Difference between revisions of "Talk:Richard Lenski"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Archived as per my topic yesterday)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==Formatting==
+
[http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski/archive1 Archive 1]
−
I borrowed a template from another wiki which might make the data section a bit easier to comprehend. I will include it here pending approval of senior sysops. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 12:03, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Looks great.  Please install in the entry as desired.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:55, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:Okay, I've moved it. I've also cut it from this page for economy's sake. [[User talk:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] 13:07, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::Actually it makes the article look amaturish. For starters you have written in capitals and you have not explained why the missing data is significant which is the point of the side-by-side template to do a full rebuttle. [[User:DanielB|DanielB]] 19:44, 28 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::I agree. A discussion specifying what one expects from the 'missing' data and what usefulness such information would likely shed is necessary.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::I agree that it is necessary to establish exactly what is being asked for in the terse comments on the right hand side, sadly such a discussion could get the majority of the contributors banned for the 90/10 rule. I myself have not contributed much to this question recently as a result of this rule.  Could the powers that be explicitly suspend this rule on this issue so that the question may be freely discussed? --[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Listing fields ==
 
−
 
 
−
I'm not a parodist, though I did make a mistake on what a CV is.
 
−
 
 
−
== Suggestion: Disagreements with E Coli paper should go to a new section? ==
 
−
 
 
−
Shouldn't this be a brief bio of Lenski, and a link to the controversy over the paper, including the discussions and the emails, be part of that page instead of here?  It looks pretty bad putting it on the main page. 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
On the other hand, after doing some research, I don't think it's standard for faculty to put degree fields in a list of their degrees.
 
−
 
 
−
I googled "MSU biology", then went over the "Faculty List A-G". Here is what I found:
 
−
 
 
−
No list of degrees: 2
 
−
List with fields: 3
 
−
List without fields: 12
 
−
 
 
−
Finally, Oberlin is a liberal college, and they do focus mostly on liberal arts. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 14:26, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Template / formatting==
 
−
Out of interest, I help to administer a private wiki where I work, and think this template is quite nice. Might I ask where you found it, and what (if any) associated copyright restrictions there are on it? [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 15:49, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Really, "Henry8th"???  That's an amazing coincidence you describe:  you just happen to administer a "private wiki" at "work".  Before wasting people's time with your silliness, how about convincing us a bit more of the earnestness of comment, as in providing the wiki version number, the type of your employer and the location of your "work".  I'm sure the wiki developers who freely donate their efforts for use by all would be thrilled to learn of your profitable use.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:33, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:: We run Mediawiki 1.6.7 (yes, I know we're incredibly out of date, but we can't upgrade to a newer one as that would require PHP5, whereas we need that server running PHP4 to support other older software). I make it a habit not to disclose too much personal information on the internet, I'm afraid, but I'm a PhD student at a UK university and I help to administer a wiki run by my research group. By "private" I mean "accessible only to people within my research group"; we find that a wiki is an efficient way for us to edit documents collaboratively. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 16:47, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:: The copyright policy here says "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution".[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 11:53, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::However, since it was admitted above that the template is not CP's creation, it should first be established whether or not the template was used in a correct way (and if any attributions are needed) before others borrow it from here.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 12:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::I would ask the same question as ZTak above. Firstly, from a legal point of view I would want to be absolutely sure that any code I might upload to a server at my university was properly licensed (we have regular software audits, of course). Secondly, from an ethical point of view I would like to make sure that I can properly credit the original author of the template. As someone whose work involves writing computer programs, I certainly wouldn't appreciate it if someone took software I'd written and didn't attribute authorship correctly. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 14:36, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Fact checking could use some work on the omissions section ==
 
−
 
 
−
I strongly encourage editors to confirm that the topics on this entry's 'omissions' section page really refer to "data not provided" and do not reflect the lack of understanding of the research. At a bare minimum it is necessary to completely read the actual article. 'Skimming' it quickly is not fair to the goals of this wiki or Lenksi's lab. To at least be diligent, I recommend that the authors of the "omissions" section go to Lenksi's lab web page here (https://www.msu.edu/~lenski/), and peruse (read, not skim) the many papers related to the Long-Term Evolution project that are referenced in the current paper.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 11:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== I do not understand why my last edit was reversed ==
 
−
 
 
−
It seems to be common practice (and therefore not "odd") to not list what fields faculty majored in, and Oberlin is very liberal. [[User:Drochld|Drochld]] 12:34, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
I'm not certain what 'liberal' has to do with anything and "odd" has pejorative overtones. Rather than worry about 'oddness' why not investigate the degrees? In his graduate program Lenski studied insects and evolution and around 1983, worked with Bruce Levin, moving into the study of microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 12:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== This man is nothing but a farce ==
 
−
 
 
−
Why must we, the children of God, even acknowledge this liberal atheist (as if there is any other form of an atheist) on our glorious site? We are only feeding his overinflated ego by doing so. --[[User:Dexter111344|Dexter111344]] 12:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== A problem with: "Lenski is best known for his claim to have observed [[evolution]] of [[E. coli]] in a long-term laboratory study," ==
 
−
 
 
−
This recent study is but one of many papers by Lenksi ''et al'' regarding the evolution of bacterial populations in continuous culture. He is best known professionally for his ''in vitro'' experiments studying the population dynamics of genetic adaptations in bacteria and other studies in microbial evolution.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== don't clutter this entry with meaningless edits???? ==
 
−
 
 
−
The topic of the page is 'Richard Lenski'. I added additional bibliographic information about Lenski's professional awards and they are reversed as "meaningless edits"? And the 'odd' comment remains despite the fact that it's common to leave the subjects of the degrees out of web pages?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 13:43, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:Yes, various links to things such as [[data]] as well.  I thought data was central to the question at hand? Why not link to it (such as it is)? And a mention of his work with virtual organisms seems relevant - especially as it's mentioned again at the end.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 13:47, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
And now I'm a "Lenski supporter"? Anyone who actually read the paper and referenced the pertinent section of the article that clearly specified the glucose concentration used is a supporter? I think that addition of 'Lenksi supporter' is needlessly inflammatory. Furthermore, with regard to the question: WHERE IS THE DATA MEASURING OR CONFIRMING THE 25 MG/LITER GLUCOSE?  DID THAT CONCENTRATION EVER CHANGE?", I also wrote: "A weighed amount of glucose is mixed into the medium. The paper states that the concentration listed was used in the media throughout the continuous subculturing experiment." and that got removed. Resubmitted.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:14, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== shouldn't we move the E Coli paper discussion to a separate page? ==
 
−
 
 
−
It looks really cheezy to have this right on Lenski's biography, very unprofessional.
 
−
Just have a link and move all that discussion to something like Lenski_E_Coli_controversy,
 
−
don't erase a thing. [[User:Encinocathy|Cathy]] 18:11, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Wrong format for a debate ==
 
−
 
 
−
Ignoring all the other issues with this "article", the side-by-side table is really not made for a discussion. Maybe move that part to a debate page? It's quite silly to see an encyclopedia article doing a question-and-answer session with anonymous participants. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 18:18, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:Agreed. It's silly to post the page without doing the basic research. Better to corral the innuendos into debate pages.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 18:20, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::Also, we have yet to discovere the proper attribution for the side-by-side table, and as such it should be taken down or it might constitute a violation of copyright.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 18:25, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::Given that [[User:MargeryCampbell|Marge]] said she took the template from elsewhere, it would presumably be straightforward for her to tell us where she found it. Given that information I'd happily aid the project by checking out this other wiki's copyright policy before reporting back here. [[User:Henry8th|Henry8th]] 18:45, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:My issue is mostly about using a left/right table when the left side is basically just the intro section while the right side is suddenly filled with a weird pseudo-debate that goes back and forth. It would be better to do it like this:
 
−
==Visual Inspection==
 
−
===Lenski's Paper===
 
−
(quote)
 
−
===Discussion===
 
−
(back and forth; not as debate, but in more encyclopedic "A claims B, to which C points out D." style)
 
−
 
−
==Study Omissions==
 
−
(quote)
 
−
:And so on. It would make the article more readable. And it would have the added benefit of NOT USING SO MANY ALL-CAPS SENTENCES, BECAUSE DESPITE WHAT SOME SITES SAY, CAPSLOCK IS NOT THE CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. --[[User:KevinM|KevinM]] 19:12, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Furthermore, it would help review the status of claims rather than deleting them outright: Here's a most recent example: ''(removed least important point, which was obscuring more important ones)" Aschlafly.  Revision as of 19:34, 30 June 2008''
 
−
:I think it is an important point in two senses: 1) If the level of glucose was not growth limiting then Cit+ mutants might not have been discovered. It is an important feature of the experiment in this instance. 2) It's clear that the glucose concentration was indeed disclosed. How about creating a section titled "Data someone repeatedly claimed was undisclosed but was actually found by looking" and move the deleted test there?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:24, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Atheist Lobbying Organization ==
 
−
 
 
−
Should this remain in the article, given that it was inserted by an identified (and subsequently banned) parodist?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 20:52, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Anything wrong with the cites for it?  By the way, not every block is proper.  If in error, and I don't know if this one was, the block is reversed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:57, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
::There's nothing wrong with the cites, per se; they just don't quite cover the assertion.  The cited sources do a good job of establishing that the PNAS is largely atheistic (something which is pretty well-known anyway.)  They don't really cover any "lobbying" activities, though.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: OK, based on what you said, how about taking out the "lobbying" reference only?  As to the rest, it's informative: most people don't know how atheistic the PNAS is.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Will do. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:06, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Maybe need to add another section ==
 
−
 
 
−
It would probably be better to split the biographic information from the discussion of the letters exchanged with A. Schlafly. Perhaps a section titled: "Interactions with Andrew Schlafly" (or "site owner") would better hold that aspect.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:05, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== e-mail ==
 
−
 
 
−
For public interest, could we at CP view the e-mail regarding the template here?  If the claim in the e-mail has merit and further measures are pursued, it does not seem fair that the whole site should be punished for one man's refusal to remove the template.  Perhaps we could see the e-mail and discuss whether or not the claim is valid.  [[User:ZTak|ZTak]] 22:04, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Professor?==
 
−
''Is'' Lenski an actual professor? I know there are plenty of people who exaggerate their status ad pretend they're something they're not. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he's one of them, given what we know of him so far. Have we seen his credentials? [[User:TonyT|TonyT]] 08:26, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:TonyT I was about to give you a serious response, but then I realized that you have to be joking so thanks for making me laugh. [[User:Rellik|Rellik]] 15:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::He has been blocked as a parodist already, so don't bother responding. I'm thinking of removing this nonesense. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 15:37, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::So has 'Rellik'. Isn't it sad to see two trolls having a conversation? [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==Digital Organisms==
 
−
Lenski is famous for two things.  His work with his work E. coli  and his work with digital organisms.  The work with digital organisms is the work referred to in a somewhat unclear way at the bottom of the page.  I have twice tried to mention this other important aspect of his work and twice been reverted. This time the edit was called "Liberal Claptrap"!!  One would have thought that, in an article about Richard Lenski, mention of what he ''actually does'' would be important and not "Liberal Claptrap".--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 09:13, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:If I get no response, presumably I can assume it was reverted in error and I can put it back in?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 11:47, 1 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::What did he do with [[E. coli]], and what is a "[[digital organism]]"? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:39, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Ed, I think British is talking about the twenty or so years Lenski has been experimenting with and growing up 12 E. coli cell lines. This last bit with the citrate mutation is one entry among twenty years. -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
 
−
::::Richard Lenski is a well known scientist.  He is well-known for his 20-year project on [[E. coli]]. (I must say that I don't know how to respond to Mr Poor's question,  "What did he do with E. coli" as the entire Lenski debate has been about his work with E. coli.) He is '''also''' well known for his work with [[Digital organisms]].  The final part of the existing article sort of talks about this in a rather confusing manner.  Given that he is well-known for '''both''' these two things and that the article is about him, I had thought it would be a good idea to mention them both.--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 08:23, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Release data to other [[evolutionists]]? ==
 
−
 
 
−
The paper says that only two people analyzed the data: Lenski and a grad student whom I presume acts under his direction and control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:59, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
He says in his email that he will release the E. coli samples to a competent scientist who asks for them. How is that no agreeing to release the data to other evolutionists? -- [[User:Aaronp|Aaronp]]
 
−
 
 
−
:Lenski does say that in his email.  He didn't say that he wouldn't release the data to a competent scientist that held creationist views.  Really at this point a competent scientist with creationist credentials needs to step forward.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:13, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::Can we be more clear about "data" and "samples"? The point is whether anyone but his cronies has tried to [[replication of results|replicate]] his results, or even to check whether his data and methods are sound. [[Peer review]] is not enough; that just means his article is worth publication; it doesn't mean he has discovered something which now automatically goes into the standard biology textbooks. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:17, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
Peer review = check to see if his methods are sound.  You may also note that the experiment took a while, and was published last month.  It would be implausible for anyone to have tried to replicate the findings at this point. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 18:09, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: I took a quick look and could not find any promise by Lenski that he would release his '''''data''''' (which the paper says he analyzed) to anyone.  Can you quote where you think Lenski promises to release his "data"?  As to releasing samples to a "competent" scientist, Lenski places so many conditions on that it is doubtful to me that he would view any potential critic as "competent".  Regardless, it's clear to me that Lenski will not submit to public scrutiny of the data that the paper says he analyzed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:19, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Well lets take what you've said as a given Ed. The data and samples are still available to a competent scientist. I am going to contact this Bohlin guy from Probe Ministries to see if he is interested or can find someone who is. I'll report back. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::: You're embarking on a fool's errand, MAnderson.  It's clear to me that Lenski won't release his data to anyone independent.  I'm not even sure Lenski has any meaningful data to support his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:27, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::Good to see that someone is actually trying, after a week or so of no action. Andy, with how many biologists have you discussed this paper's methodology?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::: Looks like someone likes this fool's errand of trying to persuade Lenski to turn over his federally funded data.  But don't hold your breath, Argon.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::Think positive! Have you had any luck finding a microbiologist or similarly qualified researcher with whom you can discuss this paper as it is or the rest of Lenski's work? How about Doug Axe, with the DI's Biology Institute?--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:47, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::Note that the strains are the ultimate standard for reproducing the work. It would take less than a week for competent microbiologist to confirm that the strains have the markers specified. Sequencing of the specified regions could also be performed in about a week. In other words, all this could be accomplished in about half of the time this 'debate' has gone on. Running the strains through the replay experiments is also easy and would confirm the results. One can express an opinion about whether Lenski would share the strains as he says (a condition to which he is bound under the journal's rules), but that is pure speculation until someone actually makes the attempt.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::: Argon, I did ask Lenski to turn over the data, and so can you.  He refused, and I'm confident he'll continue to say "no" to any independent scrutiny of his claims.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::That misses the point. If you don't trust his report in the paper why would you trust the data he sends you? The *strains* are the key to the paper. They either are or aren't as he says they are. You can't fudge a strain that is supposed to have been grown in continuous culture with an established lineage. Reproducibility of the methods with the materials is what verifies this work. (Actually, so does the whole genome sequencing which is planned in the next stage of the research). The strains *are* available and the requirements Lenski set for sending them are standard for the field. There are thousands of labs that could meet the criteria.
 
−
:::::::As I mentioned earlier: Verification of the strain markers could be accomplished in a week. Add another week for sequencing. I'd suggest either finding a sympathetic researcher to give you some help or wait until the whole genome sequencing gets reported later.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
::Maybe so, in any case I sent this email to Dr. Bohlin, a qualified biologist and creationist.
 
−
 
 
−
::Dear Mr. Bohlin,
 
−
 
 
−
::Some people at conservapedia.com are concerned that a paper published by Richard Lenski describing a beneficial mutation occurring in E.coli may deserve closer scrutiny.  Mr. Lenski has said that he is willing to release his data and samples of the E. coli to a competent scientist for further research and review.  You seem to have the proper credentials to make this request.  Are you interested or are you aware of other scientist that are at your level and share your personal beliefs that might be interested?  I think that everyone at conservapedia would appreciate your input.
 
−
 
 
−
::Sincerely,
 
−
 
 
−
::Mike Anderson
 
−
::Conservapedia contributor
 
−
 
 
−
::[[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 16:32, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::: Can't hurt to try, and your efforts deserve praise, MAnderson.  I hope for a sensible result from your inquiry, but unfortunately do not expect it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:16, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::: Mike, aside from the question of whether you persuade Dr. Bohlin to request and analyze the raw data or strains, perhaps you might ask if he finds any irregularities with methods described.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 19:31, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Here is the response that I got from Dr. Ray Bohlin of Probe Ministries:
 
−
 
 
−
::::Dear Mike,
 
−
 
 
−
::::I appreciate your notice of my qualifications but as President of Probe Ministries, I no longer work in a laboratory or have access to one and therefore I am unable to follow up on your gracious request. I have a feeler out to some other scientists but at the moment they are already quite busy with other projects. However, you may not be aware of Mike Behe's excellent response on his author page at Amazon.com. The text is below. Perhaps you could contact Mike about using his response.
 
−
 
 
−
::::Respectfully,
 
−
 
 
−
::::Ray Bohlin, PhD
 
−
::::President
 
−
::::Probe Ministries
 
−
::::www.probe.org
 
−
::::rbohlin@probe.org
 
−
 
 
−
::::He provided the response by Prof. Behe but I am not including it because it is lengthy and people can view it on Amazon.  My only editorial comment is to note that Prof. Behe in his rebuttal does not in any way conclude that Prof. Lenski’s research is flawed or that his data is incomplete or hidden.  He just feels that the experiments results do not support the theory of evolution.  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:48, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::::Can you provide the link to Prof. Behe's response?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::Here is the link  http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_dp_artist_blog  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 09:08, 11 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::What's going on? Hasn't anyone at conservapedia gotten on the phone and even tried to recruit an christian scientist to follow up on this?  Why not??  [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 22:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]] ==
 
−
 
 
−
Andy Schlafly, please send a letter to Lenski asking him if he is an [[atheism|atheist]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:34, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Why? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:40, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
: Have you read his writing on a discussion about [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf science and religon] and [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf on science, church and state].  --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 17:52, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::I meant why is it relevant to his scientific work? [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:55, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::Lenski says that with better words than I can in the second pdf I linked above. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:23, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::Clearly, he's not a 'Dawkins-ite'.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:35, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
::::::One of the links Rutm cited has Lenski stating he told someone it was none of their business what worldview he holds.  It would not surprise me if he was one of the many closet atheists who cannot defend their [[atheism]].  Christianity on the other hand has Jesus stating: "Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.  But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. - Matthew 10:32-33 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::::I knew the reason why.  I just wanted you to say it.  Basically because Lenski is or might be an atheist, he is immediately discredited.  I don't see things that way at all which is why I am perfectly happy to have a dedicated Christian scientist review the data.  I assume that honor exist among scientist of all stripes and that the goal of scientist is to fairly judge scientific research. [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 08:53, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
MAnderson, you are extraordinarily naive if you imagine that scientists espousing [[Atheistic]] or [[Liberal]] views somehow turn those views 'off' when conducting research. If one's entire world outlook is distorted in such a way, it affects everything one does - consciously or otherwise. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:38, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:Bugler - do you believe avowedly Christian scientists can turn their beliefs off when conducting research?  [[User:StanleyAccrington|StanleyAccrington]] 13:46, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:: In reply to both Bugler and Stan, I guess I prefer to believe that people are basically good and will at least try to take the high road when given the chance.  If that is being naive then so be it.  Have a great day! [[User:MAnderson|MAnderson]] 17:11, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::As a scientist myself, it's patently obvious that anybody who is unable to turn off personal feelings/beliefs and not have them affect their interpretation of data is, by definition, a bad scientist. Data doesn't lie. They are observed facts. If you allow bias to creep into the mix, you're carrying out poor science. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 17:54, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::You're being too naive if you think every scientist in the world is completely honest and wouldn't (mis?)interpret the data in a way that wouldn't contradict his worldview. Just look at the Global Warming crowd. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 18:21, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
:::::We can debate about human nature here if you want, however, that would get us no where. No one said anything about all scientists. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. We're human. It's ludicrous for me to have to preface my statements with such trivia. So, implying that the ''majority'' of scientists are swayed by their personal beliefs is horribly cynical. A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 20:08, 7 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::::::Good to see we agree that atheist scientists can become blinded by their own prejudices and produce misleading conclusions (although we disagree on many other things.) So why is it that one shouldn't be suspicious when the scientist in question is being evasive about the requests for data? [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 15:38, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
''A spiritual/religious scientist and an atheist scientist are on equal footing when it comes to data analysis.'' That is precisely ''not'' the case. Faith in God is natural and right: it is, if you like, the 'default' condition of mankind. Atheism is a perversion of belief; it takes a wilful step into ignorance and defiance of God. Once that step is taken, all values of truth and objectivity fly out of the window. Atheists cannot practice science; the need to 'prove' and 'justify' their terrible howling void of non-belief means that they can only practice pseudo-science. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:44, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:I honestly hope you don't ever become a scientist. I say this not to slight you, but because your view on how it should/does function is horribly skewed. [[User:Wisdom89|Wisdom89]] 16:30, 8 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== An Interesting Lenski Quote ==
 
−
 
 
−
From the first of the two papers Rutm linked:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
I think the same facts of evolution--with the perpetual struggle for existence and genetic rewards for selfishness--could just as easily be used to support a religion that both Dr. Hefner and I would find repugnant.
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
Is it me, or is Dr. Lenski admitting that evolution can be used to support some extremely nasty philosophies?  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 21:30, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
:I believe he's saying one could '''*attempt*''' to use it justify practically anything. But more likely, one would probably be committing something akin to a naturalistic fallacy in so doing.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:42, 2 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Statistical Significance ==
 
−
The 2 instances in the little table that imply that statistical significance or lack thereof should be reported look a bit silly.  The first phrase refers to the statement by Blount et al. that "A number of Cit+ clones were isolated..." on p7900.  Asking how many is all well and good.  But it appears the researchers decided how many to isolate, and it is nonsensical to ask about significance.  The second phrase refers to the end of the sentence: "all were Ara-, T5-sensitive, and T6-resistant, as expected."  It is potentially a bit more relevant here, but still doesn't make a lot of sense to simply ask generally about statistical significance - compared to what?  Calculating significance is a way of testing the probability of sampling error, if that helps. [[User:Murray|Murray]] 11:01, 3 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Visual Inspection ==
 
−
The methodology here is what's important, and they clearly write that the "LTEE populations are transferred daily into fresh medium, and the turbidity of each is checked visually at that time." The observations for which you are requesting data seem to be the kind of observations that aren't recorded, because they do not need to be. I'll give you an example from my experiences in the lab: when I perform an electrophoresis gel run, I have to make an agarose gel. Every time I do so I follow the recipe taped to our microwave: 40mL TAE buffer, 400mg Agarose. It's a given in our lab that all our gels are 1%, unless otherwise stated. Likewise, it seems likely that somebody working in Lenski's lab will, when checking for turbidity, do so by holding up a tube of culture, observe, "Yep, that's turbid," and continue on with the procedure as outlined in their protocol. If Lenski's lab is more diligent than the one in which I work, then we are still dealing with the kind of data that never leave a graduate student's notebook. Again, what data do you want,  a table containing the exact same information every day ''(June 6, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 7, 1999 - Checked turbidity of cultures. They were turbid. June 8, 1999 - Che...)''? Or would only scans of graduate students' notebook pages suffice? --[[User:Codyc|Codyc]] 20:54, 5 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== "Lenksi's biographical sketch does not exhibit any background or experience in mathematics or statistics. " ==
 
−
 
 
−
This dirt-digging is getting ridiculous, IMO. Prof. Lenski got his doctoral degree in Zoology. His thesis was "Effects of competition and disturbance on ground beetle populations". That area and evolutionary biology are math intensive with a substantial emphasis in statistics. His second and third papers are: Lenski, R. E., and P. M. Service. 1982. '''The ''statistical analysis'' of population growth rates calculated from schedules of survivorship and fecundity'''. Ecology 63:655-662. and Service, P. M., and R. E. Lenski. 1982. '''Aphid genotypes, plant phenotypes, and genetic diversity: a ''demographic analysis of experimental data'''''. Evolution 36:1276-1282. Did the person who wrote the headline comment even read any of Lenski's works? I would suppose not.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:00, 13 July 2008 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== uhhh ==
 
−
 
 
−
How would you obtaining E. Coli samples help? I don't think any of the editors or sysops here have the qualifications or the equipment to do anything with them. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:55, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
 
−
perhaps if the sysops presented the entire paper then they could have a more concrete basis for their disagreements and put their questions into full context rather than raising arguments that leave the reader blind to the whole situation.  For instance you could have the paper and then say we disagree with this and here's why blah blah blah, instead of pulling random sentences from the paper without context and dissecting them.  Because when you think about it critically it only undermines the sysops's arguments with the research. [[User:superstudent|superstudent]] 10:16 22 September 2008
 
−
 
 
−
== Lenski's Position ==
 
−
I put in the title of the chair that he holds.  The information is in his biographical sketch.  Why was it changed?  I thought a completely accurate description of Lenski was the point of this, or am I wrong?  Does mentioning that he's the Hannah Distinguished Professor of Microbial Ecology, as it says on his web page somehow violate a tenate of Conservapedia?  The information can be found on his homepage and verified by looking at the web page of the University.  Without any idea of why we should not mention his possession of a named professorship, I'm going to put that back in.  If this is wrong to do, please tell me.  [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 23:05 25 September EDT
 
−
 
 
−
==Lenski's Atheism==
 
−
This article mentions Lenski's "...unabashed atheism", but provides no citation.  I read his two pieces on religion and science (https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_and_religion.pdf and https://myxo.css.msu.edu/lenski/history/science_church_and_state.pdf), as well as his responses to Aschlafly's letters.  Nothing in those documents backs up the atheism claim.  Is there something else that supports it?  Should this claim be removed?  --[[User:Martib|Martib]] 22:49, 15 November 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
==Lenski's Position II==
 
−
Why the removal of the mention of his position again?  I figured that having a named professorship was something noteworthy in the article.  (Noteworthy in what way is up to the reader.  I view it as more of a black mark on MSU's case than in favor of Lenski, especially given his refusal to actually disclose his data.  If this should be explicit in the entry, please tell me and I'll do my best to put it in.) For the moment, I'm not touching the page, but I am confused as to why an edit I made close to a month ago was changed back now.  [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 21:14, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
: The academic titles are silly and misleading, particularly when there is no explanation of the process behind the title.  He's a professor, and that does have a well-established meaning.  Beyond that someone has to make a case for explaining the significance of an additional title before including it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:23, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
:: Ok, that makes sense.  Sorry if I came across as harsh, I was just a confused by having one of my edits called "senseless liberal puffery," (which was not its intention). [[User:ArnoldFriend|ArnoldFriend]] 22:00, 17 November 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
::: The John Hannah Distinguished professorships are '''endowed''' professorships that were created in 1966 by the Board of Trustees to honor John Hannah and his 25 years of service to the university. They are teching and research positions. The professorships are “dedicated to the encouragement of continued outstanding scholarship, creative activity, and teaching.” [from MSU ] [[User:Markr|Markr]] 17:07, 18 November 2008 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Apologies... ==
 
−
 
 
−
I just completely edited the page, posted a paragraph full of nought but my opinion and luckily it was promptly changed... I was very angry upon reading that reprort and its article on Conservapedia and broke a Conservapedia Commandment... I'm sorry.
 
−
 
 
−
:You may wish to recreate your account with a real name if you are going to contribute positively instead of just vandalizing articles. [[User:Sulli|Sulli]] 20:12, 12 January 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== Quite Funny ==
 
−
 
 
−
Wow, this is actually quite funny. I wonder did anyone from Conservapedia happen to gain access to the data and specimens that were requested? That would have been hilarious! I can just imagine one of you discovering that the evidence backed up Professor Lenski's claims, only to immediately claim that it was a liberal-athiest conspiracy designed to undermine Creationism.
 
−
 
 
−
"Oh, but his research was state-funded, so obviously it is the bastard liberal government meddling  with the research findings to brainwash good, faithful Americans into believing the blasphemous theory of Evolution! Well the jokes on them because Darwin repented on his deathbed, booyah!"
 
−
 
 
−
Just brilliant. Keep it up guys and gals, you're just the best. --[[User:RyanMcLaughlin|Ryan McLaughlin]] 15:19, 18 November 2009 (EST)
 
−
 
 
−
== I'm going to archive this all tomorrow ==
 
−
 
 
−
Because it really needs it. --[[User:EmersonWhitecp|EmersonWhitecp]] 15:08, 14 April 2010 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 21:19, April 15, 2010

Archive 1

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_Lenski&oldid=769405"