. Further, although misunderstanding this is understandable, creationists have acknowledged that mutations might ''extremely rarely'' produce new genetic information by chance. Their argument is more that you can't use mutations as a source of new information, not because it never ever happens, but because it very rarely happens and would be swamped by all the information-losing mutations. So Lenski's claim, even if it turned out to be true (which seems unlikely: see creationist responses linked above), does not disprove creationism anyway, as ''one'' example of an information-gaining mutation is consistent with creationism and inconsistent with evolution, which requires ''many'' such mutations. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:05, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Ugh. Don't get me started on those "creationist responses." They're clearly written for a scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience. People who won't notice that the author's idea of a literature survey is to read and fail to understand an abstract, and then cite the paper in support of whatever gibberish they want to commit to paper. The AiG response is just talking points recycled for the occasion, which no meaningful content, while creation on the web is so intellectually dishonest it beggars belief. Take this wonderful paragraph:

{{cquote|Furthermore, E. coli is normally capable of utilizing citrate as an energy source under anaerobic conditions, with a whole suite of genes involved in its fermentation. This includes a citrate transporter gene that codes for a transporter protein embedded in the cell wall that takes citrate into the cell.}}

:: Wrong, wrong, wrong. E. Coli is not, and has never been observed to be capable of utilising citrate natively. Any E. Coli that have this ability have it because it is coded for be invasive plasmids. That's the point of the paper the author cites. Lenski takes great pains to point out that the Cit+ and Cit- strains DO NOT possess these plasmids, since the issue of external contamination would be foremost in any reviewer's mind.

:: The whole creation on the web article is like this throughout. It takes parts of the paper out of context and uses them as an attack on the work. Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution. The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution." It's the most astonishingly asinine thing I've read this month, and only "died-in-the-wool" (sic) creationist would take it seriously.

:: So, here's the thing. Lets assume that Lenski's claims are false or exaggerated (and I don't think for a moment that is the case.) How exactly is Schlafly, a lawyer, going to show this regardless of how much raw data he has? He doesn't even know what to ask for, let alone what he's going to do with it once he has it. I don't believe it would be overly cynical to ascribe an ulterior motive to this request. At very best, he wants to pester a person doing productive research and force him to do extra work, unpaid, on his behalf. That would be fine if Schlafly was a peer of Lenski's seeking verification of the result. Defending one's work is part of the scientific process, but there have to be limits. If you really want to analyse the result, first find a working biologist with time and equipment to do the analysis, then and only then will I support the request for further data.

:: To all others supporting the request currently, I'd ask they withdraw their support until such time as this condition is fulfilled. I cannot believe that Schlafly seriously wants the data, simply that he wishes the request to be refused such that he can make outlandish claims about scientific transparency. --[[User:Taciturn|Taciturn]] 08:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, I'm not requesting merely my personal review of the data (although certainly I will review it if Lenski produces it), but rather the ''public scrutiny'' of the data. Unless you think that Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge, you should agree that additional review of the data by others can yield additional insights, and possibly identify flaws.

::: Andrew Wiles is undeniably a bright mathematician, as are his friends who reviewed his claim to have proven Fermat's Last Theorem. But when he made his initial proof available more widely, others saw flaws in it that took a long time to repair. Obviously the same may be true about anyone's work ... including Lenski's.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:37, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: [Edit conflict] Mr. Schlafly, given that Lenski is required to release the data to any scientist who asks, who exactly is preventing public scrutiny? A lawyer such as yourself quite simply does not have the training to understand the data, and you're quite unlikely to find a scientist sympathetic to your cause. Even if he releases twenty years worth of research to you, nothing changes. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Are you saying that only a "scientist" may see the data? I hold an engineering degree and worked at Bell Labs, but perhaps you have some special definition to limit access to the data as much as possible. If someone drops out of college, does that disqualify him from being able to look at the data? I certainly hope that isn't your view.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::Andy, only someone with proper training in biology could hope to understand the raw data. You can look at it, yes, fine, but you won't understand it, and you'll quickly demand that Lenski release it in a "clear and comprehensive format", at which point you'll promptly be pointed right back to Paper 180. Your engineering degree doesn't help you here. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Taciturn, one more bigoted derogatory comment like those in your first paragraph and the end of your third paragraph and you will earn yourself a block.
::: Now, to your specific claims regarding AiG and CMI:
::: * The articles are written for a lay audience, but that doesn't mean that they are written for a "scientifically illiterate and unthinking audience". On the contrary, they aim to make them scientifically accurate.
::: * The AiG article was clearly a preliminary response, so your derogatory comment about no meaningful content is unwarranted.
::: * "''Whole sentences and paragraphs are copied wholesale without attribution.''": Please back that claim with evidence or retract it.
::: * "''The author makes totally unfounded claims about the what the LTEE team are doing, accusing them of "giving up on observing evolution."''": On the contrary, it appears that you did not read the article properly (with an open mind?). It actually says that "...Lenski seemed [note both the lack of definiteness/lack of accusation and the past tense] to have given up on ‘evolution in the lab’ ..."
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Taciturn discredited himself, and probably won't even defend his behavior.

:::: But Philip, I have a question for you: do you support public release of the data to enable others (including creationists) to review it? It's hard for me to see how outside reviewers (including creationists) can do a thorough job without access to the data. Undeniably outside reviewers could do a better job if the data were public.

:::: I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: I've already given my answer to whether or not I support release of the data. Do a search of this page for a post with a timestamp of 09:34. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::: Well, OK, I found your prior posting and reread it, but didn't find any answer to the basic question I just asked: wouldn't outside reviewers (including creationists) be better off with an availability of the data? And to your point about funding, wouldn't funding be easier to obtain (to the extent necessary) if it were known that the data are available? Seems obvious to me, and probably to the co-signers (11 and growing), that the answer is "yes" to both.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::::: Actually, that was not a question that you had just asked. And yes, outside reviewers, including creationists, ''would'' be better off with the data being available, ''if they plan on reviewing all that data''. But that's a big "if", because, as I did say above, there is a shortage of available creationary scientists and funding for them. As for obtaining funding, no, I don't think it would make a difference. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Lenski has not refused to release the data; it's just that you plan on asking him to do so ''now'' rather than wait for someone who is actually going to review the data to ask. That is, I assume that the data would be made available in due course to a serious researcher who requested it.
:::::::: I also pointed out that creationary scientists may not be interested in reviewing all the data. They probably have better things to do with their time and funds than to analyse 20 years worth of data, when all they likely need to do is find out a bit more about his actual results. Further, as I said elsewhere on this page, it's even ''possible'' that Lenski has actually found a mutation that has added genetic information. Creationists don't rule out that there may be very rare examples of this, and ''perhaps'' this is the first known case of such. But that doesn't disprove creation nor prove evolution because, as I said, creationism can handle the odd exception to the rule, whereas the evolution requires millions of such information-gaining mutations, and one example is not that evidence. So why would a creationary scientist waste his time (unless someone was employing him to do it)?
:::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Which would mean that it would not even be published in the journal, Andy. Your final claim is unfounded and, quite frankly, slanderous. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 10:19, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: If the peer reviewers saw the data, then it is no problem to make that data publicly available. So where is it?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:07, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::In the paper, Andy. Everything that you could need to know about the experiment and much more is in the paper. If you don't believe me, you can ask Lenski for something extra, however general questions like the ones you've sent him so far will only get you pointed back to the paper. If you've got a specific part of the work you want, ask and I'm sure he'll happily throw the raw, incomprehensible data at you. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 11:10, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::This would seem to come down to a fundamental misunderstanding. Few biologists are going to want to see Lenski's raw data like this, because the observations will be relatively simple to make - or at least simple for a biologist. Instead, they will want to examine his methodology (which is already freely available) to see if they can find any flaws. For example, if he had stored them in a non-sterile environment or something, the colonies could have been contaminated, and it would invalidate his conclusions. They will also want to see the conclusions he draws from his observations, which might be unwarranted or otherwise explainable. For example, if they know as biologists that e. coli can use citrase under certain conditions (not the case, actually, but it's an example), they would call his conclusions into question. And of course some scientists are going to want to imitate his whole set-up to reproduce his result... although it will take a while. But because Prof. Lenski is a highly skilled and reputable scientist, few are going to demand to see his raw data, because there is little reason not to trust his integrity. That is generally just not how this science is done, to the best of my knowledge.--[[user:TomMoore|Tom Moore]][[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]] 13:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I can't believe I'm getting into this particular mess but, here goes: hypothetically, let's say that Andy contacts Lenski and Lenski graciously releases all of the raw data anyone could want. Let's further say that Andy manages to secure the services of a qualified analyst who has the time and training to properly analyze said data and that, further, that analyst confirms that Lenski's interpretations are correct. In other words, the analyst says that Lenski is- as far as anyone can tell- correct. What happens then? Will Andy or anyone else publicly acknowledge this to be the case, or will the story suddenly become that Lenski "falsified" his raw data? Because, really and truly folks, the "raw data" we keep talking about is not the same thing as actually having access to Lenski's samples. Moreover, Lenski is not about to release any part of his samples to folks who haven't the slightest idea how to store them, much less how to analyze. And I don't have imagination enough to think that Conservapedia is going to set up an adequately equipped and staffed research lab capable of taking possession of such samples, much less fund it long enough to replicate Lenski's research. As far as I can tell, this entire thing is a lot of sound and fury that will ultimately come to nothing (apologies Will). So what's with all the grandstanding, Andy? Okay, I've said my bit. I'll go back to editing statistics articles now. -Drek
::I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:23, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: I've just posted above in a reply to Andy why I think a creationary scientist would ''not'' be interested. I'll add here that, according to Don Batten of CMI (link elsewhere on this page), it fits with what Behe has written about in his latest book, so there's no reason to think that this case would bother ID proponents either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::''"I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data."'' Yeah, but I was specifically referring to qualified analysts, so the ID/C.S. folks won't help. Snark aside, however, neither you nor anyone else has addressed the underlying issue: what happens if Lenski DOES provide the full database? It isn't like someone couldn't claim he faked that and the only way to confirm it would be to evaluate his samples. Look, I DO in fact support public availability of data derived from publicly funded research. That said, however, if we don't even have a plausible case for how we ourselves could verify output, much less carry out a replication, we're just being nuisances. Lenski's job is to do research, not bow to every request made of him by random unqualified amateurs. And even if he has tenure and that somehow made him utterly invulnerable to firing (oddly, failing to produce is one of those things that can kill tenure) he still has a responsibility to his Post-Docs and grad students. -Drek
::::: I've warned two others on this page about derogatory comments, and you've gone and added your own. For that you've earned yourself a block for the "snark". [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

It interesting that Rayment has given Derek a block for 'snarking'. Presumably this is to maintain a decent, respectful, and intelligent tone in the body of the discussion. However, Schafly's entire tone in his addresses to Dr. Lenski have been openly insulting and ignorant from the start, yet there has been no attempt to address that problem from Rayment. A number of others have flung open insults, yet no blocks are in placefor them as long as they insult Dr. Lenski. How is that not a double standard? {{unsigned|Bithead}}
: For one thing, there's not much point in blocking someone who has the ability to unblock themselves. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:24, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

Really, starting a conversation with "I will post your reply, or lack thereof" then maintaining that one only wants to participate in a scientific conversation and is chiefly concerned with freedom of information is hypocritical to say the very least. As someone who can't be blocked, he has clearly set the standard for conservapedia. Also, others on this thread have tendered obvious insults yet enjoyed no admonitions - again so long as they insult Lenski. Isn't there something in the 'conservapedia commandments' about double standards?

==Question==
I am going to make it clear that I am not willing to put my name on this. I whole-heartedly support the release of Professor Lenski's data, but not to a faceless group of individuals with no clear purpose for demanding the data. My question is, as Mr. Schlafly seems to be avoiding it, have you Mr. Schlafly read the paper that Professor Lenski directed you to? I hope that this request is more than an attempt to add Professor Lenski to the [[professor values]] list. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:18, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: Your argument is irrelevant to the ''public'' release of the data. I hadn't read Andrew Wiles' attempt to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, but I sure am glad that he publicized it so that people could identify serious flaws after Wiles' expert friends declared it to be complete.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:26, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::You already emailed Professor Lenski, and he kindly took the time to respond. But you didn't even bother to read the answers he gave you. Sending him another email demanding even more information, without even reading the information he already gave you seems rude. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 15:49, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Now you're making up things about me. Perhaps you think you can distract attention from the simple issue of public release of the data. You failed if that was your goal.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::That never was my intention. I was simply trying to understand your reasoning behind this email. I am interested in something else at the moment actually. You seem to enjoy mentioning Andrew Wiles and Fermat's Last Theorem. Who proved that Andrew Wiles was wrong. Was it a layperson, or a mathematician? [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:58, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::At the end of the introduction to the revised paper, Wiles indicates that the original error was detected in discussions between himself, Nick Katz, Luc Illusie and Richard Taylor. Katz is a professor at Princeton, Illusie at Paris Sud, and Taylor at Harvard. Between the three of them they now have over 200 peer reviewed papers on elliptic curves and Galois representation theory. Of course their records were weaker at the relevant time in 1993, but they were certainly all established mathematicians. I think they were all at the Isaac Newton Institute when Wiles first explained his work in lectures there. So it is far from the truth to suggest that Wiles's expert friends declared the proof complete, or that errors were found by random other people after the release of the preprint. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 17:42, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: If you're trying to exclude people from looking at the data based on their education or credentials, then just say so. There are many bright people who never graduated from college, and I oppose making education or credentials a test for who can review the data. In Wiles' case, I don't know what the credentials were of the multiple people who found serious flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:20, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
== Two Questions for Aschlafly==

I have two questions for Aschlafly. Please answer them plainly and in brief as I've no use for obfuscation typical of what I've seen above. As you know, failing to answer is an answer of sorts. Here are my questions:
# Have you read Lenski's paper as he suggested?
# What do you plan to do with his "raw" data should you receive it?
The answers to these two questions will tell much about your intent and your character. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 18:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::So your answers are

# you "skimmed" it
# you won't do anythnig with the "raw data" should he send it to you
Thank you for your honesty. I hope your readership takes these answers in their full measure. [[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 19:30, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

: I hope you recognize and admit to the benefits of public access. You haven't yet.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:34, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

=== Two Questions for Aschlafly: comments from others===
*I don't believe it will be hard to gain interest from creation scientist organizations/individuals and ID theorists in regards to reviewing the raw data.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:21, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:I know your question was not directed at me, but isn't the point of public release that it would be open to ''everyone'' to examine; ie - that this isn't solely about Aschlafly? I doubt if there is anyone on this site who would be capable of understanding Lenski's raw data, if it were to be made available, but that is not a reason to oppose the public release of the data ''per se'', is it? If released publicly, anyone capable of understanding it can see it for themselves, and those who cannot understand it will be unaffected. What's wrong with that?[[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 18:44, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I would encourage people to watch the movie of what the physical form of the raw data looks like. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNaXlK_3Fik They tested 4 trillion cells.[http://scienceblogs.com/loom/2008/06/02/a_new_step_in_evolution.php] Assuming even a simple 'y/n' for the 'can metabolize citrate' that is about 4 terabytes of data. This doesn't go into the other genes that they have studied. Are you going to send him some hard drives to copy the data onto? Do you have the bandwidth to host that data for public scrutiny (at a full T1 speed with 100% utilization, if I did my math correctly, it would take about 2 years to download all of the data)? Granted, that is one extreme of the data but this could potentially be more than you can handle or host. And if he says its a terrabyte of data or so, will you host it? --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 18:53, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

:No, I wouldn't host it. If the data were made publicly available, I would have no interest in downloading it or reading it because I am not a biologist and wouldn't be able to understand it. But I am not opposed to the data - whatever size the files are - being made available for people who can understand it (and have sufficiently spacious hard drives). [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:01, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::to clarify, I am not opposed to it '''in principle'''. [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 19:03, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

I did skim Lenski's paper, and saw that on multiple occasions he says the data are not shown. In addition, his figures and tables are oddly uninformative. I recall that one figure is complete speculation. After skimming his paper the need for public disclosure of the data became even more apparent.

What would I do with the raw data? I don't propose that access to it be limited based on education or credentials. I would expect many people, including folks just as bright as Lenski, to examine it and possibly identify flaws or make suggestions.

I repeat: does anyone here really think Lenski's team is perfect or has a monopoly on knowledge???--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:12, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

)

:I don't think they have a monopoly on knowledge, and nobody's perfect. On the other hand, I do think the volume of data might prove to be a problem. If a response indicates that the complete data is simply too massive to be mailed/posted to a website, what's the next reasonable step? --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 19:50, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::It is becoming clear that this campaign to release the data has more to do with your hope that Lenski won't and you can dismiss his claims on those grounds. I am sure the data is available to the people who need to see it and depending on the copyright restrictions that research unfortunatly comes with these day (usually through funding by non-government entities) it will be made available as publically as it can.

:: Someone earlier mentioned ID theorist, they tend to have about as much qualifications on this as Andrew Schalfly, BSE. JD. so I won't hold much hope in them being able to understand it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 22:22, 17 June 2008 (EDT)
::: As I've warned someone else already on this page, one more derogatory comment like that in your second paragraph and you will earn yourself a block. Despite anti-creationist and anti-ID urban myth, the credentials of ID proponents and creationary scientists are every bit as good as those of other scientists. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:15, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

::::Really, ID theorist are scientist? [http://www.discovery.org/fellows/ Look at the Discovery Institute's board members and fellows]. Cihak is a MD, every other person on that list either has a degree in history, political science or law. Behe use to be a fellow so that is one biochemist, Dempski(?) was a mathematician who use to be there once. Only one relevently qualified and two semi-qualified experts that is it. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:02, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
::::: The Discovery Institute is not the only source of ID proponents. Just as with evolutionists, there are those that are qualified and those that are not, but still believe it, promote it, and etc. Your comment that I warned you about was ID theorists ''in general'', not DI board members and fellows specifically. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::But go to an equivalent one evolution supporting organisation and it will be full of PhD's in biology. Can you name any of these ID theorists ''in general'', Behe is the only one that comes to my mind. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 00:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Really? I looked at the NCSE's staff list, and here's what I found.
:::::::* Glenn Branch: no PhD. MA in philosophy from (UCLA).
:::::::* Barbara Forrest: PhD in philosophy (Tulane University).
:::::::* Peter Hess: PhD in a theological field, Science and Religion, (Graduate Theological Union).
:::::::* Louise Mead: PhD in Organismic and Evolutionary Biology (UMass).
:::::::* Eric Meikle: PhD in anthropology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Kevin Padian: PhD in vertebrate evolution (Yale).
:::::::* Andrew Petto: PhD in bioanthropology (UMass).
:::::::* Joshua Rosenau: PhD candidate, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (University of Kansas).
:::::::* Eugenie Scott: PhD in physical anthropology (University of Missouri).
:::::::* Susan Spath: PhD in history of science, MA in molecular and cell biology (Berkeley).
:::::::* Philip Spieth: PhD in genetics (University of Oregon).
::::::: Biologists, yes. "full of PhD's in biology"? No.
::::::: As for ID theorists, off the top of my head there's Michael Denton and Dean Kenyon. Not to mention the creationary scientists, such as Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Gary Parker, Jeff Downes, and many others.
::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:26, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::::::::I made some edits showing the location of where their graduate degrees were awarded (this is important for those who receive degrees from non-accredited schools). I would not cite NCSE anyway for they are only a PR group. I will point out that 9 out of the 11 are PhDs, that is pretty high (over 80%)(while one of the two non-PhDs is a PhD candidate). The question I might ask is how often do those of a non-related field write or evaluate a topic or paper? This should also be asked about CMI and such.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 10:58, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::::: So which is the DI nearest to? A scientific research lab or a PR group?
::::::::: Okay Able806, you implicitly questioned the legitimacy of the qualifications of creationists. So you now have a job: List, like I did and you expanded, the qualifications of the CMI staff ([http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/45/ here's] your starting point). And when you've done that, tell us how many of those are from non-accredited schools. Else you just might earn yourself a block for implicit accusations of dishonesty (that they are claiming to be something that they are not). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:15, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:No need to threaten a block Philip, for to block me due to said accusation would require a block from those who are stating that Lenski is with holding his work from review. Here is a list I compiled from the website you gave me. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing names. I will add the information just as I did above as I discover it. Oh, does AU have a system to list accreditation? I will need to know that as well for those who received their Ph.Ds in AU.
:Carl Wieland
:Don Batten
:Gary Bates
:Jonathan Sarfati
:Tas Walker
:David Catchpoole
:Pierre Jerlström
:Peter Sparrow
:Russell Grigg
:Mark Harwood
:John Hartnett
:Rod Walsh
:Barry Tapp
:Stephen Grocott
:Richard Fangrad
:Emil Silvestru
:Calvin Smith
:Jeff Chiasson
:Adrian Bates
:Johan Kruger
:Philip Bell
:Rob Carter
:Skip Tilton
:The above list is a working list.--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:27, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::I've never heard of an accreditation list in Australia, but calling yourself a University when your not is an offence. [http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=University+act&meta= If you scroll down a bit] Each universities relevent act shows up eventually. It is a unique Australian phenomenon the act of parliment to create a university.

::PJR giving Able806 a stupid job to do to deflect from the fact that you are severlly losing an argument is petty. All the Australians above have by and large from some of Austalia's top universities. Okay you have made your point. However I will note that one of them is famous for his twin publishing record. He publishes in top quality geology journals with the rock is 2.6bya, this glacier formed 100mya, and he has another list where he publishes in his creation "journal" he is on the board for defending his rediculous 6000 year hypothesis. Yes these days crationist have PhD either through abandoning their when that "have been saved" in which case they corrupt the scientific method to prove their new belief or they went through doing their PhD all the time not believing what they write. As someone currently studying a PhD I can't see how they managed but being slightly divorced from reality probably helped. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: I read Lenski's paper, and as a trained microbiologist, I thought that it was both thorough and well done. His claims are backed by good data, namely that which was presented in the figures. I went through each of the figures after Aschlafly said that they were uninformative. Actually, they are basic figures that show the population explosion of the bacterial cultures after the Cit+ mutation occurred. These figures show that the cultures increased in size and mass at a given timepoint, being able to do so because they had evolved a mechanism to utilize a new nutrient, without the assistance of helper plasmids.

I know that my post is getting long, but I just wanted to say that in addition to this that of course there is going to be a figure with some speculation when it is covering an alternate hypothesis. That is what a lot of science is really about; the scientist creates a battery of hypotheses, and through experimentation narrows down the field. Lenksi's paper, while not the most definite I've seen, is still a very well-researched paper that supports its claims nicely. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

==Detractor Lineup==

Ok, there seems to be some confusion about whether we are opposing the public release of information based on principle or practicality. So, let's make a list to make our position clear (please add a brief explanation and feel free to discuss in the comments section). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRINCIPLE'''

'''Oppose Public Release based on PRACTICALITY'''

* Because it is time consuming, costly (both in terms of money and resources) and the data is too big to be readily transfered. If we had a genuine reason to want the data and we were actually going to do something with it then it would be worth the effort (for example if we disputed a particular conclusion, in which case we could probably narrow down the data we wanted) however demanding a release based solely on principle is simply impractical and not going to happen. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:54, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
:To illustrate that "big" means, a little ilustration from my own work. I work for the LOFAR project's future data proccesing center, we plan on recieving several dozen gigabits per second, or about a 60 meter stack of paper a second.. Now, I know biology research doesn't produce as much data as radiotelescopes do, but they've been working for 20 years.
:By demanding all the original data, you are asking for several shipping containers full of dvd's. It's just not acceptable to spend so much time and money on everyone who asks for it, especially when you have no real desire to reproduce anything. I do think you should be able to see the data, but you obviously have to be more specific in your questions for information.
:Again, I am not a biologist, but in astronomy when you want raw data, you request information about a specific part of measurements. You call someone and ask for data for 10 seconds from this-and-that time and of such-and-so area of sky. You do not send an open letter and demand "All research data". I think Richard Lenski was increadibly kind not to laugh in your face for such a demand, because it shows the asker has no idea how the scientific community functions.
[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 14:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

'''Comments'''

StatsMsn, your objection is purely speculative and, frankly, implausible. Lenski has not asserted your claim and I doubt he will.

But if you're right about the key data, then that suggests the peer reviewers did not have access to it, and the conclusion is this: claims based on that data should not be published in a Journal that says the data will be made available. Instead, one could publish such claims in a Journal saying the data will not be made available, and we can all take the claims with a grain of salt.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:I think it's more likely that Lanski hasn't released the information to you based on practicalities than a conspiracy to publish false results. Note that I did not say the peer reviewers did not have access to the raw data, only that you did not. If there was a genuine reason to provide the data to someone (that is, someone who had a genuine reason to have it, such as to confirm or dispute a conclusion) then I have no doubt that any ethical research team would work out a way to transmit it. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:: StatsMsn, I stopped reading at your word "conspiracy". No is alleging a "conspiracy". Post in a rational manner and don't pollute this page. Apologize and clean up your edit or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::I'm sorry Mr. Schlafly, but you seem to be trying to say that Lenski fudged 20 years of work, and that is being hidden by the people reviewing his work. That sounds like a conspiracy. Perhaps you should apologize, or clarify your edits. [[User:SugarCup|SugarCup]] 17:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Has anyone considered the possiblility that some data was removed in the reviewing process? From my experience with journal publications (moderate at best) page numbers is important. Pages and pages of data and graphs are expensive to print. The reviewer would have seen it, the editor would look at it and thought it is too much and edit the paper so as to say the data is not presented. Ask for a preprint of the paper that will contain more data. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 20:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

== False Claim of a Bad motive ==

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

: You're clueless about my motivation and your account has been blocked for violating our [[90/10 rule]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

Wow. I'm actually afraid to post my opinion now...Well, at the risk of being banned...Aschlafly: Was it really necessary to block MAnderson? I get the feeling (And this is simply an opinion based on personal observation) that the action taken against MAnderson was due more to the nature of his accusation of bias against you and not due to any violation of code, since bias is indeed a word that gets used around here often without reprimand. That being said I feel that the intended letter in question would severely discredit this website. Unless members of this site have the facilities necessary to conduct research into the validity of the Doctor's claims then we have no reason to request such massive documentation. Furthermore, the purpose of such counter-research should always be with the intent to ultimately strengthen a proposed line of research, even if it is by bringing to light flaws in the original findings. The purpose of peer review is not to discredit, but to strengthen through careful examination and criticism. If the originals researchers conclusions are eventually found to be flawed beyond renovation then the entire thing is thrown out, strengthening our scientific pool of knowledge as a whole by protecting it against faulty findings. It is my belief that a peer-reviewer should always have a most critical eye, but should also ultimately have the best at heart for the purported research. I do not believe such a mindset exists in this case. The letter itself seems to indicate a specific desire and hope of discrediting the E-coli findings, which should never be the purpose of peer review. To seek discredit simply for the sake of discredit is the very anti-thesis of why the peer-review system exists IMO. And it is my opinion that the intended letter gives the impression that discredit is the goal. In my opinion. --[[User:RobinGoodfellow|RobinGoodfellow]] 13:15, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:There's a difference between expressing your thoughts on a matter and saying of someone else "here is why you did it" and then make statements that are derogatory and degrading. The one at least expresses opinion. The other just makes things up with the followup assumption being now you must defend yourself against what I just made up. That's inappropriate and was handled as being inappropriate.

:That being said, what you wrote is a different matter. I see no difficulty in the form of your speech, or the expression of your ideas. Do not equate your writings to what was put above by MAnderson; they are not the same. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:27, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria "evolved" novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of "potentiated genotypes", from which the traits could be "reëvolved" using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren't "potentiated" by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? The only way this can be settled is if we have access to the genetic sequences of the bacteria colonies so that we can apply CSI techniques and determine if these "potentiated genotypes" originated through blind chance or intelligence. But with the physical specimens in the hands of Darwinists, who claim they will get around to the sequencing at some unspecifed future time, how can we trust that this data will be forthcoming and forthright? Thus, Prof. Lenski et al. should supply Conservapedia, as stewards, with samples of the preserved ''E. coli'' colonies so that the data can be accessible to unbiased researchers outside of the hegemony of the Darwinian academia, even if it won't be put to immediate examination by Mr. Schlafly. This is simply about keeping tax-payer-funded scientists honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 20:03, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

:'Dr. Paley', that's about the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard yet. I'm not going to even dignify that kind of nonsense with a response. But I will suggest, generally, that if you are that convinced there is a worldwide scientific conspiracy to perpretate fraud by hiding 'the potentiating hand of the creator', then there's nothing I could say to you anyway.

:But I have this question for Andy and the rest of the supporters of the 'public access to data' line: if it is the ''principle'' of public access to data that you are fighting for--and this is not some kind of publicity stunt, as many have suggested--then why are you picking on this one experiment, and not the ''tens of thousands'' of scientific papers that have been published just, say, in the last decade? After all, Lenski's paper is no different than any scientific paper, in that is summarizes, but does not publish, the raw data on which it was based. So shouldn't you be asking every scientist who has published a paper in which raw data has not been published to present that data? Why just Lenski? Aren't there potentially ''thousands'' of 'new insights' that could be produced from public scrutiny of this data?

:I think your motivations speak pretty clearly for themselves. [[User:porkchop]]

:: (Note porkchop's use of [[Liberal tools]] #11 and #13.) Anyway, if Prof. Lenski has no fraud to hide, then he won't mind allowing other researchers access to the physical data. Again, it is simply a matter of keeping tax-funded activities honest. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 21:44, 18 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Sorry, Richard. I guess you need your stupidity spelled out for you: no laboratory in the world is going to send ''the actual biological samples they worked on'' to a bunch of faceless internet nuts or anyone else. Even if such a request were possible (i.e. transport could be arranged safely and at no expense to Lenski, he could spare the material, etc.) what on earth would the 'scientists' at Conservapedia ''do'' with it? Keep it in Andy's refrigerator and look at it under his Kid Scientist microscope?

:::And I'm waiting to hear whether anyone has a response to my question about the selective targeting of Lenski. [[User:porkchop]]

:::: Taxpayers paid for Lenski's work, he published it in a journal that claims its authors will make underlying data available, his research claims were publicized in New Scientist, yet he hasn't complied with a request for his data. If that's true of others also as you suggest, then please give examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::What is your response to the view that Lenski has not released the data because it is too big to simply send to someone? [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 07:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: That "view" is without any basis and, by the way, the suggestion is that Lenski post it rather than send it. Are you suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data available to the peer reviewers on his paper?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 07:59, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::Someone said above that considering just one variable would result 4 terabytes worth of data, this is a ridiculous and costly amount of data to host (to put it in perspective, it's about 200 full DVD's). And yes it pretty much is all key (to ensure the mutations were not due to an environmental factor, to ensure that they were inherited, to ensure that they were not simply repressed genes which had previously appearing in the colonies etc). I am not suggesting that Lenski did not make his key data avaliable to peer reviewers, I'm fairly sure that had they wished to view it they could have done so (possibly by physically visiting his labs to access it, or by using a dedicated stream). Perhaps it's something you could ask in the email you send him, and while you're at it perhaps you could ask if researchers such as yourself or others would be able to access the data on request (this is essentially public access so long as nobody is turned away for ideological reasons). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:24, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::::: So you're suggesting that the peer reviewers could only access the data by physically visiting Lenski's labs or by using "a dedicated stream"? That's tantamount to suggesting that the peer reviewers did not practically have access to the data, which creates an even bigger cloud of doubt about the claimed results. If that's the case, then obviously that should have been disclosed to the public.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- No, I was offering a couple of options. It's is equally (or even more likely) that Lenski's team spent a bit of money and transferred the data onto physical media and sent it to them. That is a question that you can ask in your email, lest we be accused of jumping to conclusions. Peer reviewers aside, the point remains that the reason Lenski has not published the data is due to its size and the cost of posting it, not their opposition to the public release of data. Again this will only be answered through a reply to your email, perhaps you could ask if it would be possible for you (and other researchers) to access the data, rather than demanding he post it on the internet or send it to you. This would overcome any refusal based on practicality, but still allow the public access to data. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 08:42, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: StatsMsn, note that:

:* Lenski replied once and did not himself raise the objection you suggest
:* the objection you suggest has no factual basis
:* the objection you suggest would make it impossible to peer review the paper, or most types of collaborative work

: At some point, StatsMsn, an open mind requires admitting the possibility that the data have not been made available because there is concern about what an independent reviewer may conclude from it. Are you open-minded enough to admit that possibility? It's a waste of time arguing with a closed mind, and if you won't admit at least that possibility then this discussion is unproductive.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:00, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::I'm more than happy to admit that Lenski is preventing public access to his data, if there was some solid evidence for it. At the moment he has not refused to allow public access to it.

::*Correct
::*How so? People have already stated how large the raw data you are requesting is and how impractical it would be to host it. Where do you believe the factual error is, on the estimates of the size or the ability to make it readily avaliable to the general public?
::*No, as measures could be taken to allow the peer reviewers access to the data if they required it.

::The reason I keep arguing is because I know how difficult it is to transmit data to the general public. The university where I study originally provided a number of high resolution pictures to the general public via a ftp stream, however as each individual picture grew in size and the number of pictures grew the university had to cut off access, first to the general public and then to students, despite our internet connection greatly increasing in speed at the same time. At present the only way to access the images is either to physically enter the premises or request images via DVD (with a small cost for material and administration charges). Everyone including the general public is still able to access the images, however they cannot be made readily avaliable for reasons of practicality.

::If the statistics above are correct then the size of the raw data you are requesting is much larger than the combined size of all our image files, it is highly impractical to simply request someone send it to you or post it on the internet. And yes I am willing to admit that this discussion is unproductive, that's why I'm going to send Lenski an email myself and request information on how the raw data can be accessed. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: You haven't yet admitted the possibility I describe, which suggests you may not yet have an open mind about this. If so, this discussion is unproductive, but please do feel free to contact Lenski directly with your theory about the data. I bet you do not receive a clear answer.

::: I'm confident that Lenski has the data in a manageable form that enables him and his fellow researchers to access and examine it. If not, then frankly that raises even bigger questions about the reliability and verifiability of the claimed results.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

<- I'm more than willing to admit the possibility that the peer reviewers have not had access to the raw data, it is entierly possible and we still see it happening when commercial interests become entangled with science (for instance, many pharamacological companies will not release negative studies concerning their products). In this case there is a need for further review in order to confirm the results, and if it is shown that Lenski skewed his results then appropriate action must be taken.

Now, are you willing to admit the possibility that I describe?

And I too am confident that Lenski has his data in a manageable form, what we disagree on is whether this data can be readily made avaliable to the public (like by hosting 4 terabytes on the internet) or to people who request it out of the blue. I am fairly confident that if you or another researcher requested access to the data and had a genuine reason for doing so then you would be provided with access to the data, either by physically accessing it on site or by arranging an appropriate means of transfer (with costs considered). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 09:26, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

: I admit the possibility that all the data is too voluminous to transfer easily, which is why my letter addressed that and requested the data made available to peer reviewers. By definition, that data cannot be too voluminous to transfer.

: You said you would ask Lenski. Have you?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:44, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::Read below, and I have emailed him. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

----

[Edit Conflict] I just read the paper for a second time, paying particular attention to the results section. There is an adequate summary of the data provided for peer reviewers. I admit that I was wrong with my terminology above (I'm having a late night and my brain's shutting down), the peer reviewers of the paper are not sent the raw data, they rely on the facts presented. Any subsequent reviews could have access to the raw data if necessary.

Right now we have 4 possible scenarios that could be proposed:

* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct and the conclusion drawn is correct
* The summary of the data Lenski presented is correct but the conclusion drawn is incorrect
* The summary of the data is wrong due to unintentional mistakes
* The summary of the data is wrong due to a deliberate attempt to skew results

If the first is correct we have nothing to argue about. If the second is correct then you do not need access to the raw data in order to prove your results. If the third is correct then access to the raw data would be essential, however it would call into question the integrity of Lenski's laboratory and quite frankly I do not believe you have the resources to do better (let alone detect any irregularities). If the fourth is correct then you are accusing Lenski of academic dishonesty, a libelous claim that you would need solid evidence to support.

Andy, could you please outline why you want to have access to the raw data when the summary provided in the paper is more than adequate to draw a conclusion. Do you believe that there has been a mistake made in the organisation of the data, or is this just to prove that you can (or cannot) gain access to the data, even though this is not at all required. [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 10:48, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Failure to supply data? ==

Aschlafly, you say above that Lenski "hasn't complied with a request for his data." Where did he do that? In his reply to your original letter he bends over backwards to accommodate your requests and answer your questions, and he's hardly had time to reply to the second letter! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:55, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== Piltdown All Over Again ==

The [[Piltdown Man | Piltdown hoax]] was possible precisely because the physical data was kept under lock-and-key and away from the eyes of unbiased non-Darwinians, who, if given the chance, would have spotted that the bones were unrelated right away. Even if Prof. Lenski were to provide the public with digital versions of the data, what assurances would we have that the data wasn't doctored? If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data? On the other hand, it would be impossible for Prof. Lenski to falsify the physical data residing in the actual bacteria, as that would require a massive program of genetic engineering. Only by allowing unbiased conservative scientists access to samples of the bacteria colonies can we assure that we aren't witnessing another Piltdown hoax, as the Darwinian community has a reputation for perpetrating them.

As to the practicality of this, only scrapings of the cultures would be needed for reculturing, not the entire original petri dish as "porkchop" implies above. These can be stored in standard cryogenic ampules that take up very little space. The Discovery Institute surely has cryogenic facilities in their labs and would be willing to host the collection under the auspices of Conservapedia. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 10:50, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Excellent idea! Go for it. Send off a third letter at once! [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 12:09, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:Until Lenksi himself states that "no I will not give you the data, you crazy conservatives", in no way can you compare this to Piltdown. To do so is to further your own agenda of discrediting a scientific experiment that makes the minor point that traits can evolve. I believe that Lenski has provided enough data for all of you to examine and make claims about his research; honestly, what would you possibly do with scrapings of cultures? "Ok, Culture #95324 is Cit-, had me #95325"? I doubt that you people would even do that. Chances are, you would glance at the mountain of raw data Lenski would send, and then summarily dismiss it based on your own desire to see it fail. This is disgusting. --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

::''This is disgusting'' What is disgusting is that you are doing to Andy precisely what you suppose he will do to the data if and when it comes - that is, use it to back up a preconceived idea. You do not know how he or other Conservapedians will treat the data. Do not criticise him for something he hasn't done but which you assume he will do. To do so is arrant hypocricy. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:57, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::That is a fair point, Bugler. I'm just frustrated by the serious bias already lined up against Lenski's research, even before raw data has been seen. --Aaronp

:: Well put, Bugler. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Aaronp, either you're naive or you're engaging in bullying if you maintain that Lenski plans to release his raw data soon for independent, public review. I asked him last Friday to release it, and his reply declined to do so. I asked him again yesterday, and he predictably has not replied. It now seems to me to be likely that the peer reviewers for his paper did not even see the raw data. I think it's likely that only Lenski and his grad student have seen the raw data underlying that paper (note its footnote). Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: My understanding is that peer reviewers do not normally see raw data. Absent reason to believe otherwise, they assume data is correctly reported in the submitted paper. But I could be wrong about this. Why do you think reviewers would normally be shown raw data? Also, I do not have a good idea what the data would look like? Do you have an opinion of what it looks like and what form it is in? -divaricatum 13:04, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

::::: Data should be made available to peer reviewers. If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy.

::::: The raw data have to already be in a form that allows collaborative work, so I don't see that as much of an obstacle.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

[unidenting] You did not really respond to my points. I asked whether, according to your understanding, peer reviewers are normally shown raw data. I said my understanding was they were not. You say "data should be made available..." Is that your opinion, or are you describing actual practice? Second, the usable data is in the paper, as far as I can tell. The graphs do not permit knowing exact value, but you do not seem to be asking for the exact figures used to generate the graph. Look at, for example, figure 1: X axis is generation, Y axis is Optical Density. The caption says:

: Population expansion during evolution of the Cit+ phenotype. Samples frozen at various times in the history of population Ara-3 were revived, and three DM25 cultures were established for each generation. Optical density (OD) at 420 nm was measured for each culture at 24 h. Error bars show the range of three values measured for each generation.

The graph shows a dramatic rise around generation 33000, from less than 0.05 to about .25. What additional data would you like? There are presumably lab books with 33000+ OD measurements (or some multiple of that) but in what sense is the data not available? What exactly regarding this graph would you like to see?

Finally, in the second letter you talk about instances where it is noted that data is not shown. I found 3 such instances:

: page 3 Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit� mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

: page 3 After depleting the glucose in DM25, the earliest Cit+ clones grow almost imperceptibly, if at all, for many hours before they begin efficiently using the citrate (data not shown), whereas later Cit+ cones switch to growth on citrate almost immediately (Fig. 2).

: page 6 These differences were also evident when we monitored the intraday dynamics of mixtures of Cit+ and Cit- cells (data not shown).

In no case do the data seem relevant to the main point of the paper (in the first case, there may be data in the references; in the second case, he is simply noting that early clones grow slowly, but the point is later clones grow fast, for which data are shown; and the third case -- discussing utilization of glucose -- is again tangential to the main conclusion). Why are you interested in these data? -divaricatum 14:21 June 19, 2008 (PDT)

Lenski has "predictably" not replied? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're so biased against him purely because you don't agree with the subject of his work. I would be frustrated in the same way if you were doing this with any research paper, not just Lenski's. "Predictably" he hasn't replied... maybe that is because he is a busy man who was kind enough to respond to your first email, but now simply does not want to (or have to) cater to the whims of some random hyper-conservative blogger who is asking him to release 20 years of raw data that the blogger does not have the knowledge set to critique! God forbid the man takes a week to respond to your email; if after two are three days of no answer are you going to condemn him by saying "he's obviously not talking to me because he's hiding something"? --[[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

"''If we assume his Darwinian principles were no check on his willingness to publish a falsified paper, then why would we then assume they would prevent him from falsifying data?''": Whilst it is true that Darwinism and atheism provide no basis for morals, hence honesty, it does not follow that individual Darwinists and atheists have no morals. In most cases, they have adopted a form of the morality held to by their society, which (in the case of western countries) has its basis in Christianity. So there is no reason to assume that Lenski would be dishonest with the data itself. The comparison with Piltdown has no basis.

Peer review, as I understand it, is not meant as a check on all the research of a scientist, but merely as a basic check that the scientist has used suitable methodology, that his conclusions can be justified from his data, that he has explained the research clearly enough for the readers to understand, and so forth. Therefore all the detailed data would not normally be provided to the reviewers, although they may (I'm not certain) be able to request it if they are not satisfied by the data provided. Certainly they could reject the paper if they weren't satisfied, or request that more data be included in the paper if they felt that not enough was.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

== General Reply ==

Lenski has essentially refused my request that he make his underlying data available for public scrutiny, despite his use of public funding. Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review.

It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data. I wonder if PNAS violated its own stated policies by publishing Lenski's paper, and I'm going to email its Editor-in-Chief to request an explanation.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:19, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
: How long does peer review normally take? And what PNAS policies do you think may have been violated? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:32, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

Other articles in the same issue of PNAS:

Effective tumor treatment targeting a melanoma/melanocyte-associated antigen triggers severe ocular autoimmunity approved April 14, 2008 (received for review November 18, 2007)

Localized and extended deformations of elastic shells
approved March 11, 2008 (received for review August 7, 2007)

Characterization of the structure–function relationship at the ligament-to-bone interface approved April 11, 2008 (received for review December 28, 2007)

Mutations in the telomerase component NHP2 cause the premature ageing syndrome dyskeratosis congenita approved April 14, 2008 (received for review January 3, 2008)

Experimental evidence for negative selection in the evolution of a Yersinia pestis pseudogene approved April 15, 2008 (received for review February 13, 2008)
--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:36, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

The average length of peer review for PNAS, based on a sample, is over 120 days. Lenski's paper was accepted within only 14 days of submission.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:53, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:Andy, I'm not sure there's sufficient reason to claim that it probably didn't get a meaningful peer review. 2 weeks is certainly enough time for reviewers to read and critique the article. You may have noticed that Blount et al.'s article is identified as part of a special series, which could explain why it was reviewed more quickly than usual. I hope you will post the editor's reply here. Incidentally, in light of your view on this page of the importance of allowing research to be scrutinized by others, I would like to re-open my request for you to share your methodology on the hollywood breast cancer mystery page. Thanks. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 12:18, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:: I intended peer review in general, not just at the PNAS, but that's a fair comparison. Like Murray, I would have thought that a fortnight is sufficient, but you do appear to be correct that the Lenski paper was much quicker than normal at the PNAS. So that just leaves the question of broken policies... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:24, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::If you take Lenski's paper for what it is, peer review of the paper would not take long after all. The majority of his data could be kick out for his paper is just the documentation of the bacteria using the citrate. Murry, what is this about breast cancer?--[[User:Able806|Able806]] 12:30, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Murray is referring to [http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims this poorly researched thesis proposed by ASchlafly], Able806. No data to support the thesis was ever provided by ASchlafly. I'd invite you to take a look. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 12:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

::: Looking at the paper, it seems to me almost all the experimental data is shown in figure 1: the ability of the bacteria to utilize citrate as revealed by optical density measurements. Something clearly happened around generation 33000, and the OD measurements jumped fivefold (from 0.05 to 0.25) with the range of measurements over three samples being way, way less that 0.2 (the size of the jump). That seems to be it experimentally. The rest of the paper describes the methodology and discusses what could have caused the change.

::: People keep talking about raw data. Would someone who says that explain what they mean? To me, raw data is relevant when what is reported is derived data. For example, suppose you have a study of health effects of working at a facility that handles nuclear material. You report the radiation exposure over background of workers. That is derived data. The raw data are the workers' dosimeter readings and the background radiation measurements. That is what you would ask for when you wanted the raw data which supported the derived data.

::: But in the Lenski paper, as far as I can tell, the data reported is the actual measured data: they measured the optical density of the samples and reported those numbers in figure 1. Of course, I could be wrong, I am not an expert in this field, but if someone disagrees with me, please tell me what the raw data would be and how the data in figure 1 was derived from it. (Lenski said that all the data being asked for is in paper. That statement is consistent with what I am saying.)

::: As to 14 days, I do not see any problem. This is a very exciting result to people in the field and the reviewers would very likely put it on top of their to do lists. As I say, the experimental data is simple and unambiguous (something significant happened at generation 33000), the description of the methodology is clear and straightforward, and the discussion of the causes is at least consistent and believable. What is there to object to?

::: Aschlafly talks of 'concealed data'. Could you please tell me what data you believe is being concealed? Specifically, what measurements are not revealed? (I know you can say 'how could I know if they do not tell me', but can someone at least suggest what kind of information is not being revealed?) -divaricatum 10:03 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: If Aschlafly is talking about the "data not shown" parts of the paper as being "concealed", then he is being ignorant about normal scientific paper submission. Due to length constraints and other factors, most (read: all) researchers will leave out unimportant pieces of data that aren't necessarily the key points of the paper. For example, a paper could catalog the radiation levels of all the workers at a given nuclear power plant, and have a main point that workers who are in a certain part of the plant are getting higher exposure rates. Because it had to catalog all workers of the plant, it might also have to take dosage readings of people who work off-site. Obviously, people who aren't working at the plant will not have high radiation doses, and thus in the paper that result might look like "Predictably, those workers who perform their duties off-site had no detectable radiation doses that were above background (data not shown)". It would be pointless to show that "hey look, people who don't work around the radiation don't have readings above background! Here's a chart proving it!". That is why almost all papers have at least one data set that isn't shown. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]

I have to run an errand but want to you everyone know, as I've said before, that it's only productive to discuss something with somebody who has an open mind. If you agree with my statement that "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data," then let's talk. If not, then please rant somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:34, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: In the 'Piltdown all over again' thread above, I list all three instances of 'data not shown' from the paper and point out that, according to my understanding of what is being reported, the conclusions are not relevant to the point being made. Therefore (reinforcing what aaronp says) I would not expect the data to be shown and do not understand what use it would be to anyone interested in arguing with the paper's conclusions. Again, I could be wrong, but please if you disagree, address the point by explaining how the unshown data would be relevant to the conclusions of the paper.

:::: With regard to aschlafly's last comment, please tell me what data you believe has not been revealed. My contention is all the relevant data is in figure 1. I am happy to be shown to be wrong, but please explain what data you think has not been revealed. -divaricatum 10:40 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:::: : The data hasn't been concealed! "Concealed" from you, perhaps, but I blame that more on who you represent rather than some vague plot to get this information published without going through checks and balances. The data was peer-reviewed. The data was presented in a clear and logical manner. The data supported the conclusions. This is your run-of-the-mill publication, and has satisfied all it needs to in order to be recognized. I agree that if some person were to make an unverified claim (like all those crazy people who claim to have cloned a human being, but haven't shown the clones or released any data) and depict it as truth, then yes, that would be unscientific. But this paper hasn't done that. As for being close-minded, I believe it is you that is being close-minded. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] 13:40, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

For reasons already explained, I'm not going to waste time with close-minded argument here. If you agree that it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data, then clearly say so. Otherwise, it's a futile exercise. Anyone at any time could make an unverified claim based on concealed data, and people could be found to defend it. Only fools would try to reason with them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

: If you are referring to me, please show where I have been close-minded. Sure I agree that "it's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data", but I am asking whether that is the case here. I ask repeatedly about what data have been concealed, and no one, particularly you, responds. There are two claims made in the paper: that a strain of E. colii evolved the ability to utilize citrate, and that the strain first had a mutation which while it did not allow the utilization of citrate, in some fashion potentiated the later mutation. The first claim is supported by the optical density data in figure 1. I contend that that is direct data and there is no associated raw data to look at, and that the ability to utilize citrate is clearly shown by the data provided.

: The second claim is demonstrated by repeat experiments using stored samples. In some cases, the ability to utilize citrate evolved, in some cases not. They report on the strains used, how often the ability evolved, etc. I again do not see what data are not being supplied. All I am asking from you is to explain what data you believe is available to the researches that would be relevant in evaluating their results which is not in the paper. I do not see what is unreasonable about that request.

: Lenski said in his letter to you that all the relevant data was in the paper. From my reading, that seems to be true. I am of course open to an argument that something additional needs to be revealed but I would like to understand what that additional something is, and no one, specifically not you, has said.

: Now perhaps you are suggesting that the data reported in the paper is not the actual data collected (whether accidentally or intentionally mistranscribed, or whatever). If that is what you are saying is possible, please say so explicitly so we can understand your point, and also say how you would like the matter resolved (xeroxes of lab books? Computer backup tapes? what?)

: I would just like to understand what people think has not been revealed. I do not see why asking that question indicates a closed mind or any such thing. -divaricatum 11:30 June 20 2008 (PDT)

:: OK, divaricatum, we're arguing from the same logical basis, so let's proceed. The underlying data are not in the papers. The papers have an interpretative summary of the data which may be mistaken, incomplete, or worse. The underlying data were only analyzed by two people: Lenski and a grad student (presumably under the control of Lenski). Let's see what they analyzed. We may see things they missed or ignored. Or there may be defects in the data that they didn't realize or disclose. In less than 14 days between submission and acceptance of the paper, it's unlikely any peer review did this.

:: If this were a court of law, the judge would not even allow Lenski and his grad student to present their summaries to the jury without first providing the underlying data to the other side. Surely scientific standards have not fallen lower than legal ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:52, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

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

::: Thank you. Let us look at claim number 1, that a strain of E. coli evolved the ability to utilize citrate. This is from page 2 of the paper (and onto page 3):

:::: After 33,127 generations, one population, designated Ara-3, displayed significantly elevated turbidity that continued to rise for several days (Fig. 1). A number of Cit+ clones were isolated from the population and checked for phenotypic markers characteristic of the ancestral E. coli strain used to start the LTEE: all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected (2). DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population, and each of these mutations distinguishes this population from all of the others (30). Therefore, the Cit+ variant arose within the LTEE and is not a contaminant. The evolved Cit+ variant grows to high density in DM0 (a citrate-only medium), produces vigorous colonies on minimal citrate (MC) agar plates, and causes a positive color change on Simmon’s citrate agar, all of which indicate that it can use citrate as a sole carbon source. In DM25, Cit+ cells undergo a period of rapid growth on glucose that is followed by slower growth on citrate (Fig. 2). Also, growth on citrate is inhibited by the citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate (data not shown), as was observed for the one previously reported Cit+ mutant of E. coli (42, 43).

::: So, there was a population that could utilize citrate. The claims made are (1) it was not a contaminate (the data asserted is that it had the markers of the earlier populations), (2) it had mutations found in earlier strains from the same evolving populations. (3) It grows in a glucose-free environment and can use citrate as a carbon source. (4) It continues to grow on citrate/glucose medium after the glucose is exhausted (while other E. coli stops growing).

::: Data explicitly supplied (figure 1) shows the ability of strains after the mutation to grow on citrate only (glucose free) medium. I assert this is direct (not derived) data since (I believe) the optical density is directly measured and that is what is shown in figure 1. Further data (figure 2) compares a strain with the mutation and one without and shows the with strain continues to grow after the glucose is exhausted while the without strain stops growing. Again, this is OD data directly reported. (I could of course be mistaken and OD data is in fact derived from other data, like excess radiation exposure, in which case someone please correct me.)

::: The derived data is that the mutated strain has markers from the ancestral source and has specific mutations from more recent ancestors (that is, there are presumably DNA and other analyses which show these things which are not shown). He also reports on growth on other specific media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) where we are told only that on the first, the growth is vigorous, and on the second produces a color change. Finally (in what seems to be a parenthetical comment) growth in inhibited by the "citrate analog 5-fluorocitrate", but that data is not shown, and it is noted that was reported by the other known E. coli variant that can utilize citrate. (I interpret this as simply reporting that the variant they found is likely the same or very similar to the variant previously reported. That is interesting but not, it seems to me, relevant to the result of the paper, so the lack of supplied data does not seem significant to me.)

::: So, what could you ask for? The OD reports from saved samples shown in figure 1 seem unambiguous as to the ability of the strain, after 33000 to utilize citrate, and so, except as qualified next, the basic claim seems to me to be verified. I cannot imagine what additional data with respect to OD you could ask for unless you are claiming that they mistranscribed the data (in which case, I repeat, resolve it how? Look at Lab books?)

::: So here is the qualification: could it be a contamination? They explain how they reject the contamination hypothesis. You could say that was very important to your confidence and so you would like to see the specific test results for the markers and mutations. That is certainly a specific question and one that could be answered, although with some (perhaps significant) expenditure of time and money.

::: As to the growth on other media (minimal citrate (MC) agar plates and Simmon’s citrate agar) the paper simply describes the growth as vigorous and the color changing. But these reports seem unambiguous in that they could be in error only if the investigators were misrepresenting their findings. Here again, what would you like to see? Lab books? Because this could only be false through fraud, the lab books would presumably in that case also be fraudulent.

::: So it seems to me that all one could ask for is the dna/marker data that verifies that the cit+ samples are not contaminates. Perhaps, if you were willing to pay for the tests, one could ask for ancestral, close to mutation, and post mutation samples on which to repeat the tests.

::: Let us leave fraud aside. So then the question is, did they make (honest) mistakes? It frankly seems unlikely to me because the tests seem straightforward: the ability to utilize citrate seems very easy to test unambiguously (smear some on a citrate/no glucose base and see what happens). The differences between growing vigorously and hardly are surely great enough that one could not mistake one for the other. The contamination tests, while much more complicated, also seem standard. DNA sequencing is a well-established technique. There are looking for specific loci ("DNA sequencing also showed that Cit+ clones have the same mutations in the pykF and nadR genes as do clones from earlier generations of the Ara-3 population"). I am not sure how the markers mentioned are identified but I again think this is a standard test.

::: So, to repeat my conclusion: the only thing I feel is worth asking about (all this is about result 1, there was a mutation which allowed utilization of citrate) is the contamination question. There they presumably have data which confirms there statements but I am not sure whether it is reasonably to ask them for it absent some specific concern. (Here an experienced microbiogist would be helpful, if I have the field right: is their description of how they determined that the strain was not contaminated reasonable and the tests they did straightforward and unambiguous, or is there room for reasonable doubt? Answering that is beyond my knowledge. I would be pleased to hear from such an expert.)

::: As to claim 2, I understand it less well, but could discuss it in more detail but I feel I have gone on long enough discussing claim 1. I would be pleased to read differing analyses of claim 1, particularly with regard to where the authors might reasonably be incorrect, absent fraud. divaricatum 13:09 June 20, 2008 (PDT)

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

==Note re. article==
As an aside, I' wonder if someone couldn't place some information at the head of the article here? At present, the article simply starts into a "first letter" to "a Prof. Lenski". The article should have a little setup to introduce readers to what on Earth it's all about. There is no reference in the article to the rest of the debate, basically. Just an FYI. [[User:StatsFan|StatsFan]] 13:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)

==Lenski's second reply==
Are you happy now? He has answered everything you asked. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 06:21, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Andy should be thanked and congratulated by everyone here for his efforts on behalf of truth and openness. Those of us not blinded by Liberal deceit can now see atheistic pseudo-science for what it is. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 07:04, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

::::: Really, Aaronp? When was I "accusing someone of gross fraud without concrete evidence"? Perhaps you can provide a quote for your claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:11, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

"Given the remarkably short time between submission of his PNAS manuscript and its acceptance (only 14 days), I doubt his paper even had meaningful peer review..." "It's unscientific for others to repeat as true an unverified claim based on concealed data..." Both of these quotes, Mr. Schlafly, imply that Lenski falsified his data and collaborated in an elaborate conspiracy to get his paper published! You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this! How is that not accusing him of fraud? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]] Also, sorry to distract from your question, Daniel. Andy, please answer Dan first. Thank you.

: Aaronp, your quote does not support your accusation, and I suggest you retract it immediately. I leave that up to you. Obviously there are many types of possible flaws in scientific claims that are not "gross fraud." For example, I don't think Andrew Wiles' (an example I used) was fraudulent in presenting his initial proof of [[Fermat's Last Theorem]], which general scrutiny found to be flawed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:29, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::''You already assume that Lenski was fraudulent with his data when you said this!'' You are a mind-reader, Aaron! Truly remarkable! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:32, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::You're right. What can I say? I am omniscient. As for the quote, by stating you doubted the paper was peer-reviewed, you are claiming that Lenski didn't actually go through the proper steps to get his data published, which is accusing him of fraud. I don't see how that can be any more straightforward. --Aaronp

::::The responsibility for peer review is on the peers that do the reviewing. I don't know why you would assume that Andy would be accusing Linski of dubious scientific practice, when the more likely explanation is that he was accusing the reviewers. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 08:51, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::Don't be naive, Drochld. Andy was attacking Lenski specifically. -- Aaronp
That is enough. If you persist with these ludicrous accusations of malevolence you will be blocked. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 08:58, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:AaronP to be safe you should preface every truth you say with "it seems" so that way it isn't an accusation... '''---[[user:DLerner]]---''' 09:02, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Bugler, if Andy was not assuming that Lenski's data was frauduflent, wouldn't that mean that he was being openminded about the possibility of the Bible being incorrect? [[User:RWilson|RWilson]] 13:52, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: I'm not sure what you are getting at there, but I ''think'' you are saying that either Lenski is a fraud or the Bible is incorrect, yet I see no reason for thinking it has to be one or the other. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:29, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Once again, the above seriously misrepresents the situation with Fermat's Last Theorem. While I was very happy that he released his manuscript immediately after his lectures at the Newton Institute, the fact remains that the error was detected in conversations between Wiles and consummate insiders like Nick Katz [http://www.math.princeton.edu/~nmk/], not after general scrutiny by random people around the internet. --[[User:Npstrick|Npstrick]] 10:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:Thanks, DLerner. "It seems" I've made my point anyway. No more accusations of malevolence from this gentleman, no sir! --Aaronp

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

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

:Really? He said he would put the data on his website, and I think [[Behe]] meets Lenski's three qualifications for a scientist to whom he would release the bacteria. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 10:55, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Behe? Are you serious? He's supposed to be a Creation Scientist? The guy believes in the big bang, an earth billions of years old, and evolution. He does not believe in a young Earth, Adam and Eve, or the true word of the Bible. He's an evolutionist who happens to say "oh yeah, God guided evolution." As if there was anything on the Earth ''not'' guided by God! Just because he's one of the few scientists who isn't an atheist he's supposed to be one of us? No thanks. I'd rather go with someone who didn't drink the Old Earth Kool-aid. [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 11:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::In spite of his Old Earth views or sympathies to evolution, Behe would be the perfect person for the job. He's a scientist! Has anyone contacted him yet? I bet he would jump at the opportunity to do research like this and having it published in a peer review journal would make ID more credible. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

== "P.P.P.P.S.?" ==

Wow. Professional. The guy writes like a 12-year-old girl. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:25, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Wow. besides the ad hom, does anyone care to contest the substance of what the guy said? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:36, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

== E. coli in our bowels ==

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

: Or you'd think that our bodies have evolved ways to deal with that. Or you'd think that there would be no advantage for e.coli to evolve a trait that would kill off its host environment. Or you'd think that humans would have evolved wings and third arms and eyes in the back of their heads in order to better adapt to their environments. Where exactly is it written in evolutionary science that all organism will eveolve the traits that you happen to think would improve their chances? [[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:40, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
: Not to mention that evolution doesn't have a "goal." Yeesh, the ignorance here is astounding.[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 15:41, 24 June 2008 (EDT) +
:: Shows what you know! The goal of evolution is obviously to "evolve" in whatever manner it takes to destroy all of humanity. Who's ignorant now? Bobdobbs 15:47, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinxmchue perhaps you should better familiarise yourself with the principles of evolution and basic human biology before making claims such as the above. The theory of evolution states that organisms will undergo mutations, and the process of natural selection will determine which prosper (and hence are carried on) and which do not. A parasitic organism is not going to be doing itself any favours by killing its host, if it did then it would have minimal ability to survive and its genes would not be passed on to future generations.

:::In addition, some bacteria do evolve (or have evolved in the past) to overcome their host's defences, the thing is that the body contains millions upon millions of variations of white blood cells and eventually one that possesses the capability to destroy the bacteria will encounter it, proliferate and destroy it. This likelihood is increased by the inflammatory response accompanying most organisms. In some caes our bodies cannot fight off infection, and that is the reason we develop modern antibiotics.

:::Furthermore, a single mutated bacteria, or even a few hundred of its spawn, are not going to be capable of producing sufficient protetin to kill their host. Even if every protein produced was capable of destroying a cell (which never happens) it would take thousands if not millions of bacteria over a long time period to kill the host. Now this is where the catch is, it takes energy to produce proteins which the bacteria could otherwise be utilising for other things, like surviving. If a bacteria is pumping out enough proteins to kill the surrounding cells it will be diverted from its normal tasks (but please remember that a bacteria is not actually capable of thought) and will not stand much of a change of survival.

:::Oh (and this sort of relates to all of the last three points), you should be aware that bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract (our guts) are in most cases not under attack by the human immune system as they are technically outside of the body. Therefore evolving to overcome the host's defences is not going to have any difference, and will just be wasting energy. [[User:NormanS|NormanS]] 19:14, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Alice, according to evolutionary theory, species that fail to evolve die. And there are no evolutionary dead ends other than those that die off. If it's alive, it's evolving. Yet we don't see any evolving going on despite the fact that the rate of evolution has to be so phenomenally fast that it should easily be seen. In fact, this lack of obvious evolution has led to someone inventing the idea of "punctuated equilibrium" to explain away why we don't see it happening all the time. It's a load of nonsensical, unprovable bull. I used to believe every word of it, but when I approached it with a critical eye (something that is NEVER allowed by the evolutionary dogmatists), I found it to be very, very wanting. This "evolving" E. coli proves nothing. It's still E. coli. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Jinxmchue, wrong. Evolutionary theory gives various examples of species that have not evolved (or evolved very little) in millions of years; coelacanths are one. Species that fail to evolve ''when their environment changes'' die; species in an unchanging habitat have no need to evolve one they have adapted to it sufficiently. [[User:Bmalee|bmalee]] 07:56, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::::The coelacanth is very likely the greatest example of how wrong the theory of evolution is. Evolutionists are beside themselves trying to explain how this supposedly millions of years extinct animal showed up in modern times showing absolutely no evolution. Are we to believe that the coelacanths' environment never changed in the millions of years since they were claimed to have died off? That must be quite a stable part of the earth indeed! [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 13:04, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: You are both correct. Evolution does indeed say that creatures in non-changing environments have no need to evolve. bmalee is correct on that. However, you are also correct with your example of the coelacanth. Basically, the evolutionary argument that a given creature hasn't evolved because its environment didn't change is an ''ad hoc'' explanation without empirical evidence and without explanatory power. I don't know that the coelacanth is the greatest example, though, as there are much older living things that show no sign of change either. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

:::::: How is Jinx correct with that example, though? The current living species of coelacanth are not the same as the ones in fossils, which as far as we know are all extinct (although the most recent fossils do resemble the living ones found). It seems that 'modern' coelacanth are substantially larger than their ancestors, and live birth is also speculated to be (relatively) new to the species. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 14:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

::::: Jinxmchue, you need to do some research. Modern coelacanths are anything but unchanged. For example, they're roughly three times as large as their ancient predecessors. Of the two known living species, neither are in the same genus as ancient coelacanths. Your statement is ''blatantly'' false. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 16:31, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

==Peer Review Process==

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

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

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

== Reply to Lenski's second-last paragraph ==

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

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

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

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

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:22, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

:He wasn't talking about Creationism (specifically Young Earth Creationism) though, Philip. As you are aware, many Christians, possibly the majority, reject YEC and use very similar arguments that Lenski iterated, i.e. that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive and it is presumptuous of any of us to claim knowledge of how precisely God created the universe. Of course, that's the core disagreement between YEC and more theistic evolution positions. You would expect an evolutionary biologist to side with the latter in his appreciation and understanding of Christianity. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 11:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:Just to clarify - I'm not deliberately arguing, just pointing out what I understood to be his position on that bit. I agree wholeheartedly with your other sentiments. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 12:01, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Reading past all the deliberate insults the scientists tossed, we come to the claim that "God created living things via evolution". Taking a stab at [[theistic evolution]], the scientist twists the knife by speculating that God would use set in motion some sort of blind watchmaker mechanism to create everything.

::As Philip indicated, this is so obviously incompatible with YE Creationism that you have to wonder how stupid the scientists thinks our readers are. And even OE Creationism (the only major kind left to consider) '''specifically''' posits that God intervened creatively.

::So, once again, the scientists has made assertions without giving adequate explanation. Everything is either assumed to have been "already explained" or is embargoed information (so he and has colleagues can take credit). If I may use a Jewish expression, God forbid he should every give us a straight answer! --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Not "speculating", Ed; '''observing'''. The speculation lies in the assumption that what someone you trust, who was told by someone they trust who was told by someone ''they'' trusted - and so on throughout many generations and translations - told ''you'' is an objective fact, and that ''somewhere'' down the line, not a single person - most of whose names you will never know - either made an error in judgment about who to trust, mistranslated, took artistic license at filling in the blanks, or at the very least had unwittingly consumed some rather questionable mushrooms. This is precisely why empirical data is valued in science over anecdotal.

:::You say God said so, I say bring him here to tell me in person. You say God doesn't work that way, I say my how convenient for you, now leave me alone, I'm busy doing science. [[User:Cantle|Cantle]] 23:48, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:Philip, you mentioned Creationism and implicitly Biblical inerrancy, therefore, yes , you mentioned YEC by default. In other words, you appear to take any mention of Lenski's about Christianity to de-facto mean that he's talking about YEC, the only form of Christianity that you believe is right. But he wasn't. He was talking about Christianity in more general terms reflecting what a great deal of Christians believe - that is that evolution and Christianity are not mutually incompatible. Surely you can see this while not agreeing with it. This is the type of Christianity he was talking about and how he can maintain respect for it (which he explicitly states) while carrying out his work. It is not pontification about an expertise he doesn't hold. It is a theological position of many many Christians, some of whom are academics of the highest standing in both science and theology. Again, you may vehemently deny that these Christians are right (or even possibly that they are not real Christians). But that doesn't change the fact that Lenski was talking about that Christian position and not Biblical inerrency. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:Ed, similar reply. Lenski wasn't talking about Creationism. He was repeating the theological position of many learned Christian theologians that evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant. Many do. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 08:43, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::I don't understand the phrase, "evolution and Christianity are not mutually exclusive." Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 09:17, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

:::Thanks for the question, Ed. Please remember this isn't me saying this but many academic theologians from mainstream Christianity including Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants. In most cases it seems to mean that the jury is out - that their Christianity doesn't exclude evolution in the same way that it doesn't exclude the Big Bang. This seems to be borne from the position that mortals shouldn't limit God's creativity and that the Bible, particularly the Genesis account, shouldn't taken literally. While this might not be a majority position in the US (I don't know), it probably is in the rest of the Christian world - not necessarily by the layman (the subject doesn't really crop up that often!) but by members of Christian academia. In fact, admitting my ignorance, it might not even be a majority elsewhere but it certainly is a firmly held belief among a significant section of Christianity.
:::What I am trying to suggest to Philip's original point in reply to Lenski, is that Lenski almost certainly wasn't referring to Creationist Christianity. (I doubt he would be that ignorant to not understand the basic principles of YEC.) Many of us only have experience of Christianity as non-scientific and non-political spirituality and faith and, for the scientists among us, NOMA applies. This is amply demonstrated by the various scientists who were Christians developing scientific discoveries that would not agree with the YEC view; the most recent famous example probably being Father George Lemaitre, arguably the "discoverer" of the Big Bang. Whether we, as individual Christians, believe in these scientific theories or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that many others do and it was to this Christian view that I presume Lenski was referring. [[User:Ajkgordon|Ajkgordon]] 09:46, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

::You thanked me for "the question", but I asked two questions. And you didn't answer either one, so I will repeat them here (with numbers for easy reference):
::# Are you speaking about the meaning of evolution in the sense of, "All forms of life evolved naturally, i.e., by the action of physical forces alone, and without any direct intervention by God"? ::#If so, then I wonder which denominations of Christianity accept this disavowal of Creationism?

::When you respond again, please indicate by number which question(s) you are answering. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 14:18, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

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

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

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

"''...for the scientists among us, NOMA applies.''" You mean that principle dreamt up by a Marxist that tries to claim for science areas that the Bible claims, such as how things got started? NOMA itself is anti-biblical.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3855/#noma]

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:01, 25 June 2008 (EDT)

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

==Fair Warning==
Your own senior sysops [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475426 warned you] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=475433 repeatedly] [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&diff=next&oldid=476314 that this would not go well]. I think it's only fair that those fair warnings are acknowledged by those of us who claim to "know better" - some here know better too, but couldn't turn the ship around in time. [[User:WaltherPPK|WaltherPPK]] 11:26, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:What sort of Liberal defeatism are you bound up in, and why do you assume, without examining the facts of the matter, that this has not gone well? Have a look at the lead on the front page, and read Professor Lenski's message. 'By their words shall ye know them'! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 12:39, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::'By their words shall ye know them'. Is that a quote? And if so where is it from? It sounds like it's a corruption of Matthew 7:16, but I don't know if it's just made up or from somewhere else or just a mistake.[[User:Daphnea|Daphnea]] 14:30, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Please be charitable==

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

[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Lenski_dialog&oldid=478060 See this]

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

== Questions for Aschlafly , not Bugler ==
(only because Bugler seems to be answering all the questions to Aschlafly)

* I am repeating DanielB's question. Prof. Lenski has agreed to share the data.. actually the real samples to anyone with the credentials. Are you satisfied by his response?

* How can I obtain an uncensored version of the letter?

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

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

: Seconded, I'd love to hear Mr. Schlafly's responce to Lenki's second letter. He basically agreed to all demands, stating the required conditions under which they can be met, so what's going to happen now? (now signed) --[[User:Alcari|Alcari]] 17:45, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Well I hope we're not going to stop here. It's not just an issue of will the evolutionist make their data open to the public, but we must validate that data, yes? I'm curious to know which university Mr Schlafly will be working with to receive the biological samples and also I'm curious to know what researcher(s) he will ask to experiment/validate the data. I don't recall an evolutionist ever being this open with their data so this is all so very intriguing. Perhaps the Discovery Institute could help, they have a laboratory in Seattle Washington where they conduct intelligent design experiments and biology research all the time. That would be a logical resource. [[User:Miles|Miles]] 18:08, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:36, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

==Question concerning deletions==

Bugler,

I notice that one of your recent edits deleted a substantial amount of discussion. Might I ask whether this was intentional, and if so, why it was necessary to do so? Thanks. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)
:No. I don't know how this happened. I shall restore the [passage concerned. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:23, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

::Thank you! --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 17:35, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

== Liberal Deceit + Atheistic Pseudo-Science ==

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

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

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

== Evidence of Conservative Christian Evolutionist ==

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

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

{{unsigned|Stgulik}}

: The issue is not so much what God ''could'' have done, but what He ''said'' He did. And He said (and this is something that the Bible ''is'' "Crystal Clear" about) that He created everything in six days. That by itself (and there's much more) means that evolution is wrong. And why do we need to get "rilled up" about it? Simply because evolution undermines the very foundations of the Bible. According to evolution, death (and suffering, etc.) is a natural part of life, and there was no Adam and Eve. In fact, if creatures didn't die (the less fit ones), then evolution could not have progressed. According to the Bible, death (and suffering, etc.) was not part of the original creation, but the result of sin. So if evolution is true, there was no original sin, and therefore no need of a Saviour—Jesus is out of a job! This is a very simple explanation, but basically if evolution is true, then the entire teaching of the Bible (not just the first chapter or so of Genesis) is dead wrong. Christians ''need'' to get "rilled up" about it. And even the atheists realise this:
{{QuoteBox|And the creationists have also shown irrefutably that those liberal and neo–orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam, there was no fall; and if there was no fall there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result, the whole biblical system of salvation collapses.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3459]}}
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:11, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

== Why... ==

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

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

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

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

[[User:Blessed|Blessed]] 23:56, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

==Closure?==

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

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

* "What we have here is the unacceptable opposite: a scientific claim without production of the data." --Aschlafly 21:12, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

* "I'm starting to think that even the peer reviewers for the paper never checked the data, if the data continue to be withheld." --Aschlafly 10:16, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

* "If I'm reading the dates on the front of this particular paper correctly, I think peer review was a mere 15 days or so. Looks to me like a rubber-stamp process for this subject matter despite making claims that were reported as being newsworthy." --Aschlafly 16:47, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

* "Don't pretend that Lenski welcomes independent review of the data." --Aschlafly 15:15, 19 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

== Reply to the above ==

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

: Lenski says in his published paper: "Z.D.B. and R.E.L. [Lenski] analyzed data"[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/pdf/2008,%20PNAS,%20Blount%20et%20al.pdf]

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

::As clearly stated in Professor Lenski's second response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously, you have not been at Conservapedia very long.--[[User:Fernandez|Fernandez]] 14:22, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
:What do you mean, Fernandez? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 14:23, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

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

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

== Attitude? ==

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

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

Massachusetts

2008-06-24T16:31:24Z

Rspeed: /* Politics */ It certainly wouldn't surprise me, but this needs a citation.

{{USState
|name=Massachusetts
|flag=Massachusetts_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem" (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
|nick=The Bay State
|capital=Boston
|language=English
|governor=Deval Patrick
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=John Kerry
|s1party=Democrat
|senator2=Ted Kennedy
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=February 6, 1788 (6th)
}}

The '''Commonwealth of Massachusetts''' is a [[state]] in the [[New England]] region of the northeastern [[United States]]. Its capital city is [[Boston]]. Massachusetts became a state on February 6, 1788. The name is derived from the indigenous population, the "[[Massachusett]]". It is one of four states officially known as "[[commonwealth]]s"; there are no practical differences between a "commonwealth" and a "state".<ref>The other three are Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky. An example of a state which really ''is'' legally different from the others is Louisiana; Louisiana state law is based on the French Napoleonic Code. The other forty-nine states (including the four "commonwealths") derived their state laws from English common law.</ref>

==History==
Massachusetts was first settled by the [[Pilgrims]] who emigrated from [[England]] on the ''[[Mayflower]]'' in 1620 and founded a settlement at [[Plymouth Colony|Plymouth]], and later the [[Puritans]], who founded the "Massachusetts Bay Colony". Both groups came to America seeking religious freedom. It was also a major center of the [[American Revolution]], as events such as the [[Boston Massacre]] and [[Boston Tea Party]] helped to create a desire for national independence among the colonists. The first battle of the war was fought mainly in the towns of [[Lexington]] and [[Concord]]. Shortly after the war ended, the western part of the state was marked by [[Shays' Rebellion]], a major factor leading to the [[Constitutional Convention]] in 1787. Massachusetts was also the first state to abolish slavery in 1783.

During the 1800s, Massachusetts was marked by increasing industrialization, including the founding of textile mills in towns such as Lowell. Important historical figures during this time included [[Horace Mann]], an important educational reformer, and [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] and [[Henry David Thoreau]], two of the main contributors to the [[Transcendentalism|Transcendental]] movement.

In the 1900s, Massachusetts moved from a factory-based economy to a more service-based economy, sparked by growth in its local colleges and universities as well as by a collapse in the textile industry during the 1920s. This encouraged increased suburbanization, leading to the current demographic situation in which the population is concentrated in suburbs around the city of [[Boston]]. In 1987, the state received federal highway funding for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, known colloquially as the [[Big Dig]]. The $14.7 billion grant is the largest federal highway project ever approved.

==Politics==
Although once a bastion of social conservatism (the term "Banned in Boston" is still in widespread use) Massachusetts is known as one of the most [[liberal]] states in the Union, being the most populous state to have all-Democratic congressional representation. It is by some called "Taxachusetts" because of its high tax rate. Its current senators are [[John Kerry]] (who unsuccessfully ran for [[President]] in 2004) and [[Ted Kennedy]]. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize [[same-sex marriage]]. Although governed by a succession of Republican governors in the 1990s and 2000s ([[William Weld]], [[Paul Cellucci]], [[Jane Swift]] and [[Mitt Romney]]), they have generally been among the most liberal Republican governors in the country{{fact}}.

The current governor, elected in 2006 over Republican and former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Murphy Healey,<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/governor/patrick/</ref> is [[Deval Patrick|Deval L. Patrick]], who was the first Democrat to take the office in 16 years, and the first African American to win the post.<ref>http://www.mass.gov/</ref><ref>http://www.nndb.com/gov/911/000051758/</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:States of the United States]]
[[Category:Massachusetts]]

Massachusetts

2008-06-24T16:29:01Z

Rspeed: /* Politics */ California now also recognizes same-sex marriages.

{{USState
|name=Massachusetts
|flag=Massachusetts_State_Flag.gif
|motto="Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem" (By the sword we seek peace, but peace only under liberty)
|nick=The Bay State
|capital=Boston
|language=English
|governor=Deval Patrick
|gparty=Democrat
|senator1=John Kerry
|s1party=Democrat
|senator2=Ted Kennedy
|s2party=Democrat
|population=
|date=February 6, 1788 (6th)
}}

The '''Commonwealth of Massachusetts''' is a [[state]] in the [[New England]] region of the northeastern [[United States]]. Its capital city is [[Boston]]. Massachusetts became a state on February 6, 1788. The name is derived from the indigenous population, the "[[Massachusett]]". It is one of four states officially known as "[[commonwealth]]s"; there are no practical differences between a "commonwealth" and a "state".<ref>The other three are Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Kentucky. An example of a state which really ''is'' legally different from the others is Louisiana; Louisiana state law is based on the French Napoleonic Code. The other forty-nine states (including the four "commonwealths") derived their state laws from English common law.</ref>

==History==
Massachusetts was first settled by the [[Pilgrims]] who emigrated from [[England]] on the ''[[Mayflower]]'' in 1620 and founded a settlement at [[Plymouth Colony|Plymouth]], and later the [[Puritans]], who founded the "Massachusetts Bay Colony". Both groups came to America seeking religious freedom. It was also a major center of the [[American Revolution]], as events such as the [[Boston Massacre]] and [[Boston Tea Party]] helped to create a desire for national independence among the colonists. The first battle of the war was fought mainly in the towns of [[Lexington]] and [[Concord]]. Shortly after the war ended, the western part of the state was marked by [[Shays' Rebellion]], a major factor leading to the [[Constitutional Convention]] in 1787. Massachusetts was also the first state to abolish slavery in 1783.

During the 1800s, Massachusetts was marked by increasing industrialization, including the founding of textile mills in towns such as Lowell. Important historical figures during this time included [[Horace Mann]], an important educational reformer, and [[Ralph Waldo Emerson]] and [[Henry David Thoreau]], two of the main contributors to the [[Transcendentalism|Transcendental]] movement.

In the 1900s, Massachusetts moved from a factory-based economy to a more service-based economy, sparked by growth in its local colleges and universities as well as by a collapse in the textile industry during the 1920s. This encouraged increased suburbanization, leading to the current demographic situation in which the population is concentrated in suburbs around the city of [[Boston]]. In 1987, the state received federal highway funding for the Central Artery/Tunnel Project, known colloquially as the [[Big Dig]]. The $14.7 billion grant is the largest federal highway project ever approved.

==Politics==
Although once a bastion of social conservatism (the term "Banned in Boston" is still in widespread use) Massachusetts is known as one of the most [[liberal]] states in the Union, being the most populous state to have all-Democratic congressional representation. It is by some called "Taxachusetts" because of its high tax rate. Its current senators are [[John Kerry]] (who unsuccessfully ran for [[President]] in 2004) and [[Ted Kennedy]]. Massachusetts was the first state to legalize [[same-sex marriage]]. Although governed by a succession of Republican governors in the 1990s and 2000s ([[William Weld]], [[Paul Cellucci]], [[Jane Swift]] and [[Mitt Romney]]), they have generally been among the most liberal Republican governors in the country.

The current governor, elected in 2006 over Republican and former Lieutenant Governor Kerry Murphy Healey,<ref>http://www.boston.com/news/local/politics/candidates/governor/patrick/</ref> is [[Deval Patrick|Deval L. Patrick]], who was the first Democrat to take the office in 16 years, and the first African American to win the post.<ref>http://www.mass.gov/</ref><ref>http://www.nndb.com/gov/911/000051758/</ref>

==Notes and references==
<references/>

{{USstates}}
[[Category:States of the United States]]
[[Category:Massachusetts]]

Talk:Morality

2008-06-09T00:41:16Z

Rspeed: /* The effects of Atheism */

I would truly like to see someone that knows what it means saying that "A man marrying another man is a Moral action." There is no positive morality that would apply here, only immorality and amorality. The same goes for heterosexual marriages. The only exception i can think of is the utilitarian principal, where that which brings the most happiness (if the two guys want to marry and would be happy doing so they not only ought, but should and must preform said action). That said, this is the worst overview of morality I've ever seen. --[[User:Stills|Stills]] 04:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Somebody who has an orthodox Christian view of morality is going to place the gender of the couple involved as morally more important than the mutual love and commitment of the couple, because of Biblical injunctions. Such a person is going to feel that the marriage of two men is morally wrong under any circumstances and therefore think it's immoral. Somebody whose view of morality says that the declaration of mutual love and commitment before witnesses is a more important aspect of a marriage ceremony than the gender of the participants is going to feel that it is more moral to marry than not to marry. The utilitarian approach would argue that morality as such doesn't enter into it. There are legal benefits to marriage which are not available for people in a committed but unmarried relationship. Unless I've got the utilitarian argument wrong, in which case I'm happy for somebody to correct me (I didn't write the first paragraph of this article).[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:47 30 March 3007 (EDT)

== Copyright violation ==

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html contains large sections of the current article. My revert to a version without copyright issues was reverted by TK and locked. Just pointing it out here for others to consider - I'm out for a few hours. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for your comment. It's obvious that you are deeply concerned about the success of this project. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock and revert - PLEASE. ==

The current "article" is a patchwork of copy-pasting from other sources. I would be extremely surprised if more than thirty or fifty words were actually written by TK himself.
*The entire section from the beginning until "Thomas E. Brewton wrote" comes from [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm here] (word by word).
*The entire (uncut) section about Brewton can be read [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html here]. Notice how the first parts were originally written by a reader.
*The "Morality and the Law" section comes from [http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm this page] (each paragraph appears there, though TK left out one)
*The Buddhist section is a copy-paste of the cited source.
*The entire section about Jews can be found [http://chabadstanford.org/pages/wisdom_center/Article/130.html here]. I don't know if they're quoting the book or not, but TK most definitely didn't write that himself.
TK, please revert to the version I originally reverted to. Conservapedia wants us to write our own entries. You are encouraged to use sources, but copying everything from elsewhere is not cool. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I note that the entire section I wrote about the non-religious sources of morality, which included solid references, has simply been cut. I have it saved, or somebody who has access to this now-locked article can simply revert to it. What is the point in putting in well-researched material if it is permissible to over-write it with what looks to me like a gigantic copy-and-paste job of copyrighted material - a tad ironic in an article about morality, don't you think? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]16:23 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, a revert to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Morality&oldid=74537 this version] would be the best thing. The current version is really just a copy-paste gig. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, it's been a full day since TK locked the article and started his little copyright violation spree. He's had his fun, but can we now please unlock this thing and revert it? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Reverted as per [[User_talk:Sid_3050#Morality]] and this talk page. Thanks to Elamdri and Ed for their input, I am well aware that I'm skating on thin ice here. Here is my reasoning for this entire thing, along with a quasi-timeline:
:::*The initial version was already a copyright violation of three sources.
:::*After a revert back and forth, the article was locked so that TK could do his rewrite in peace
:::**No prior discussion about such a change on the Talk page, no reasoning given for removing the existing sections
:::**No word from TK on the copyright issues.
:::*At the end of the day, the article was still locked and completely copy-pasted from five sources.
:::*Only after some pressure appeared the claim that TK obtained permission for the Brewton section
:::**No proof was given, the admission only came indirectly through Ed - TK, where are you?
:::**No word of this before the pressure.
:::**No word on the other four sources.
:::As such, I reverted the article. TK, if you wish to revert, you better post a VERY good explanation here. I think that the potential link to religion should be covered, but it should be done in a neutral way and without page-long quotes. If you can't sum it up in your own words, post the source on the talk page and ask the other editors for help. When more than a third of such an article is quotes, that's a very bad sign in my book. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, you wrote above: "As such, I reverted the article. TK, if you wish to revert, you better post a VERY good explanation here. I think that the potential link to religion should be covered, but it should be done in a neutral way..." Get over yourself! This site will never show religion in a neutral way. Its whole reason for being is because most other sites do that, or worse, fail to include religion at all, unless in a negative light, so why would you be suggesting we do that here? The page is Morality. Without God in the equation, how does one lead a moral life? The very idea is an oxymoron. I repeat my observation of yesterday; I think you really need to examine why you are here, since it is quite obvious you want this place to be a clone of Wikipedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I want it to be a clone of Wikipedia in the sense that not every news outlet on the PLANET laughs about it.
::Your post shows exactly why I asked for neutrality. You say "There is no morality without religion, so there is no morality without religion". Nothing about the study with primates (which you completely eradicated with your edits) or any other possible point of view?
::You simply assert that your point of view is right and then supply sources that speak for your point of view. Congratulations, you turned into Conservative. Just with less Bible-quoting and more copyright violation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

*ROFL! Look up "enfant terrible" in the dictionary. The writer gave his permission. It wasn't even copyrighted, so therefore there can by no violation of copyright. You keep repeating like, like Herr Gobles, thinking if done enough, people will believe it. You have turned into a wiki-nazi. Get over yourself. You have no right to demand explanations from anyone. You should care not one wit what liberals and secular-progressives think of this place, I don't. Neither does Andy. It is because of them this place was started. You were neither appointed or elected to try and make it different. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Herr Gobles"? You surely don't mean Joseph Goebbels, right? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Since I left all the stuff about the religious basis of morality strictly alone, believing that it was right that it should be there because that is what many people believe, give me one good reason why well-referenced contributions on the non-religious bases of morality should be deleted. Here the deleted sections again, just to remind you [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 2:17 2 April 2007 (EDT)

{{QuoteBox|Some biologists argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution. They see social behaviors displayed by some primates as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as rhesus monkeys which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to starve themselves for a considerable time.<ref> "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref> This ideal governing our free actions is common to the human race. Dr Frans de Waal argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.}}

:::I've put your quote in a box to highlight it better. And this looks like a lost cause, unless Andy's hammer of justice is working quite slowly. I left something on [[User talk:Aschlafly#The Morality of Copyright|Aschlafly's Talk page]] 12 hours ago. And while Andy has made 25 or so edits since then, this issue was (so far) ignored.
:::Judging from past experience, I wouldn't get my hopes up. It's possible that something good will happen (and I still hope so), but I honestly don't expect it. :-/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

*britinme, I apoliogize if in the revert tussle between a few of our more hysterical elements, your contribution was removed. I have posted several times, in several places that the revision isn't completed. It was completely reverted while I was in the middle of enlarging the meager bits that were there, and I lost half a page of info, because I forgot to keep saving. I am in travel status right now, so I hope to finish the piece very soon, time permitting. I see no reason not to include the "helpfully highlighted" text of yours, and assume it is properly cited, perhaps by multiple sources, to appease the strident name-calling "thought police" here, lol. If you have additional thoughts or inclusions, please alert me on my Talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you Terry. I would appreciate it if you could restore it. The reference is to . "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. Professor de Waal is a thoroughly respectable academic source for the information. Thank you also Sid for highlighting the box - I hadn't worked out yet how to do that but looking at the edit page I can see how it's done now. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:13 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Did somebody challenge you to take as many shots as possible at me without saying my name? Britinme's contribution (along with the entire rest of the article) was flushed out during your FIRST edit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

*My comments do not support that conclusion. I merely apologized for the material being removed, and said I couldn't see a reason not to include it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyrights... ==

Ownership, Copyright, & Disclaimer
The Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series is a non-periodic journal and archive of philosophy, updated as needed, published and edited by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.. All materials, unless otherwise indicated, are copyrighted (c) 1979, 1985, 1987, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by the editor.

'''All rights are reserved, but fair and good faith use with attribution may be made of all contents for any non-commercial educational, scholarly, and personal purposes, including reposting, with links to the original page, on the internet. It is not necessary to obtain copyright release for such uses,''' but the Proceedings would be grateful to be voluntarily informed, for informational purposes only, of the use of its materials. [http://www.friesian.com/#hayek] --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:...you didn't provide a link to the original page, and I'm fairly certain they meant QUOTING (in the sense you later on did with Brewton), and not "Copy it and make it look like your own work, just slap in a link somewhere". Your action hardly qualifies as "fair and good faith use".
:Besides, you should still lobby for a Commandment change because right now, it says that we shouldn't copy from non-public domain sources at all.
:However, I applaud that you finally admit to have copied 1:1 from that source. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Never claimed anything different. Your fantasy world must be nice. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:You spent most of yesterday repeating your "I've got Brewton's permission, you've got no case" line and dodging all questions about the four other sources. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, Sid, to be honest, I don't think it's any of your business. As I said before, no one died and appointed you leader. The world doesn't need yet another forum nazi, which is exactly what you have become. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I would really appreciate it if you didn't call me a Nazi. This is the second time (not counting the "Herr Gobles" thing, which you never confirmed to mean "Goebbels") that you did it, and I find it really offensive. (And ironically enough the "died and made you leader" bit happens to be [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#Just_so_we_know...|Ed's basic example for a snide and unacceptable remark]].) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say you were a Nazi, Sid. I said you were acting just like a forum nazi. Two different things. And Ed and I agree more than we don't, Sid. All that you find unacceptable, he did. That should tell you something right there, eh? Let's call a truce, and try to work together, or not at all, but at least end this constant banter, ok? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Don't worry, I couldn't keep up this pace, even if I wanted to. My lectures started again this week, so time is not on my side anymore. :-/ Productive editing, we shall do. Bantering, we shall not. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Link==
Links 3, 4, 6, and 7 have extra brackets around them.

== The effects of Atheism ==

This section doesn't make any arguments based in fact and I propose it be removed. In none of the examples cited (Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao) were people killed because of religious reasons. In all three cases the justification was political.
--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:38, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
: Not based on facts? Aren't the deaths from those despots facts?
: I think the problem is that perhaps the article didn't make the connection very well, having divided atheism from evolution. The part that you removed from the evolution section points out that evolution provides no basis for morals, which supports (and perhaps this wasn't clear) that atheism has no basis for morals. And what the atheism section (still) says is that "atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people". So atheism may not have ''caused'' those despots to murder millions, but atheism ''allows'' that (if there is, for example, political "justification"), whereas Christianity does not. That, in a sense, is the ''theory'', and the "effects" section shows that theory working out in practice. It is therefore appropriate to have it, and I will also be reinstating the text you removed from the evolution section.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:: You're correct that atheism doesn't provide a moral code, but I still fail to see why that would give justification or place blame. I don't see why it's even worth mentioning atheism in this article at all.

:: It's a function of society to provide morality. That society can be religion, government, clubs (for example, Rotary International provides strong philanthropic morals) or even a local community. These morals are passed on to children via family, friends and various leaders. Atheism does not provide morals because it's not a society. Unlike a religion, there is no organization. There are no laws or a belief structure. But just because one doesn't have religion doesn't mean they don't have morals. There are millions of atheists in the world who we would consider to be moral people. The other layers of society, family and friends provides just as it does to people with religion. Their lack of theism hasn't prevented them from living moral lives because they live in societies which provided them with morals similar to yours and similar to mine.

:: In regard to morality, being an atheist is like being someone plays baseball. It's not a problem that baseball doesn't provide morals because baseball players get their morality from other sources. In all of the examples given, the men who committed the heinous acts lived in a society in which those actions were considered immoral. It wasn't a lack of belief that they would be punished after death that allowed them to perform the horrors they inflicted, it was a '''personal''' failure of morality. The same could be said of theistic men and women who either ignored their morals or even used them as a justification (such as Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, or Kind Ferdinand II, Queen Isabella and Pope Sixtus IV). It's no more logical to blame atheism for what Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong did than it is to blame the fact that they weren't Boy Scouts.

:: It's worth noting that I don't think any intentional attacks on atheists are meant by this article. I simply see no reason at all to even mention atheism. Evolution has a place since there are fairly sound theories for its role in morality. Hopefully I've made my point better than I did the first time! :)

:: My edit to the Evolution section is unrelated to this. I made that modification because the information presented was neither well-sourced, encyclopedic or relevant to the topic. Scientific experiments provide a strong theory for the origin of morals via evolution, that much is factual. Arguing that the theory doesn't matter because Evolution is debatable is ''completely'' beside the point.

::--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 21:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

::: No, it's not a function of society to provide morality. It's dependent on a worldview, which is what atheism is.
::: Atheism is not just a passive, disinterested, observer in all this. No, atheism ''teaches'' that it is up to man (rather than God) to decide what is right and what is wrong. Therefore, it ''teaches'' that it is legitimate to decide that murder is good in some circumstances. David A. Noebel writes in ''The Battle for Truth'':
{{QuoteBox|According to the Marxist [a form of atheism], the acceptable form of conduct in class morality is whatever it takes to accomplish the ultimate goal—namely, a classless communist society. In other words, the end justifies the means. ... An action is moral when it helps overthrow the bourgeoisie. 
... The problem, of course, is than man can justify mistreating his fellow man by claiming that it will serve in the long run a 'higher good.' ... In the case of the Ukrainians, the "means" included shooting, starvation, and slave labor in Siberia. Joseph Stalin referred to such action as the liquidation of the kulak class.}}
::: If evolution has a place, then so does atheism, a worldview with evolution as its intellectual basis.

::: I'm not following your point about the evolution section. I don't know why you consider that section not "well sourced". The part you removed was a two-sentence paragraph pointing out that the evolution argument assumes evolution to be true, which is not a given, and a quote which was ''not'' arguing that evolution is debatable. Rather, it's a rebuttal to your point above that "Scientific experiments provide a strong theory for the origin of morals via evolution". They do no such thing.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:08, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

:::: Your statement is full of fallacies. Atheism isn't Marxism, Marxism isn't atheism and none of those men were Marxists (though they liked to pretend they were). It's fine if you want to prove your point and that's really what I'd hoped to get when I posted this on the talk page, but you're not responding to my arguments with logical arguments.
:::: I'm not going to respond further to your comments because you've made it clear that you won't listen to me. That's fine, you contribute far more to this site than I do and it's presumptive of me to start this debate. But there is a point I'd like to make, and I'd really like you to consider it.
:::: Is someone who acts in a virtuous manner only due to a fear of punishment a moral person?
:::: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 20:41, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Bill Maher

2008-06-08T23:54:26Z

Rspeed: /* Television shows */ "of course" isn't encyclopedic. The show didn't lose all of his advertisers, but the ones he lost were important. Updated statement to strengthen that point.

[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|thumb|Bill Maher]]

'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].

== Television shows ==

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''" [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark made him too controversial for some of the show's most prominent advertisers. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, causing it to become unprofitable. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
:"''But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

== Political claims and statements ==

Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]

== External links ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]

Bill Maher

2008-06-08T23:50:16Z

Rspeed: Added section title for his television shows. Removed unnecessary punctuation and redundant statement.

[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|thumb|Bill Maher]]

'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].

== Television shows ==

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001 attacks should not be called cowards. Maher expanded on his point, saying "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''" [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark of course made him too controversial for financial support. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
:"''But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

== Political claims and statements ==

Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]

== External links ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]

Talk:Bill Maher

2008-06-08T23:46:43Z

Rspeed: Democratic Party activist

{{protect}}

http://www.tv.com/bill-maher/person/22299/biography.html says he's a libertarian. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 22:18, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
:Since there is some disagreement on whether his views actually are libertarian, it's probably best to leave the political label out. Also, I edited the page to reflect that Dinesh D'Souza had been the guest on the famous show that got Bill Maher booted from ABC.

==My Revisions==

I made a number of changes and general reorganizations here, all (I think) perfectly fair and righteous and according to guidelines. I guess you could even call them "conservative". If anybody (*cough*TK*cough*) has any issues with any of them, let's take 'em one by one, instead of reverting the whole lot without an explanation, 'kay? I'm happy to discuss my edits.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 17:46, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

:Nice try anyway. Did Maher actually call US soldiers cowards or did he say "we" as WJThomas' version said? [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:18, 19 May 2007 (EDT)

*As an Administrator, as per our Guidelines, users are to follow our instructions. Maher is a Socialist/far left-wing politically. We do not strive here, like Wikipedia does, to scrub articles of all truth, just to be PC. It is okay for you to be happy with your edits, and like all wiki's they are subject to change. ;-) '''Since you seem to invite discussion whenever someone reverts your edits, WJT....perhaps you should have followed your own "advice" before you originally made your changes, eh?''' --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 18:21, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
:*He may well be far left, but I don't see that he's a socialist (let alone a Socialist), unless you have cites/quotes/positions I've not seen, and I haven't seen anything demonstrating that he's a "Democratic party activist", or even a Democratic party member. If you have any evidence (on any of those points), it should be added to the entry. Other than that and removing the gossip about his ex-girlfriend unsuccessfully suing him (or does the "gossip" rule only apply to politicians?), I really didn't do anything other than clean up the article, organize it.
:*As for the rest of it, I wasn't trying to scrub or PC-ize anything--I've only seen Maher's show once or twice, and don't find him amusing or intersting (mostly he comes across as an arrogant you-know-what). I'm just trying to do a good job here, help make Conservapedia a useful and trusted source. If I'm insufficiently doctrinaire, I apologize. And I only "invite discussion" because reverting without comment or explanation doesn't help me (or anyone else) do a better job here.--[[User:WJThomas|WJThomas]] 16:17, 20 May 2007 (EDT)

==Image==
[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|frame]]

== Since this has been protected for 2 months ==

These are in serious need of a fix:
<blockquote>"Bill Maher is a socialist"
 "Despite claims of being a libertarian, his views are more line with totalitarian-socialism. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the United Nations, income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for Ralph Nader in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas."
 "Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and conservative chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."</blockquote>

None of these are referenced at all and they are somewhat contradictary. How about instead of labelling him you just say what he's for and against?

Also, the first quotation in the article needs to be on a new line. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 00:21, 13 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree that Bill Maher is not a socialist. He also supported Bob Dole in 1996.{{unsigned|Cynic101}} -15:27, 30 September 2007

*Cynic, while we welcome you as a user, please refrain from trolling! Maher is (if nothing else) a dogmatic, drooling Socialist sleeper! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:39, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

== Democratic Party activist ==

Is this true about being an activist for the Democrats? I don't know much about the guy (I don't watch much TV and I don't have HBO), but that really doesn't sound right to me. Other than some campaigning for Ralph Nader (who seems to have integrity and intelligence, hardly representative of the Democratic Party), I can't find any reason to state this. Does anyone have more info?
--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:46, 8 June 2008 (EDT)

Bill Maher

2008-06-08T23:42:39Z

Rspeed: Adding a section header. This section REALLY needs some citations and reorganization.

[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|thumb|Bill Maher]]

'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks should not be called cowards. Maher agreed with [[Dinesh D'Souza|D'Souza]] and expanded on his point, saying: "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''" [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark of course made him too controversial for financial support. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
:"''But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

== Political claims and statements ==

Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]

== External links ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]

Bill Maher

2008-06-07T02:33:33Z

Rspeed: He said "we," not "our soldiers."

[[Image:Maher.jpg|right|thumb|Bill Maher]]

'''Bill Maher''' is a [[Socialism|socialist]], comedian, actor, writer, producer, and [[Democratic Party]] activist. He is most notable as the former host of ''Politically Incorrect'', which aired on the Comedy Central television network and later on the [[ABC|American Broadcasting Company]]. Maher is also currently the host of ''[[Real Time|Real Time with Bill Maher]]'' on [[HBO]].

ABC decided not to renew Maher's contract for ''Politically Incorrect'' in 2002 after he agreed with a point posed by conservative commentator and guest [[Dinesh D'Souza]] that the terrorists in the September 11, 2001, attacks should not be called cowards. Maher agreed with [[Dinesh D'Souza|D'Souza]] and expanded on his point, saying: "''We have been the cowards lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly.''" [http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=14941]

In the aftermath of the attacks, the remark of course made him too controversial for financial support. Companies including FedEx and Sears Roebuck pulled their advertisements from the show, costing the show more than it returned. The show was subsequently canceled on June 16, 2002.

Maher's comment accusing America of cowardice followed another controversial comment he made on ''Politically Incorrect'' where he compared mentally handicapped children to dogs:
:"''But I've often said that if I had — I have two dogs — if I had two retarded children, I'd be a hero. And yet the dogs, which are pretty much the same thing. What? They're sweet. They're loving. They're kind, but they don't mentally advance at all ... Dogs are like retarded children.''"

ABC was still dealing with the fallout from this statement when it decided not to renew Maher's contract.

In 2003, Maher became the host of ''Real Time with Bill Maher'' on the HBO cable television network, a debate show somewhat similar to ''Politically Incorrect'', but with a narrower selection of guests.

Despite claims of being a [[Libertarianism|libertarian]], his views are more line with totalitarian-[[socialism]]. In fact, most of his views are in direct opposition to libertarian ideology, such as his strong support of government regulation of corporations, foreign aid, public schooling, a ban on homeschooling, campaign finance restrictions, radical environmental laws, affirmative action, minimum wage laws, absolute gun control, support for the [[United Nations]], income redistribution through higher taxation, government funding for abortion, and support for [[Ralph Nader]] in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. He has even praised Janet Reno and the ATF for its action in the massacre in Waco, Texas.

Some of his other stances on issues related to personal pleasure such as legalizing drugs, gambling, and prostitution are however libertarian in outlook. Maher has been described in libertarian and [[conservative]] chatrooms as "a tax and spend politically correct liberal who's a-okay with the Leviathan state as long as he gets his Hustler, his hookers and his hash."{{fact}}

Maher was formerly involved in a relationship with model Nancy Johnson a.k.a. "Coco Johnsen". However, Ms. Johnson ended it and in November of 2004 sued Maher for palimony amid allegations of verbal and physical abuse.[http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1111041coco1.html] Maher said that he never promised to marry her and that the claims of abuse were a money making scam.[http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/12-1-2004-62384.asp]

== External links ==
* [http://dir.salon.com/ent/tv/feature/2001/08/01/maher/index.html Is Bill Maher a libertarian? by Dann Halem]
*[http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18224 Bill Maher Owes Another Apology] - A war veteran responds to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/aim_column/A3735_0_3_0_C/ Is Bill Maher the Jane Fonda of the Iraq War?] - Another response to Maher's anti-military comments
*[http://www.aim.org/wls/author/bill-maher/ What Liberals Say - Bill Maher], [[Accuracy In Media]]

[[Category:Liberal Activists|Maher, Bill]]

Talk:Morality

2008-06-07T01:08:23Z

Rspeed: Philanthropical? What?

Talk:Morality

2008-06-07T01:06:35Z

Rspeed: /* The effects of Atheism */

I would truly like to see someone that knows what it means saying that "A man marrying another man is a Moral action." There is no positive morality that would apply here, only immorality and amorality. The same goes for heterosexual marriages. The only exception i can think of is the utilitarian principal, where that which brings the most happiness (if the two guys want to marry and would be happy doing so they not only ought, but should and must preform said action). That said, this is the worst overview of morality I've ever seen. --[[User:Stills|Stills]] 04:19, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

Somebody who has an orthodox Christian view of morality is going to place the gender of the couple involved as morally more important than the mutual love and commitment of the couple, because of Biblical injunctions. Such a person is going to feel that the marriage of two men is morally wrong under any circumstances and therefore think it's immoral. Somebody whose view of morality says that the declaration of mutual love and commitment before witnesses is a more important aspect of a marriage ceremony than the gender of the participants is going to feel that it is more moral to marry than not to marry. The utilitarian approach would argue that morality as such doesn't enter into it. There are legal benefits to marriage which are not available for people in a committed but unmarried relationship. Unless I've got the utilitarian argument wrong, in which case I'm happy for somebody to correct me (I didn't write the first paragraph of this article).[[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 19:47 30 March 3007 (EDT)

== Copyright violation ==

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html contains large sections of the current article. My revert to a version without copyright issues was reverted by TK and locked. Just pointing it out here for others to consider - I'm out for a few hours. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:24, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for your comment. It's obvious that you are deeply concerned about the success of this project. :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:26, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlock and revert - PLEASE. ==

The current "article" is a patchwork of copy-pasting from other sources. I would be extremely surprised if more than thirty or fifty words were actually written by TK himself.
*The entire section from the beginning until "Thomas E. Brewton wrote" comes from [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10559a.htm here] (word by word).
*The entire (uncut) section about Brewton can be read [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html here]. Notice how the first parts were originally written by a reader.
*The "Morality and the Law" section comes from [http://www.friesian.com/moral-2.htm this page] (each paragraph appears there, though TK left out one)
*The Buddhist section is a copy-paste of the cited source.
*The entire section about Jews can be found [http://chabadstanford.org/pages/wisdom_center/Article/130.html here]. I don't know if they're quoting the book or not, but TK most definitely didn't write that himself.
TK, please revert to the version I originally reverted to. Conservapedia wants us to write our own entries. You are encouraged to use sources, but copying everything from elsewhere is not cool. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:09, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

I note that the entire section I wrote about the non-religious sources of morality, which included solid references, has simply been cut. I have it saved, or somebody who has access to this now-locked article can simply revert to it. What is the point in putting in well-researched material if it is permissible to over-write it with what looks to me like a gigantic copy-and-paste job of copyrighted material - a tad ironic in an article about morality, don't you think? [[User:Britinme|Britinme]]16:23 31 March 2007 (EDT)

:Yes, a revert to [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Morality&oldid=74537 this version] would be the best thing. The current version is really just a copy-paste gig. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:05, 31 March 2007 (EDT)

::Okay, it's been a full day since TK locked the article and started his little copyright violation spree. He's had his fun, but can we now please unlock this thing and revert it? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 08:48, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Reverted as per [[User_talk:Sid_3050#Morality]] and this talk page. Thanks to Elamdri and Ed for their input, I am well aware that I'm skating on thin ice here. Here is my reasoning for this entire thing, along with a quasi-timeline:
:::*The initial version was already a copyright violation of three sources.
:::*After a revert back and forth, the article was locked so that TK could do his rewrite in peace
:::**No prior discussion about such a change on the Talk page, no reasoning given for removing the existing sections
:::**No word from TK on the copyright issues.
:::*At the end of the day, the article was still locked and completely copy-pasted from five sources.
:::*Only after some pressure appeared the claim that TK obtained permission for the Brewton section
:::**No proof was given, the admission only came indirectly through Ed - TK, where are you?
:::**No word of this before the pressure.
:::**No word on the other four sources.
:::As such, I reverted the article. TK, if you wish to revert, you better post a VERY good explanation here. I think that the potential link to religion should be covered, but it should be done in a neutral way and without page-long quotes. If you can't sum it up in your own words, post the source on the talk page and ask the other editors for help. When more than a third of such an article is quotes, that's a very bad sign in my book. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 10:26, 1 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sid, you wrote above: "As such, I reverted the article. TK, if you wish to revert, you better post a VERY good explanation here. I think that the potential link to religion should be covered, but it should be done in a neutral way..." Get over yourself! This site will never show religion in a neutral way. Its whole reason for being is because most other sites do that, or worse, fail to include religion at all, unless in a negative light, so why would you be suggesting we do that here? The page is Morality. Without God in the equation, how does one lead a moral life? The very idea is an oxymoron. I repeat my observation of yesterday; I think you really need to examine why you are here, since it is quite obvious you want this place to be a clone of Wikipedia. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:17, 2 April 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, I want it to be a clone of Wikipedia in the sense that not every news outlet on the PLANET laughs about it.
::Your post shows exactly why I asked for neutrality. You say "There is no morality without religion, so there is no morality without religion". Nothing about the study with primates (which you completely eradicated with your edits) or any other possible point of view?
::You simply assert that your point of view is right and then supply sources that speak for your point of view. Congratulations, you turned into Conservative. Just with less Bible-quoting and more copyright violation. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

*ROFL! Look up "enfant terrible" in the dictionary. The writer gave his permission. It wasn't even copyrighted, so therefore there can by no violation of copyright. You keep repeating like, like Herr Gobles, thinking if done enough, people will believe it. You have turned into a wiki-nazi. Get over yourself. You have no right to demand explanations from anyone. You should care not one wit what liberals and secular-progressives think of this place, I don't. Neither does Andy. It is because of them this place was started. You were neither appointed or elected to try and make it different. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 07:09, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::"Herr Gobles"? You surely don't mean Joseph Goebbels, right? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Since I left all the stuff about the religious basis of morality strictly alone, believing that it was right that it should be there because that is what many people believe, give me one good reason why well-referenced contributions on the non-religious bases of morality should be deleted. Here the deleted sections again, just to remind you [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 2:17 2 April 2007 (EDT)

{{QuoteBox|Some biologists argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution. They see social behaviors displayed by some primates as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as rhesus monkeys which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to starve themselves for a considerable time.<ref> "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref> This ideal governing our free actions is common to the human race. Dr Frans de Waal argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.}}

:::I've put your quote in a box to highlight it better. And this looks like a lost cause, unless Andy's hammer of justice is working quite slowly. I left something on [[User talk:Aschlafly#The Morality of Copyright|Aschlafly's Talk page]] 12 hours ago. And while Andy has made 25 or so edits since then, this issue was (so far) ignored.
:::Judging from past experience, I wouldn't get my hopes up. It's possible that something good will happen (and I still hope so), but I honestly don't expect it. :-/ --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:35, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

*britinme, I apoliogize if in the revert tussle between a few of our more hysterical elements, your contribution was removed. I have posted several times, in several places that the revision isn't completed. It was completely reverted while I was in the middle of enlarging the meager bits that were there, and I lost half a page of info, because I forgot to keep saving. I am in travel status right now, so I hope to finish the piece very soon, time permitting. I see no reason not to include the "helpfully highlighted" text of yours, and assume it is properly cited, perhaps by multiple sources, to appease the strident name-calling "thought police" here, lol. If you have additional thoughts or inclusions, please alert me on my Talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:00, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

::Thank you Terry. I would appreciate it if you could restore it. The reference is to . "Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal. Professor de Waal is a thoroughly respectable academic source for the information. Thank you also Sid for highlighting the box - I hadn't worked out yet how to do that but looking at the edit page I can see how it's done now. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 18:13 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:Did somebody challenge you to take as many shots as possible at me without saying my name? Britinme's contribution (along with the entire rest of the article) was flushed out during your FIRST edit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:20, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

*My comments do not support that conclusion. I merely apologized for the material being removed, and said I couldn't see a reason not to include it. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 18:24, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

== Copyrights... ==

Ownership, Copyright, & Disclaimer
The Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series is a non-periodic journal and archive of philosophy, updated as needed, published and edited by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.. All materials, unless otherwise indicated, are copyrighted (c) 1979, 1985, 1987, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 by the editor.

'''All rights are reserved, but fair and good faith use with attribution may be made of all contents for any non-commercial educational, scholarly, and personal purposes, including reposting, with links to the original page, on the internet. It is not necessary to obtain copyright release for such uses,''' but the Proceedings would be grateful to be voluntarily informed, for informational purposes only, of the use of its materials. [http://www.friesian.com/#hayek] --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:26, 2 April 2007 (EDT)

:...you didn't provide a link to the original page, and I'm fairly certain they meant QUOTING (in the sense you later on did with Brewton), and not "Copy it and make it look like your own work, just slap in a link somewhere". Your action hardly qualifies as "fair and good faith use".
:Besides, you should still lobby for a Commandment change because right now, it says that we shouldn't copy from non-public domain sources at all.
:However, I applaud that you finally admit to have copied 1:1 from that source. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:33, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

Never claimed anything different. Your fantasy world must be nice. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:40, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:You spent most of yesterday repeating your "I've got Brewton's permission, you've got no case" line and dodging all questions about the four other sources. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:43, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, Sid, to be honest, I don't think it's any of your business. As I said before, no one died and appointed you leader. The world doesn't need yet another forum nazi, which is exactly what you have become. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 05:46, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:TK, I would really appreciate it if you didn't call me a Nazi. This is the second time (not counting the "Herr Gobles" thing, which you never confirmed to mean "Goebbels") that you did it, and I find it really offensive. (And ironically enough the "died and made you leader" bit happens to be [[User_talk:Ed_Poor#Just_so_we_know...|Ed's basic example for a snide and unacceptable remark]].) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 05:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

I didn't say you were a Nazi, Sid. I said you were acting just like a forum nazi. Two different things. And Ed and I agree more than we don't, Sid. All that you find unacceptable, he did. That should tell you something right there, eh? Let's call a truce, and try to work together, or not at all, but at least end this constant banter, ok? --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 06:50, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

:Don't worry, I couldn't keep up this pace, even if I wanted to. My lectures started again this week, so time is not on my side anymore. :-/ Productive editing, we shall do. Bantering, we shall not. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 06:54, 3 April 2007 (EDT)

==Link==
Links 3, 4, 6, and 7 have extra brackets around them.

== The effects of Atheism ==

This section doesn't make any arguments based in fact and I propose it be removed. In none of the examples cited (Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao) were people killed because of religious reasons. In all three cases the justification was political.
--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:38, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
: Not based on facts? Aren't the deaths from those despots facts?
: I think the problem is that perhaps the article didn't make the connection very well, having divided atheism from evolution. The part that you removed from the evolution section points out that evolution provides no basis for morals, which supports (and perhaps this wasn't clear) that atheism has no basis for morals. And what the atheism section (still) says is that "atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people". So atheism may not have ''caused'' those despots to murder millions, but atheism ''allows'' that (if there is, for example, political "justification"), whereas Christianity does not. That, in a sense, is the ''theory'', and the "effects" section shows that theory working out in practice. It is therefore appropriate to have it, and I will also be reinstating the text you removed from the evolution section.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

:: You're correct that atheism doesn't provide a moral code, but I still fail to see why that would give justification or place blame. I don't see why it's even worth mentioning atheism in this article at all.

:: It's a function of society to provide morality. That society can be religion, government, clubs (for example, Rotary International provides strong philanthropical morals) or even a local community. These morals are passed on to children via family, friends and various leaders. Atheism does not provide morals because it's not a society. Unlike a religion, there is no organization. There are no laws or a belief structure. But just because one doesn't have religion doesn't mean they don't have morals. There are millions of atheists in the world who we would consider to be moral people. The other layers of society, family and friends provides just as it does to people with religion. Their lack of theism hasn't prevented them from living moral lives because they live in societies which provided them with morals similar to yours and similar to mine.

:: In regard to morality, being an atheist is like being someone plays baseball. It's not a problem that baseball doesn't provide morals because baseball players get their morality from other sources. In all of the examples given, the men who committed the heinous acts lived in a society in which those actions were considered immoral. It wasn't a lack of belief that they would be punished after death that allowed them to perform the horrors they inflicted, it was a '''personal''' failure of morality. The same could be said of theistic men and women who either ignored their morals or even used them as a justification (such as Adolph Hitler, Osama bin Laden, or Kind Ferdinand II, Queen Isabella and Pope Sixtus IV). It's no more logical to blame atheism for what Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong did than it is to blame the fact that they weren't Boy Scouts.

:: It's worth noting that I don't think any intentional attacks on atheists are meant by this article. I simply see no reason at all to even mention atheism. Evolution has a place since there are fairly sound theories for its role in morality. Hopefully I've made my point better than I did the first time! :)

:: My edit to the Evolution section is unrelated to this. I made that modification because the information presented was neither well-sourced, encyclopedic or relevant to the topic. Scientific experiments provide a strong theory for the origin of morals via evolution, that much is factual. Arguing that the theory doesn't matter because Evolution is debatable is ''completely'' beside the point.

::--[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 21:06, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Morality

2008-06-03T23:38:55Z

Rspeed: Forgot my signature.

Talk:Morality

2008-06-03T23:38:17Z

Rspeed: The effects of Atheism

Morality

2008-06-03T23:20:38Z

Rspeed: Reverting edit by User:WilliamH. The profession of the subject is the important aspect.

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong.
An example would be that some people think that the "[[marriage]]" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of [[utilitarianism]].
However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards.
Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

== Morality versus law ==

Morality is distinct from the [[law]], which is, or should be, based on morality.
[[Slavery]], for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
But morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

Only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[biology|biologists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

== Morality based on Atheism ==

The basis of morality for [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008.</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although Atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Richard Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

=== The effects of Atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

Morality

2008-06-03T23:17:44Z

Rspeed: The section is about the scientific basis of morality based on evolution. This isn't the place to make arguments on that subject.

'''Morality''' is a concern with what is right and what is wrong.
An example would be that some people think that the "[[marriage]]" of a man to another man is moral based on the principles of [[utilitarianism]].
However, others think that such a thing is wrong, or immoral, usually on the basis of God's standards.
Some people believe that marriage of any sort is amoral (without morality). Therefore, these people would have differing moral codes.

== Morality versus law ==

Morality is distinct from the [[law]], which is, or should be, based on morality.
[[Slavery]], for example, was once legal in many places, but is now illegal, because people had the law changed because they considered slavery immoral.

Many people argue that the law should not be used to enforce morality.
But morality is actually the basis for much of the law.
Laws against theft, for example, are based on the idea that taking someone else's property is morally wrong.

==Morality based on theistic religion==

Thomas Brewton points out that things like the [[Ten Commandments]] or the [[Code of Hammurabi]] were sets of rules to establish moral behavior, enforced in the context of religion.<ref>The Conservative Voice: [http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/9332.html "Morality and Political Order"] by Thomas Brewton</ref>

Only by basing morals on [[God|God's]] standards can morality have any sort of absolute basis.
Janine M. Ramsey:
{{QuoteBox|Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil.<ref>Ramsey, 2004</ref>}}

==Morality based on evolution==
Some [[evolutionist|evolutionists]] argue that morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by [[Theory of evolution|evolution]]. They see social behaviors displayed by some [[primate]]s as the precursors of human morality. They cite examples such as [[rhesus monkey]]s which, when given a chance to get food by pulling a chain that delivers a shock to another monkey, have been known to [[starvation|starve]] themselves for a considerable time.<ref>"Primates and Philosophers" by Frans de Waal</ref>

Dr. [[Frans de Waal]] argues that primates are social animals, and must constrain their behavior in order to live in a group. He maintains that these constraints have shaped behaviors from which human morality has emerged. He does not assert that chimpanzees are moral, but argues that emotional bases that can be observed among primates are the foundation for the evolution of human morality.

He points to the display of both [[empathy]] and self-awareness among apes, and asserts that human morality begins with a similar concern for others and the understanding of social rules about the treatment of others. <ref>New York Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5124&en=84f902c89c5a9173&ex=1332043200&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink "Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior"]</ref>

== Morality based on Atheism ==

The basis of morality for [[atheism|atheists]] is their own opinion.
[[Bertrand Russell]], for example, said that his opinions on right and wrong were based on his feelings.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008.</ref>

In practice, they may adopt the morality of the society they grew up with, which in the case of the Western society is generally one with a Christian heritage.
[[Richard Dawkins]] said, "I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics".<ref>''The Science Show'', ABC Radio, 22nd January, 2000, quoted by Walker, Tas., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5177 National emergency in Australia], 29th June, 2007. (Creation Ministries International)</ref>

Although Atheism provides no basis for absolute morality, this does not mean that atheists cannot be moral people.
Rather, it does mean that atheism itself provides no moral boundaries to constrain the actions of people.
As mass murderer [[Richard Dahmer]] said in an interview:
{{QuoteBox|If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing...<ref>Dahmer, Jeffrey, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, 29th November, 1994 [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4145/105/]</ref>}}

=== The effects of Atheism ===

Atheists frequently criticise "[[religion]]", by which they usually mean [[Christianity]], for atrocities committed by adherents of those religions, citing such things as the [[Inquisition]] and the [[Crusades]].
But when atrocities committed by atheists such as [[Joseph Stalin|Stalin]] and [[Mao Zedong|Mao]] are mentioned in return, they wish to disassociate the belief from its adherents.
{{QuoteBox|...atheism has been tried as a basis for life in many countries in the 20th century. The results have been some of the biggest bloodbaths of all time under communist despots above the law, e.g., Stalin, Mao and [[Pol Pot]]. For example, the Inquisition killed 2000 people in three centuries; Stalin killed that many before breakfast.<ref>Sarfati, 2004 & 2008. See also Morris.</ref>}}

== Bibliography ==
* Morris, Grantley, [http://net-burst.net/hot/war.htm A History Professor’s Criticism of My Webpage].
* Ramsey, Janine M., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3126 What basis, morality?], 11th May 2004 (Creation Ministries International).
* Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2207 Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation], 24th December 2004 and 2nd December 2008. (Creation Ministries International)

== References ==
{{reflist|2}}

Young Earth Creationism

2008-06-03T20:33:55Z

Rspeed: Correcting death in evolutionary biology. Suffering is subjective and not directly tied to death.

[[Image:Michelangelo creation-of-sun-and-moon.jpg|right|thumb|300px|[[Michelangelo|Michelangelo's]] painting of the creation of the [[Sun]] and [[Moon]].]]
'''Young Earth Creationism''', sometimes abbreviated ''YEC'',<ref>"YEC", can refer to Young Earth Creationist or Young Earth Creationism. "YECs" refers to Young Earth Creationists. The abbreviation was likely originally used by opponents, and possibly disparagingly, but is accepted by Young Earth Creationists, who sometimes use it of themselves.</ref> is a form of [[creationism]] which holds that the [[Earth|earth]] and the [[Universe|universe]] are approximately 6,000 years old.<ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3837 Chapter 8, How old is the earth?].</ref><ref>Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7, Astronomy] of Refuting Evolution.</ref>

Young earth creationists hold that both creation and evolution are at root tied to [[worldview]]s, and because they are both claims about historical (or prehistorical) events, they depend on untestable assumptions. At the same time, young earth [[Creation Science|creation scientists]] argue that the young universe view is the explanation that best fits the evidence.

Most other scientists regard young earth creationism as being unscientific. Many do so because they believe that things such as [[radiometric dating]] and [[biology|biological]] observations have disproved it, or for ideological reasons.

== Beliefs ==

=== Biblical ===
Young Earth creationism generally takes the following positions regarding the biblical book of [[Genesis]]:
* Creation took place over a period of six ordinary (solar/24-hour) days, with God then "resting" on the seventh day.
* This creation, described in Genesis as "good" and "very good", was without flaw or defect.
* All people are descended from the first couple, [[Adam]] and [[Eve]].
* Adam and Eve [[sin]]ned, leading to their expulsion from the [[Garden of Eden]].
* A global [[Great Flood|Noachian flood]] occurred, destroying all land-based, air-breathing life, except that on the [[Ark]].
* The dispersal of humanity was caused by God after the [[Tower of Babel]]. <ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/confusionoflanguages.html Is there any reference to the confusion of languages at Babel in early Mesopotamian literature?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>[http://www.christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a021.html Is there archaeological evidence of the Tower of Babel?] (ChristianAnswers.Net).</ref><ref>Jackson, Wayne, [http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/babel.htm The Tower of Babel—Legend or History?] [[December 17]] [[1999]] (Christian Courier).</ref>

=== Scientific ===
Young earth creationism holds that the scientific evidence is unreasonably ''interpreted'' by evolutionists and [[atheism|atheists]]/[[naturalism|naturalists]] as supporting their point of view, but that the same evidence can be reasonably interpreted by creationists to support the creationary point of view

They further argue that the scientific evidence is more consistent with the creationary point of view than the evolutionary point of view.

Some specific arguments are as follows:

* The [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first law of thermodynamics]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second law of thermodynamics]] argue against an eternal universe, and these laws point to the universe being created by [[God]].<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>
* The [[theory of evolution]] is at odds with scientific evidence. They often cite secular scientific sources which agree with them on various points (for further details please see: [[theory of evolution]] and [[creationism]]).<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/21</ref>
* Both evolutionary scientists and young earth creation scientists believe that [[speciation]] occurs, however, young earth creation scientists state that speciation generally occurs at a much faster rate than evolutionary scientists believe is the case.<ref>[[Creation Ministries International]], [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3036/ Speciation: Questions and Answers]</ref>
*Many young earth creationists such as the young earth creationist at [[Creation Ministries International]] and [[CreationWiki]] assert that the [http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible contains knowledge that shows an understanding of scientific knowledge beyond that believed to exist at the time the Bible was composed].<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/index.php/Bible_scientific_foreknowledge Bible Scientific Foreknowledge]</ref><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/medicine.asp</ref>

== Biblical exegesis ==

Young earth creationism holds that the book of Genesis is historical in nature and that [[Bible exegesis]] warrants a six-day creation with each day being 24 hours.<ref>[http://creationwiki.org/Days_of_creation Days of Creation] (CreationWiki).</ref><ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp Genesis Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>Niessen, Richard, [http://www.icr.org/article/164/ Theistic Evolution and the Day-Age Theory] ''Impact'' 81, March 1980.</ref>
Andrew Kulikovsky describes it as follows:
{{QuoteBox|The hermeneutic employed by most YECs is best described as the historical-grammatical method in which historical narrative (such as the book of Genesis) is interpreted as literal history, prophecy is interpreted as prophecy, poetry is interpreted as poetry, etc.
<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf Fostering fallacy] ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2) 2002, p.31-36.</ref>}}
{{QuoteBox|Historical-grammatical exegesis involves a systematic approach to analyzing in detail the historical situation, events and circumstances surrounding the text, and the semantics and syntactical relationships of the words which comprise the text.<ref>Kulikovsky, Andrew S., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4880/ The Bible and hermeneutics] ''Journal of Creation'' 19(3):14–20, December 2005, p.14-20.</ref>}}

== Age of the Universe and Earth - General Overview ==
Young earth creation scientists advance a number of reasons for the earth and universe being approximately 6,000 years old,<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/astronomy.asp Astronomy and Astrophysics Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis).</ref><ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3040/ ‘Young’ age of the Earth & Universe Q&A] (Creation Ministries International).</ref> and raise a number of objections to claims of an extremely old age for the earth and the [[universe]].<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp Radiometric Dating Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref name="AiG Astr QA" /><ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp</ref> In regards to the field of [[geology]] these scientists believe that the evolutionary geological timescale is in error.<ref>Woodmorappe, John, [http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp The Geologic Column: Does It Exist?] ''Journal of Creation'' 13(2):77–82, 1999 </ref><ref>Morris, Henry, [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=54 Geology and the Flood] ''Impact'' 6, August 1973</ref><ref>[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/geologic-time-scale.htm Geologic Time Scale - The Misconceptions] (All About Creation)</ref> Young earth creationist scientists also believe that there are multiple lines of evidence from the field of [[geology]] showing that the earth is young.<ref>[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/geology.asp Geology Questions and Answers] (Answers in Genesis)</ref><ref>[http://www.creationism.org/topbar/geology.htm Geology] (Creation.org)</ref><ref>[http://www.nwcreation.net/geologylinks.html Geology Links] (Northwest Creation Network)</ref><ref>Baumgardner, John, [http://globalflood.org/ Genesis Flood] [[28 July]] [[2003]].</ref> Young earth creationist scientists use a [[geologic system|geological system]] that more heavily relies on [[Catastrophism|catastrophism]] and reject the [[uniformitarianism (science)|uniformitarian]] assumptions behind the older dates derived by secular geologists, and thus reject these dates. <ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/ee/geologic-record</ref> In addition, young earth creationist scientists point out that catastrophism is increasing being accepted in the field of geology. <ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/12061.htm</ref><ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=print&ID=84</ref>

== Astronomy ==
[[Image:NGC .jpg|right|thumb|350px|The majestic spiral [[galaxy]] ''NGC 4414'', imaged by the [[Hubble Space Telescope]] in 1995.]]
The young earth creationism view is that the various astronomical bodies such as [[planet]]s, [[star]]s, and [[galaxy|galaxies]] were supernaturally created and that [[Materialism|materialistic]] explanations of the the origins of various astronomical bodies are insufficient and counter evidence.<ref>Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences.html Astronomical and Physical Sciences]; Sarfati, 1999, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3836 Chapter 7].</ref> In addition, creationists often cite the secular scientific literature in order to make the case that materialist explanations of various astronomical bodies are inadequate:
{{cquote|...most every prediction by theorists about planetary formation has been wrong.<ref>Scott Tremaine, as quoted by Richard A. Kerr, “Jupiters Like Our Own Await Planet Hunters,” Science, Vol. 295, 25 January 2002, p. 605, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43].</ref>}}
{{cquote|Attempts to find a plausible naturalistic explanation of the origin of the [[Solar System]] began about 350 years ago but have not yet been quantitatively successful, making this one of the oldest unsolved problems in modern science.<ref>Stephen G. Brush, A History of Modern Planetary Physics, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 91, quoted by [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes42.html Brown, 2001, notes for chapter 43]).</ref>}}
{{cquote|We don’t understand how a single star forms, yet we want to understand how 10 billion stars form.<ref>Carlos Frenk, as quoted by Robert Irion, “Surveys Scour the Cosmic Deep,” Science, Vol. 303, 19 March 2004, p. 1750, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 61]</ref>}}
{{cquote|We cannot even show convincingly how galaxies, stars, planets, and life arose in the present universe.<ref>Michael Rowan-Robinson, “Review of the Accidental Universe,” New Scientist, Vol. 97, 20 January 1983, p. 186, quoted by Brown, 1991, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes59.html Notes for chapter 62].</ref>}}

In 2001, Cristina Chiappini wrote regarding the [[Milky Way]] galaxy the following:
:". . . it is an elegant structure that shows both order and complexity. . . . The end product is especially remarkable in the light of what is believed to be the starting point: nebulous blobs of gas. How the universe made the Milky Way from such simple beginnings is not altogether clear. - Cristina Chiappini, "The Formation and Evolution of the Milky Way," [[American Scientist]] (vol. 89, Nov./Dec. 2001), p. 506. <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Dr. [[Walt Brown]] provides numerous citations to the secular science literature that corroborate the failings of current old universe paradigm explanations in regards to the planets, stars, and galaxies.<ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes43.html</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes60.html#wp1142334</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes61.html#wp1212721</ref>

The [[Institute for Creation Research]] has a notable essay by David Coppedge entitled "Mature at Birth: Universe Discredits Evolution" which cites recent findings which challenge an old universe paradigm.<ref>http://www.icr.org/article/2946/</ref> In addition, [[Henry Morris]] has an essay regarding the subject of the failings of the old universe paradigm entitled "What Astronomers Don't Know". <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/547/</ref>

Young earth creationist scientists also contest the [[Big Bang theory]] stating that it is scientifically unsound.
<ref name="BB Critique">Thompson, Bert, Harrub, Brad, and May, Branyon [http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=22 The Big Bang Theory—A Scientific Critique] ''Apologetics Press'', May 2003 - 23[5]:32-34,36-47.</ref>
<ref>Brown, Walt, 2001, [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences16.html Big Bang?]</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/309</ref> <ref>http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2047</ref> <ref>http://www.icr.org/article/343/</ref>
=== Starlight and the Age of the Universe ===
{{main|Starlight problem}}

[[Image:Barry_setterfield.jpg‎|right|thumb|175px|[[Barry Setterfield]]]]
Anti-creationists often claim that [[star|starlight]] from millions of light years away demonstrates that the Biblical timescale of 6,000 years is in error, as insufficient time has passed for the light from distant stars to reach [[Earth]].
Creationists respond in part by pointing out that the popular Big Bang theory has its own star light-travel time problem (the horizon problem), citing the work of Dr. [[Charles W. Misner]]. <ref>Lisle, Jason, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/167/ Light-travel time: a problem for the big bang], Creation 25(4):48–49, September 2003.</ref>

Secondly, creationists have proposed a number of explanations for the objection, and although none are yet certain, they claim that it shows that the critics' claims that it cannot be explained is unfounded.

==== Setterfield's decay of the speed of light ====

One early explanation was that of creationist [[Barry Setterfield]], who proposed that the speed of light was faster in the past.<ref>Wieland, Carl, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2551/ Speed of light slowing down after all?], Journal of Creation 16(3):7–10, December 2002.</ref>.
Critics objected to Setterfield's proposal, including on the grounds that the constancy of the speed of light is one of science's most fundamental laws.<ref name="JS">Sarfati, Jonathan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2430/ Have fundamental constants changed, and what would it prove?], 22nd August, 2001.</ref>
Yet in 1999, John Webb, a professor at the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia, and his colleagues reported astronomical observations suggesting that the value of the fine-structure constant (which is related to the speed of light) may have changed (although the size of the change was much smaller than proposed by Setterfield).
They subsequently published this in 2001 in ''[[Physical Review Letters]]''.<ref>http://www.nature.com/physics/highlights/6849-3.html#ref1</ref><ref name="JS" />
However, other problems with the proposal has led most creationists to abandon the idea.<ref>For example, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996#c_decay CMI] and [http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#c_decay AiG] say that this is an idea that should not be used.</ref>

==== Russell Humphreys' model ====

Creationary physicist Dr. [[Russell Humphreys]] proposed a model based on [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] law of relativity (as the Big Bang model is), but with a different starting assumption, a bounded universe.
Humphreys' model proposes that God created the universe much smaller than it is now, then expanded it, quoting the Bible saying that God "stretched out the heavens".
In such a scenario, time would pass at different rates on Earth and in outer parts of the universe, so that while 6,000 years went by on Earth, billions of years passed on the outer edge of the universe.
This model is also based on the [[Genesis]] account recording the days of creation according to time on Earth, rather than elsewhere.

==== John Hartnett's model ====

Young earth creationist scientist Dr. [[John Hartnett]] proposes a model similar to Humphreys, wherein the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe.
He attributes the field, it's removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention. <ref>Hartnett, John G., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_98-102.pdf A new cosmology: solution to the starlight travel time problem] ''Journal of Creation'' 17(2):98–102, August 2003.</ref>
Whilst Humphreys' model has time dilation caused only by gravity (per [[Albert Einstein|Einstein's]] [[General Theory of Relativity]]), Hartnett's model also takes into account time dilation caused by motion (God's expansion of the universe) (per Einstein's [[Special Theory of Relativity]]).

== Biology ==

According to young-Earth creationists, God separately created each ''kind'' of living thing, or ''[[baraminology|baramin]]'', to reproduce "after its kind".
Living things had built into them a capacity for variation and adaptation, but within the limits of their ''kind''.
Genetically, in the case of sexually-reproducing species, much this is due to the [[information]] carried on each living thing's [[DNA]] being a subset of the parent's DNA, with the subset of information being selected for by the process known as natural selection (described by a creationist before Darwin wrote about it).
Mutations also play a part in this variation, but only to the extent of ''destroying'' genetic information, not ''creating'' it.

Many of the ensuing variations have been classified by science as different ''species'', but this speciation is not evolution, as it does not involve the generation of new genetic information and therefore could not have produced the evolutionary "family tree".

YECs believe that most of the world's living things were wiped out by the [[Great Flood]], but that pairs of each ''kind'' that could not survive in a flood (i.e. air-breathing, land-dwelling creatures) survived the flood on [[Noah's Ark]], and from the Flood survivors all modern species have descended.

== Geology ==

YECs believe that most rocks were laid down in two main episodes.
The first was in creation week, particularly when God caused the waters of the Earth to gather together into the sea and dry land to appear.
The second was during Noah's Flood.
The effects of a global watery catastrophe would have been enormous, with massive amounts of erosion and sedimentation.
Further, many young-Earth creationists believe that there was a single supercontinent prior to the Flood, which broke up during the Flood.
This would have further contributed to a massive reshaping of the Earth's surface.

== Anthropology ==
{{main|Biblical anthropology}}

YECs believe that all intact evidence of civilisation is evidence of post-flood civilisation, as the [[Global flood|Flood]] destroyed the pre-flood world.
God confounded man's single language at the [[Tower of Babel]], forcing different family groups to separate and spread around the world.
Most of the people groups listed in the 'Table of Nations' in {{Bible ref|Genesis|10}}, which contains a family tree of Noah's descendants, are identifiable from non-biblical records.
People enduring a forced migration will find any shelter they can, and this would explain much of the evidence of "cavemen".

== Contrasted with evolution ==

The young earth creationism view contrasts with evolution and other aspects of the old universe view in the following ways:
* According to the [[chronogenealogies]] in the Bible, the age of the [[universe]] and [[Earth]] is approximately 6,000 years. The old universe view is that the universe started about 14,000 million years ago, and Earth was formed around 4,500 million years ago.
* The creation account has everything being created over a period of six ordinary days, whereas the old universe view has things appearing over billions of years.
* The order of creation is different. The creation account has the Earth before the sun, plants before the sun, and birds before land animals, among other differences. The old universe view is the opposite order for each of these.
* The creation account records that death didn't exist prior to the [[Fall of man|Fall]], whereas the evolutionary view is that death is part of the biological process and existed for billions of years of death prior to the appearance of [[homo sapiens|man]].
* The creation account records various living things being separately created, whereas the evolutionary view has all living things being descended from the first living cell.

== Responses to criticisms ==

Young Earth creationist responses to criticisms from atheistic evolutionists, theistic evolutionists, progressive creationists, and others include the following:
* ''The young Earth view is just one interpretation of the Bible.''
: The young Earth view is the clear intention of the authors of the Bible. See [[Creation week]] for more. Also, the young Earth view was the view of most of the church throughout most of its history. That has only changed in order to accommodate non-biblical views of history.
* ''Creationists read the Bible literally, whereas parts, such as the creation account, are really metaphor.''
: Creationists reject that they read all the Bible literally, and accept that there is metaphor an other non-literal passages in the Bible. Instead, they read the Bible the way it was meant to be understood, which in the case of the creation account, is as literal history. See [[#Biblical exegesis|Biblical exegesis]] above and [[Creation week]] for more.
* ''Evolution has scientific evidence, and creationism does not.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have the same evidence. The difference is in how that evidence is interpreted.
* ''Creation relies on faith, not evidence.''
: Both creation and evolution are faith positions based on different worldviews. Evolutionists exclude God from consideration ''a priori'', not because of the evidence.
* ''If creation had scientific merit, why don't they publish their evidence in peer-reviewed scientific papers?''
: The scientific establishment won't allow creationists to publish. See [[Suppression of alternatives to evolution]].
* ''Creationists start with a preconception and try and fit the evidence to that. Evolutionists start with the evidence.''
: Both creationists and evolutionists have their worldview as a starting point. Evolutionists try and fit the evidence into their idea just as much as they accuse the creationists of doing.
* ''Because they are based on the Bible, creationists are not willing to change their views. Evolutionists will change their views as new evidence is found.''
: Creationists start with the Bible as the foundation of their views, but beyond that are willing to change their views as new evidence is found. Evolutionists are willing to change the details of how evolution works, but are not prepared to change their basic view that evolution did occur.
* ''Creationists are anti-science.''
: Many creationists are scientists and fully support science. They never reject science itself, and the criticism is bogus.

== Specific Arguments For a Young Earth and Universe ==
[[Image:Roth-01.gif|right|thumb|350px|The arrows point to [[Paraconformity|paraconformities]] at the [[Grand Canyon]].]]
"Many scientific arguments can be used to show that the evidence is more consistent with a recent creation than an [http://creationwiki.org/Old_Earth old Earth]. Some arguments put forward in support of a recent creation simply put an upper limit on the age of the [http://creationwiki.org/Earth Earth], [http://creationwiki.org/Solar_system solar system], or [http://creationwiki.org/Universe universe], which are inconsistent with an ancient creation"<ref name="cwye">[http://creationwiki.org/index.php?title=Young_earth&oldid=80836 Young earth - CreationWiki] ''(quotes taken from the March 28, 2007, version of the article)''</ref> (according to uniformitarian assumptions). The following is a list of various scientific reasons:

# "The old-earth idea was developed historically, not from letting the physical facts speak for themselves but by imposing anti-biblical philosophical assumptions onto the geological observations. See the following [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/naturalismChurch.asp article]..."<ref name="aigcompelling">[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]</ref>
#[[William R. Corliss]] is a respected cataloger of scientific [[anomaly|anomalies]] and the science magazine ''[[New Scientist]]'' had an article which focused on Mr. Corliss's career as a cataloger of scientific anomalies.<ref>Adrian Hope, ''Finding a Home for Stray Fact'', New Scientist, July 14, 1977, p. 83</ref> Mr. Corliss has cataloged scores of [[Anomaly|anomalies]] which challenge the old earth geology [[paradigm]].<ref>http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm</ref><ref>http://www.apologeticspress.net/articles/184</ref>
# "The radiometric dating methods are based on those same naturalistic, uniformitarian, anti-biblical assumptions and there is plenty of published evidence that they do not give valid dates. Besides the RATE research mentioned earlier, consider the well-researched arguments in ''[http://www.answersingenesis.org/p/10-3-090 The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods]''."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited)."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
# "...distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents..."<ref name="aigcompelling" />
#"[[Paraconformity|Paraconformities]] challenge the old earth uniformitarian geology [[paradigm]]."<ref>http://www.grisda.org/georpts/36.pdf</ref><ref>http://www.grisda.org/2003-FSC-open/Roth-RecentCreation.htm</ref><ref>http://www.seeking-god.co.uk/id188.htm</ref><ref>http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/flood.html</ref>
# '''Geomagnetic field decay'''
#:"Observations made of the strength of Earth's magnetic field over the last 150 years show that it is decaying, which puts an upper limit on the age of the Earth. If the decay is projected back 20,000 years, the heat produced by the electric current that generates the Earth's magnetic field would have liquefied the Earth. Naturally this would make life impossible. The best model for the Earth's magnetic field and observed data places the age of Earth at 6,000 – 8,700 years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for ''billions of years'' are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than '''20,000 years''' old.15"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"Presence of magnetic fields around solar system bodies (Mercury, Jupiter's moon Ganymede, Neptune, Uranus) without an obvious internal dynamo. No natural process is known which could sustain a magnetic field around these bodies - their magnetic fields should have decayed out of existence if they ever had any."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Pleochroic halos'''
#:"Radioactive inclusions in rock often cause concentric spheres of discoloration due to the damage caused by alpha particles as they are emitted by the radioactive substance. Pleochroic halos are the scars of radioactive decay, particularly alpha decay. These scars appear as spheres (rings when views in cross-section) in the rock surrounding a decaying radioactive atom. The size of the halo is a signature of the energy of the emission and therefore the element and isotope involved. Creationists use these halos in several ways to suggest problems with the standard uniformitarian model."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Helium diffusion'''
#:"One type of nuclear decay is the emission of Helium nuclei known as an alpha emission. Elements like uranium and thorium produce helium in zircons as a by-product of their radioactivity. This helium seeps out of (sic) zircons quickly over a wide range of temperatures. If the zircons really are about 1.5 billion years old (the age which conventional dating gives assuming a constant decay rate), almost all of the helium should have dissipated from the zircons long ago. But there is a significant amount of helium still inside the zircons, showing their ages to be 6000 +/- 2000 years. Accelerated decay must have produced a billion years worth of helium in that short amount of time."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the ''Journal of Geophysical Research'' showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain ''1.5 billion years'' worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only '''6,000''' (± 2000) '''years'''.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Helioseismology'''
#:"The core of the sun produces deuterium from hydrogen fusion at 5 million degrees K. The heat is transferred from the core by convection currents so it could reach surface in days, not a million years. It also leads to an age for the sun based on the deuterium/hydrogen ratio of the local interstellar medium of 6,000-12,857 years."<ref name="cwye" />
# '''Accelerated Nuclear Decay'''
#:"The main assumption of radiometric dating is that the decay rates are constant with time. If the decay rate has varied significantly over time then any date based on radioactive decay is worthless. However, if radioactive decay has been happening for Billions of years then there is insufficient argon diffusion, insufficient lead diffusion, insufficient helium in the air, and too much Helium in Rocks. Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE group indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay has taken place, but in one or more short periods 4000 - 8000 years ago. This would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth to only a few thousand years."<ref name="cwye" />
#:"Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited '''within months''' of one another, not ''hundreds of millions of years'' apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply '''accelerated nuclear decay''' and very rapid formation of associated minerals."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Galaxies wind themselves up too fast.'''
#:"The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than '''a few hundred million years old''', it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least ''10 billion years'' old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies."<ref name="icrye">[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]</ref>
# '''Comets.'''
#:"According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about ''five billion'' years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than '''10,000 years'''.4"<ref name="icrye" />
#:"The origin of the comets in our solar system is a great mystery from an old universe perspective as they degrade rapidly. While evolutionary astronomers once thought the Oort cloud could account for all comets, the Kuiper belt has been revived to explain their existence."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Not enough mud on the sea floor.'''
#:"Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than '''12 million years'''. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged ''three billion years''. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time '''about 5,000 years ago'''."<ref name="icrye" /> (some emphasis added, but not all)
#:"Present erosion rate could produce all the existing ocean sediment in only 15 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 90.</ref>
# '''Not enough sodium in the sea.'''
#:"Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, ''three billion years''. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only '''62 million years'''.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Many strata are too tightly bent.'''
#:"In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for ''hundreds of millions of years'' before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred '''less than thousands of years''' after deposition."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Biological material decays too fast.'''
#:"Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized ''200,000 years'' down to possibly as low as '''6,000 years'''.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than '''10,000 years''', yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older... Bacteria allegedly ''250 million years'' old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage. Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.'''
#:"With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be ''millions or billions of years'' old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it... These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only '''thousands''', not billions, of years old."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Not enough Stone Age skeletons.'''
#:"Evolutionary anthropologists now say that ''Homo sapiens'' existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only '''a few hundred years''' in many areas."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''Agriculture is too recent.'''
#:"The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for ''185,000 years'' during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture '''for a very short time''' after the Flood, if at all."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''History is too short.'''
#:"According to evolutionists, Stone Age ''Homo sapiens'' existed for ''190,000 years'' before beginning to make written records about '''4,000 to 5,000 years''' ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely."<ref name="icrye" />
# '''"Existence of unstable rings around planets like Saturn. Rings are not stable and will not last."'''<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Slusher, H. S. 1980. ''Age of the Cosmos''. Institute for Creation Research. pp. 65-72.</ref>
# '''Recession of the moon from the earth'''
#:"The moon is moving away from the earth gradually due to tidal activity. This movement is too fast for the earth-moon system to be 4.6 billion years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Huse, S. M. 1993. ''The Collapse of Evolution''. Baker Books. pp. 41-42.</ref>
# '''Shrinking sun'''
#:"Sun may be shrinking a few feet each year. Can't extrapolate this trend back to the past very far without effecting earth's environment."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 107-112.</ref>
# '''Absence/shortage of solar neutrinos'''
#:"Nuclear fusion in the sun's core should give off neutrinos. Experiments have not detected an adequate number of neutrinos - this is a well known problem. Some creationists have argued that this implies solar heat is due to gravity and not fusion - this would imply a young sun."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hinderliter, H. 1989. ''The Shrinking Sun. Design and Origins in Astronomy''. Creation Research Society. pp. 113-125.</ref>
# '''Polonium Halos'''
#:"Robert Gentry's work showed that the Earth's granite was never in a molten condition, because polonium halos survive only in solid rock and the half-life of polonium is much too short to survive a multimillion-year cooling time. His results seem to indicate that the Earth was created instantaneously, in a cool condition. If true, it is clear evidence for creation and a young earth."<ref name="nwcn" />
# '''Human population growth'''
#:"If humans had been around more than a few thousand years, they would have populated the earth more quickly."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. ''The Young Earth''. Master Books. pp. 70-71.</ref>
# '''Rapid Oil Formation'''
#:"It has been claimed that oil was formed over 100 millions of years from organic remains, but recent experiments have shown that oil can be produced under the right conditions in a matter of minutes."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"Experiments by the U.S. Bureau of mines showed that petroleum (oil) can be produced from organic material in only 20 minutes."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Hayden R. Appell, Y.C. Fu, Sam Friedman, et al, “Converting Organic Wastes to Oil,” RL-7560 (Washington, D.C., United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, 1971.)</ref>
#:"British scientists claimed to have invented a way to turn household garbage into oil suitable for home heating or power plant use. 'We are doing in 10 minutes what it has taken nature 150 million years to do', said Noel McAuliffe of Manchester University..."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Sentinel Star, 2/26/1982</ref>
#:"Bottom line - Economic accumulations of oil and gas can be generated in thousands of years in sedimentary basins that have experienced hot fluid flow for similar durations."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>The Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia No. 24, 1996, p.</ref>
# '''Rapid Wood Petrification'''
#:"Petrified wood was believed to required thousands or even millions of years, but a US patent now exists that is able to produce petrified wood rapidly."<ref name="nwcn" />
#:"A mineralized sodium silicate solution for the application to wood has a composition causing it to penetrate the wood and jell within the wood so as to give the wood the non-burning characteristics of petrified wood."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>US Patent & Trademark Office, [http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=4,612,050.PN.&OS=PN/4,612,050&RS=PN/4,612,050 Patent No. 4,612,050]</ref>
# '''Tree rings'''
#:"Tree rings, including rings on petrified forest trees, can't be traced back more than some thousands of years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, H. M. 1961. The Genesis Flood. pp. 392-393.</ref>
# '''Only recently known civilizations'''
#:"Earliest known civilizations are only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 70.</ref>
# '''Niagara falls'''
#:"Erosion of the system indicates it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 48-49.</ref>
# '''Mississippi river delta'''
#:"Erosion rate and amount of sediment accumulated indicate that it is only a few thousand years old."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Mehlert, A. W. "Another Look at the Age and History of the Mississippi River." pp. 121-123. Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1988.</ref>
# '''Lack of equilibrium of Carbon-14/Carbon-12 ratio'''
#:"This ratio should reach equilibrium in the atmosphere in only some thousands of years, but it hasn't reached that point yet."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 73-74.</ref>
# '''Erosion rate of the continents'''
#:"Continental mass divided by erosion rate would wash all the continents into the ocean in about 14 million years."<ref name="nwcn" /><ref>Morris, J. D. 1994. The Young Earth. Master Books. pp. 88-90.</ref>

== Adherents of Young Earth Creationism ==

Young Earth Creationism is a subset of [[Creationism]] most commonly found among members of the [[Abrahamic religion]]s, especially [[Judaism]], [[Christianity]], and [[Islam]] (for details please see: [[Creationism]]). In regards to early Judaism and early Christianity,
early [[Judaism]] supported young earth creationism and a majority of the early [[church fathers]] held the young earth creationist view.<ref>James-Griffiths, James,[http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/tradition.asp Creation days and Orthodox Jewish tradition] ''Creation'' 26(2):53–55, March 2004.</ref><ref>Bradshaw, Robert I., [http://www.robibrad.demon.co.uk/Chapter3.htm Creationism & the Early Church, chapter 3, The Days of Genesis 1]</ref><ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/tjv16v2_forster.pdf</ref>

== Organizations and publications ==

=== Organizations ===

Some of the more notable young earth creationist organizations include: [[Answers in Genesis]] (America and the United Kingdom), [[Creation Ministries International]] (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Singapore, South Africa, U.S.A., and United Kingdom), [[Institute for Creation Research]] (U.S.A.), [[Creation Research Society]] (U.S.A.), and [[NorthWest Creation Network]] (Washington state, U.S.A.) which founded [[CreationWiki]].

=== Magazines and newsletters ===

The Institute for Creation Research publishes a free monthly magazine, ''Acts & Facts'', which includes news of the organization and articles.

Creation Ministries International publishes a 56-page colour magazine, ''Creation'', with no paid advertising, which is distributed to 140 countries.<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3871/97</ref>

Answers in Genesis, which previously distributed ''Creation'', began their own magazine, ''Answers'', in 2006. It contains advertising and its target audience is primarily American.<ref>http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am</ref>

=== Peer-reviewed journals ===

The [[Creation Research Society Quarterly]] is published quarterly by the Creation Research Society<ref>http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html</ref>, and the Journal of Creation is published three times a year by Creation Ministries International<ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98</ref>

==Further Reading==

*[[Duane Gish]], ''Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!'', El Cajon: [[Institute for Creation Research]], 1996 <ref>http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_product_book_info&products_id=2176</ref>
*[[Jonathan Sarfati]], ''Refuting Evolution'', Master Books, 1999 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4014/ (Free on-line version)]
*Jonathan Sarfati, ''Refuting Evolution 2'', Master Books, 2002, ISBN 0890513872 [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4013/ (Free on-line version)]
*[[R.L. Wysong]], ''The Creation-Evolution Controversy''.<ref>http://www.grisda.org/origins/05105.htm</ref><ref>http://www.wysong.net/page/WOTTPWS/PROD/EDUAIDS/ED022-S</ref>
*[[Phillip E. Johnson|Phillip Johnson]], ''Darwin on Trial''. InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois. 1991 <ref>http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/darwin.html</ref>
*[[R. C. Sproul]], ''Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology'', Baker Book House: 1994 <ref>http://www.ldolphin.org/chance.html</ref><ref>http://store.apologeticsgroup.com/product_info.php?products_id=191</ref>
* [[Walt Brown]], ''In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood'', 7th Edition, 2001 [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/IntheBeginningTOC.html (free online version)]

== External Links ==
Young earth creationism websites:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org Answers in Genesis]
*[http://www.creationontheweb.com/ Creation Ministries International]
*[http://www.icr.org Institute for Creation Research]
*[http://trueorigins.org TrueOrigins.org]
*[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html Center for Scientific Creation]
*[http://www.allaboutcreation.org/ AllAboutCreation.org]

Articles focusing on arguments for a young earth:

*[http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2006/0303.asp What are the most compelling evidences of a young earth - AiG]
*[http://www.nwcreation.net/young.html Evidence Supporting a Recent Creation - Northwest Creation Network]
*[http://www.icr.org/article/1842/ Evidence for a Young World - Institute for Creation Research]

== See also ==
*[[Creation Science]]
*[[Christianity and Science]]
*[[History of Young Earth Creationism]]
*[[List of Young Earth Creationists]]
*[[Earth Age Opinions of Prominent Christians - Pre-1800]]
=== Alternative views===
*[[Old Earth Creationism]]
*[[Theistic evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution]]
*[[Gap theory]]
*[[Day age creationism]]
*[[Progressive Creationism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category: Young Earth Creationism]]
[[Category: Creationism]]
[[Category: Religion]]