Conservapedia requests raw data from Lenski's E. coli study
There has been a tremendous amount of interest and controversy concerning Richard Lenski et al.'s research into the evolution of E. coli bacteria. Now Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, is asking for the raw data from the research! If he doesn't trust the scientific paper that reported the research, then why should he trust the raw data?
On Carl Zimmer's blog, I am still getting the runaround in response to my questions about the study.
On Carl Zimmer's blog, I am still getting the runaround in response to my questions about the study.
Labels: Citrate-eating E. coli
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/22/2008 07:59:00 AM
11 Comments:
PZ Myers posted Lenski's response to the second letter of request on his blog (Pharyngula, in case you didn't know). From what I understand it's also available on Conservapedia.
>>>>> PZ Myers posted Lenski's response to the second letter of request on his blog <<<<<<
Yes -- thanks. Sleazy PZ also posted it on Panda's Thumb.
>>>>> Pharyngula, in case you didn't know <<<<<<
"In case you didn't know" -- are you kidding? I am at the top of Sleazy PZ's "killfile dungeon" list of banned commenters.
>>>>>>>"In case you didn't know" -- are you kidding? I am at the top of Sleazy PZ's "killfile dungeon" list of banned commenters.
I didn't write that for your benefit; I wrote it for those few who may accidentally stumble upon your blog and not know about Myers's blog.
For what it's worth, I usually connect here from his link. That way I gave him an extra hit and don't have to do a search for your blog (so I don't have it appear in the list of sites and so I don't have to save it as a "favorite," which this site isn't).
Anonymous said...
>>>>>>>>"In case you didn't know" -- are you kidding? I am at the top of Sleazy PZ's "killfile dungeon" list of banned commenters.
I didn't write that for your benefit; I wrote it for those few who may accidentally stumble upon your blog and not know about Myers's blog. <<<<<<
You were not responding to another commenter, so it was reasonable to assume that "you" referred to me, the blogger. Duh
>>>>>> For what it's worth, I usually connect here from his link. That way I gave him an extra hit and don't have to do a search for your blog (so I don't have it appear in the list of sites and so I don't have to save it as a "favorite," which this site isn't). <<<<<<<
My Sitemeter shows that I am always getting a lot of referrals from Sleazy PZ's blog, so apparently a lot of other people are doing the same thing.
The name "favorite" does not necessarily mean that a website in the list is a "favorite" -- the list of "favorites" is just another way of quickly accessing websites. Also, I often use Panda's Thumb's link list -- I hate Panda's Thumb but I don't mind giving them an extra hit -- so what. I also use the link list in my sidebar quite a bit.
I know you know that PZ Myers's blog is Pharyngula, the you in that case was impersonal and not directed at anyone in particular, and in that case definitely not at you, since I know that you where to find his blog, since you have been banned there. Not sure you're the true #1 in terms of his dungeon list. It's true that you're at the top but I haven't seen anything on his blog to indicate that he considers you the worst offender (I might suspect John Davidson -- I love it so!), but I really don't know (or care).
>>>>>> I know you know that PZ Myers's blog is Pharyngula <<<<<<
I didn't know that you knew that I knew that PZ Myers' blog is Pharyngula (this is beginning to sound like Bill Buckingham's testimony at the Dover trial: "I don't know what you said you thought I knew").
>>>>> It's true that you're at the top but I haven't seen anything on his blog to indicate that he considers you the worst offender (I might suspect John Davidson -- I love it so!), but I really don't know (or care). <<<<<<
You keep protesting too much with these disclaimers of any interest in me and this blog, saying this blog isn't a "favorite" of yours, that you don't care if I am the true #1 on Sleazy PZ's shitlist, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. If you care so little about me and this blog, then why in the hell do you keep commenting here? That's the 3rd comment from you here today in this comment thread alone (I don't know if you have posted comments in other threads on this blog).
This is not me. This is an imposter.
* URP! *
jeez louise. out of curiosity i just had to find out if this diarea type blogging/questioning over at the conservapedia was an abnormalty or if this is usual for you and sure enough,, an entire blog of garbage. good luck buddy. i am surprised they let you blather on as long as they did. they must have allowed it since you are on 'their side'. it takes lots of different types of idiots to form the flat earth group, you being a 'special case' of annoying.
Annie driveled,
>>>>> since you are on 'their side'.<<<<<
I am not entirely on "their side," dunghill. I am opposed to Andy Schlafly's request for the raw data. I was just making common cause with them because the lead author of the paper, Zachary Blount, has failed to answer my simple, basic questions about the experiment.
Apparently there are also many different types of "dunghills". (Is there anyone here who hasn't yet garnered this term of endearment?)
The "dunghills" might be good for prospecting other strains of E. coli.
Post a Comment
<< Home