Talk:Lenski affair

From RationalWiki

Do not edit, format, or add links to the letters in the article as they are copies of the original documents and should be preserved "as is".

Contents 1 Consequences: Digg 2 Statistics 3 Consolidation 4 Adding letters to Wikisource 5 CP's letter to PNAS 6 New Scientist comment 7 Regarding omissions from second reply 8 Blocked users participating in Lenski-related pages Conservapedia 9 Link 10 Lenski's second letter: pain-staking? 11 I just noticed... 12 Alright 13 Grace

[edit] Consequences: Digg

I first found out about this imbroglio from an Ars Technica article Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount that was Dugg. As of Sun 6 Jul 2008 06:06:48 PM, there were 1237 diggs.

If you do a Google search on "Lenski Conservapedia" there are currently "about 39,500" hits. BlankVerse 21:18, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I just found the Conservapedia article at reddit.com under the title: "Conservapedia tries to make Prof. Richard Lenski prove his E. Coli experiment is not a fraud. Lenski responds with an extensive smackdown" with 1584 hits. BlankVerse 21:27, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Statistics

I strongly believe in evolution. BUt Lenki's experiment seems so statistically unlikely that i borders on impossible. The required amount of synergistic mutations to the appropriate genes occuring within the span of 30 years seems downright impossible. Just one mans opinion. Were not talking aout some bogus christian theory on irreducible complexity, but this is just very very, very unlikely.^{— Unsigned, by: 74.222.210.4 / welcome this user / contribs}

I'm no statistician, but surely Mr 74, out of all the gazillions of bacteria involved, wouldn't that make an important mutation more likely? It's not like there's one bacterium involved in each generation. Totnesmartin 09:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also: it is extremely unlikely that any particular thirteen card hand at bridge should be dealt; once it has been, however, it is not unlikely, it is a fact. Statistics cannot be applied in this manner to things which have already occurred. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 09:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What I really mean there is the probability of something happening in the future can be estimated statistically, but the probability of the current situation is statistical nonsense - it is fact. BoN, you read as if you're accusing Prof Lenski of fraud.Are you a biologist/biochemist/geneticist? ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 10:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Another analogy is winning the lottery - the chances are about 1 in 14 million in the UK but somebody does win almost every week. Of course the chance of it happening to any particular person is very low, but still real. It annoys me when those who happen to be the statistical outlier then ascribe their good fortune to prayer or the will of gOD. What about the millions of others who also prayed and never got a penny? Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the other point to make is that bacteria reproduce really fast. Lenski and co-workers followed 44,000 generations. In human terms, if one generation is 30 years, that's waiting 1.3 million years. Homo sapiens wasn't around 1.3 million years a go. Sterile_{walkie-talkie} 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation

Has there been any thought to consolidating some of the Lenski affair articles? I think it would be better to have fewer rather than more. Sterile^snore! 09:05, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

But, Sterile, just as everyone who arrives here wants to edit the Conservapedia article and the Andrew Schlafly article, right now everyone wants to add some half-brained attempt at another article on Lenski! Oops, I mean, I agree with you. ħuman 01:28, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

(I'm just jealous 'cause I ain't got my own!) Sterile^snore! 08:29, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not so sure. The do cover different aspects, and one long article would be more difficult to read.--Bob^{bing up} 08:45, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

I guess it reminds be of ... say ... the spawn of Ken's homosexuality articles... Sterile^snore!

[edit] Adding letters to Wikisource

I would like to add the letters to Wikisource. Schlafly's emails are in the public domain, since he published them on Conservapedia, but what about Prof. Lenski's? Did anyone ask him if he releases the emails into public domain, or under a license like GNU, or something? I though taht since you know how the actula second reply looked (bold parts) maybe someone had a conversation with him about this matter as well. 84.232.160.175 04:00, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Schlafly's letters are not public domain, they are some confused version of copyright thet even Andy does not understand. I suspect that Prof. Lenski does not mind repeated, infinite even, copying of his sublime prose. The bolding, etc., was in his originals. ħuman 04:03, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually of what I understand from this page is that I may copy content without specifying the source. Though the second part (This license is revocable only in very rare instances of self-defense, such as protecting continued use by Conservapedia editors or other licensees or stopping unauthorized copying or mirroring of entire parts of this site.) doesn't make much sense. If anyone copies the content and does harm to Conservapedia, then there's not much they can do - the content was already released under this public-domain-ish license.

About Prof. Lenski's, I thought as much that he has nothing against these being widely spread (especially because of this: "I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels"), but as you might know Wikimedia is very strict with copyright. An explicit permission from the professor would be great. 84.232.160.175 04:42, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

I have not corresponded with Prof. Lenski but it is my understanding that others have, and from all reports he seems a quite responsive sort of chap. I see that his e-mail is available on his web page - you might wish to simply ask him directly.--Bob^{bing up} 05:27, 16 July 2008 (EDT)

Belatedly - yes, I sent him a random "congratulations, no need to reply" email a couple weeks ago and he even replied to that with a quick "thank you". 84bunch, I'm sure if you emailed him he would reply with explicit permission. So go for it! ħuman 18:58, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] CP's letter to PNAS

This cannot be a serious attempt on their part. They must realize, even in the back of that reptilian sized brain that they are not experts in any science, much less this specific field of microbiology... and that any attempt they make to PNSA will come off as either mearly a joke or another chance to be ridiculed around the world while so-called "Darwinists" get another chance to say "haha"(think - Nelson from Simpsons). This has to just be self-important, self-focused ego fluff that will never be actually mailed.--WaitingforGodot 18:05, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I removed the part that said they took it seriously, I think - it was just speculation. As it is, it may still not get sent. ħuman 18:56, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

$10 to the charity of your choice if it ever gets sent.   ^Contribs_Talk 18:59, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

£10.00 given to Amnesty Int'l 20 Sep 08 (I'd have given it anyway so not really fair, but ...)   ^Contribs_Talk 14:44, 21 September 2008 (EDT)

Just noting the source of the letter might raise a few chuckles amongst the recipients (should it ever be sent).Speakerface 20:34, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for formatting the letter on the page. I added it, but then I had a lot of trouble getting it to look good. I just cannot believe that they are going to send it. I just can't believe it. I want to see the response they get.EricB 20:42, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

You're welcome, thanks for bringing it over. It wasn't hard to fix, just remember that leading spaces do weird things in MW. ħuman 21:04, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I blagged on this; this is better than the Daily Show-caius (soldier) 21:10, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

Only Monty Python or the Marx Brothers (and maybe George Carlin) could make this stuff up... ħuman 21:55, 22 July 2008 (EDT)

I have to say, I do find it endlessly telling that Andy pushes this letter off to his acolytes. Telling them, in effect "well, I won't send it, but if you all want to, you can". Of course he knows that he is full of shit. but he can't let his minions know that he's full of shit. he'd never send this letter, but if it were sent by others, "that would be fine". He's also set up (for his acolytes) a win-win. "if they don't respond, well we all know what that means. If they do own up to the errors, then good for them. and if they try to dismiss us, well, that just shows they are part of the liberal science liers". --WaitingforGodot 09:56, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Ok, who wrote [1]? I really don't know which I would prefer: a) Schlafly ignores Stitch75's advice and PZ Myers posts about a crass incompetent piece of garbage posted without regard to the advice of those who evidently know what they are talking about or b) Aschlalfy takes the advice and gets humiliated in PNAS. The danger in the second is that he might try and word a decent objection, find he can't and drop the whole thing. "Of course he knows that he is full of shit.". Does he? Are you not arguing from the position that you would, from the position that you would have to be a raving madman, at least borderline clinically paranoid, to really actually believe what you would be saying and the "yes men" agreeing with you? Its that problem of teaching something that you are really good at: it's just so difficult thinking yourself into the position of someone who finds it hard: you have, as a sane person, difficulty imagining yourself gibbering like Andy. You wouldn't send the letter to PNAS, but then you wouldn't have sent the second letter to Lenski. You wouldn't have sent the first! Trust in Schalfly's idiocy, it hasn't let you down yet. --Toffeeman 15:56, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Here's teh thing. If he *really* belived he had a point, he'd jump at the chance to submit that letter. Right now, all he is saying is "well, they won't post it anyhow" and "I write only for people here at CP" and "if they want to know the Truth, they know where to find it" tripe. That's the kind of distancing himself that happens when there is an inner war. --WaitingforGodot 16:11, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Could it be akin to Gollum's spark of decency? There is Schalfly the malevolent, paranoid, egomaniac; the intellectually degenerate pustule of a human being hiding in the roots of the mountains jealously guarding his "precious" wiki. But, unremarked by the conscious mind, there remains a tiny little piece of the original Schlafly. This piece remembers all the kids laughing at the stupid remarks, remembers the red ink through the grammatical errors, the evil-lutionists jeers, the scorn and the ridicule. This piece remains sane and it struggles, struggles against the now-dominant madman. It can never reveal itself, if it does the madness will crush it utterly, but it tries and twists and pokes and prods to try and limit the damage the madman does. "well, they won't post it anyhow" is the sane Andy, the Andy too scared to say "for fucks sake mad-Andy, if you send it we'll look like a complete twat". Watch out for Andy starting to say "we", "us" and "our", and maybe going on about the "nasty, tricksy" parodists.--Toffeeman 08:27, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh, I hope he sends it. It would be perhaps the greatest moment of my life. I hope they honor conservapedia with a response. Does Lenski know about this? EricB 16:07, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

As I said on the WIGO talk page, writing an article comment is not writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper. They should have citations to the literature, and it will be peer reviewed (or more likely, rejected outright by the editor) as it is part of the scientific literature. If the grammar's bad, that's even worse. Sterile^snore! 16:14, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I'll cheer them on, to see them send it. in Andy's name, of course... And if he does send it in, i would hope that the people at PNAS do bother to reply, demanding as they would for any of thier contributors, in bright red ink, "citation please" "source please" "where is your data to support this".--WaitingforGodot 16:22, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

It's getting painful to watch. Stitch75 has been trying to advise Andy on how to word the letter, he has expertise. His reward is a block threat [2]. Meanwhile Andy just laps up the parodists [3] what does it take for this man to learn? Why does he absolutely insist on making a complete and utter tit of himself, even to the extent of attacking those who are trying to ensure he keeps some shred of dignity? I almost feel sorry for him. --Toffeeman 08:04, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Actually i am absolutely sure Stitch75's real intention is not to ensure some dignity for Mr. Schlafly. I think it's more likely that he is seeking to inflict the maximum embarassment to Mr. Schlafly, which obviously would be that after a painful open, embarassing revision process in which Mr. Schlafly demonstrates his incompetence every five lines, the letter is turned down in an horribly well defined way, without any chance to silence the opponent or change the text any more. --Lilo57 15:37, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Fascinating. They count words already..... --124.85.78.182 04:41, 26 July 2008 (EDT)

Mr Schlafly's letter WAS sent to PNAS and is currently under review. See http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Letter_to_PNAS :-) 67.72.98.45 15:18, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

It is nice to see that PNAS did not just reject the letter but provided a neatly worded explanation for its rejection. Hopefully SOMEONE will learn from it. 67.72.98.45 22:56, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

You didn't read the talk page, did you? Ashfly was pwnt hard and concurred with the first commmenter, who accused the PNAS of conspiracy. If anyone does, it won't be the CP leadership. EVDebs 23:02, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

I did read the talk page , and I didnt really think any of the diehard CPers would learn anything, but its more fun this way. Now we can wait and see if some suicidal puppet will try to explain just WHY Andy got it wrong, or if one of the inner circle will stir the pot. (how do you tell the puppets from the inner circle ? I need a scorecard. 67.72.98.45 00:27, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

stirring has commenced and action favoring going after his government funding is front runner. Also suggested is letter of complaint accusing ACADEMIC FRAUD to the University. Anyone here up on defamation or libel laws (or is it slander) 67.72.98.45 19:50, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] New Scientist comment

Don't know if this has been brought up anywhere. It's a New Scientist ref to CP. It's old news so I suppose it's somewhere on here.   ^Contribs_Talk 13:16, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Regarding omissions from second reply

It seems that the omissions from the second reply, excluding the RationalWiki link, have now been reentered into Conservapedia's transcription of the letter. Somebody with more knowledge, please investigate this. 66.21.203.228 11:29, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

It was only the RationalWIki link that was excised. Генгис^evolving 12:39, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Blocked users participating in Lenski-related pages Conservapedia

The following users participating in the CP discussions about the topic experienced blocks (Please correct the list, these are the ones i have noticed):

By Andrew Schlafly Himself: Jirby, Raul, Argon, MickA, Kallium, KimEide, Stitch75, BenHur, Drek, Carolyn

By others: Toffeeman, AlexaJ, DRamon, DinsdaleP, YoungA

[edit] Link

How do we know what the censored links in the second letter were? Did Lenski send us the original, or what. Phantom Hoover 12:33, 5 January 2009 (EST)

If memory serves, he told anybody who bothered to e-mail him about it. Though I wonder why he'd choose to link that rather than the other dozen articles specifically about Conservapedia's blocking behaviour. NightFlare 12:50, 5 January 2009 (EST)

He used it because he is/was a fan of RW. Also, perhaps, because he may have known CP would censor it (without a comment in the middle, you can't even save the word "rationalwiki" there). ħuman 19:07, 5 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] Lenski's second letter: pain-staking?

In the letter, is "pain-staking" in the original or is that just some random hyphenation for "pains-taking"? —Monado 19:00, 28 January 2009 (EST)

It's in the original as it appears on Conservapedia. Could be Lenski's mistake or Schlafly's transcription error. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:03, 28 January 2009 (EST)

[edit] I just noticed...

Happy belated birthday to the Lenski Affair! It was one year old about a month ago! ArmondikoV^{...I'll taste your spoon!} 12:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhhhh those were the days eh. Ace McWicked^Necron99 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Alright

if anyone wonders what I just did, I just put the letters in a subpage, and then locked the subpage to everyone but admins. That way the rest of the article can be edited, but the letters themself can not be edited. Kwsn 15:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I was wondering, thanks for explaining. We don't usually protect pages, but I suppose this could be an exception.--Bob^{Not Jim} 15:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that was the case but since it's a "historical" part, and it shouldn't changed, I just went ahead with it. Kwsn 15:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

On a good note, no more ugly template on the page now, thanks Toast. Kwsn (Ni!) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. And it condenses the page a little so that you can't easily accidentally edit those bits. I don't think we should be particularly scared of locking stuff like that to sysop only, anyway. ArmondikoV^{...I'll taste your spoon!} 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining... only issue is that just about anyone who has been here 2 days and not blanked the main page is a sysop, so the protection doesn't really achieve anything here the way it would elsewhere. Is there at least a "noincluded" warning on the subpage saying not to edit it? ħuman 21:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see there is. Good. Yes, ignoring the protection issue, it hides the banner nicely, so good work! ħuman 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was the wikipedia admin part of me kicking in. if anyone wants to unprotect, go ahead. Kwsn (Ni!) 01:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I will. But what you did "structurally" was very good and we thank you. ħuman 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grace

Revisited this page after reading the RW tech blog update. And find that my favourite part is still this: "...It was Genesis 1:27-28, in which God created Man and Woman. It’s a very simple and lovely story, and I did not ask any questions, storm out, or demand the evidence that it happened as written at a time when science did not yet exist. I was there in the realm of spirituality and mutual respect, not confusing a house of religion for a science class or laboratory..." The man has more class and more understanding of what it means to act in a "christian" manner than Andrew can ever hope to attain. Fox 09:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Its refreshing to see Conservapedia and Andrew Schlafly discussed in such a frank and open manner - without the threat of being blocked. Lenski's exchange with Schlafly definitely has a familiar ring. While I may not be a microbiologist, my discussion with DouglasA about science and the Bible on the talk page of his Essay: Quantifying Order, led to my being blocked by JacobB. After my views were labeled as "nonsense" and "rants" by DouglasA, I wrote that "since 'loving your neighbor as yourself' doesn't seem to be your forte", he could at least cite chapter and verse in support of whatever arguments he might make. Schlafly called me a "provocateur", and I was blocked for violating the "90/10 rule".

Somethings about Schlafly and his cohorts need to be kept in mind, aside from their immunity to rationality. Schlafly's insistence on Lenski's work being tax-payer funded and its being open to public scrutiny comes from his belief that evolution is a religion, and any public funding of the "proof of evolution" violates the separation of church and state. While Lenski and the rest of us may not confuse "a house of religion for a science class or laboratory", Schlafly, et al., are unwilling or unable to make that distinction.

We might further elucidate Schlafly's take on science. On the talk page of Conservapedia's article on Science, he makes his view perfectly clear: " . . my own view is that politics transcends all categories and all disciplines. Every profession is affected by political bias, so why not scientists also? George Orwell was right, I feel, when he said 'all issues are political.' It's only recently that the public has woken up to the political distortions in science." So Lenski's experiments over 20 years demonstrating evolution in E. coli, is ultimately, for Schlafly, a political expression of Lenski's liberal, and, of course, anti-Christian and atheistic political views. Trying to discuss scientific facts in an objective way with Schlafly, et al., is basically a waste of time. For them, a scientists' objectivity is very much in doubt. Of course, since for Schlafly everything is political, then his Christianity is also very much in doubt. - Danielitld