Andy Schlafly's unreasonable request for raw data of Lenski's E. coli experiment
Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly's unreasonable (IMO) request for the raw data of Lenski et al.'s E. coli experiment has stirred a great deal of interest and controversy on the Internet. Many websites have articles about it, and since mid-June the Conservapedia "project" page (with copies of the Schlafly-Lenski corespondence) has been accessed over 75,000 times and the corresponding Conservapedia talk (discussion) page has been accessed over 50,000 times. For comparison, Conservapedia's Theory of Evolution page, a popular page on Conservapedia, has been accessed about 317,368 times since it began in December 2006.
Who cares about the raw data? Lenski et al. claim to have the Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria, which are extremely rare (Cit+ evolution had been observed only once before), and claim to have E. coli bacteria with a strong tendency to evolve the Cit+ trait (i.e., frozen bacteria of 20,000 generations or later in one line). Using these bacteria, it would be fairly easy to verify or disprove the results of the experiment.
Also, requesting the raw data is wrong because (1) copying all of the raw data to send 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 controversy over Andy Schlafly's unreasonable request is overshadowing worthwhile commentary and discussion regarding the Cit+ evolution.
I would like to post this stuff on Conservapedia but I wore out my welcome there by voluminous answering of trolls' unreasonable criticisms of my legitimate complaint that the Cit+ paper's lead author Zachary Blount ignored my simple and basic questions about the experiment.
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: The Lost Dutchman Mine. But finding it is not a goal.
Who cares about the raw data? Lenski et al. claim to have the Cit+ (citrate-eating) E. coli bacteria, which are extremely rare (Cit+ evolution had been observed only once before), and claim to have E. coli bacteria with a strong tendency to evolve the Cit+ trait (i.e., frozen bacteria of 20,000 generations or later in one line). Using these bacteria, it would be fairly easy to verify or disprove the results of the experiment.
Also, requesting the raw data is wrong because (1) copying all of the raw data to send 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 controversy over Andy Schlafly's unreasonable request is overshadowing worthwhile commentary and discussion regarding the Cit+ evolution.
I would like to post this stuff on Conservapedia but I wore out my welcome there by voluminous answering of trolls' unreasonable criticisms of my legitimate complaint that the Cit+ paper's lead author Zachary Blount ignored my simple and basic questions about the experiment.
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: The Lost Dutchman Mine. But finding it is not a goal.
Labels: Citrate-eating E. coli
posted by Larry Fafarman | 7/02/2008 02:28:00 AM
50 Comments:
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: The Lost Dutchman Mine. But finding it is not a goal.
Prospector C: Economic mineral deposits. We're starting here because we think the historic Lost Dutchman gold mine was somewhere in this area. Our "goal" is to improve our understanding of how to locate these deposits efficiently. Some cash flow in the meantime from successful discoveries would be welcome of course.
Prospector D: On second thought, there may be better places to look than the Superstition Mtns.. The LDGM is hearsay (there's a reason for the place name).
Fixed it for ya, Larry:
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: Oil. But we also found the Lost Dutchman Mine, even though it was not our intent.
Prospector A: But I thought finding the Lost Dutchman Mine was your purpose?!
Prospector B: No, it was not our intent. We knew that by searching for oil in this area we might also find the Lost Dutchman Mine, but it was not our goal.
"Conservapedia's Andy Schlafly's unreasonable (IMO) request ..."
Shouldn't an unreasonable person make unreasonable requests? Don't (most) bears shit in the woods?
"... Conservapedia's Theory of Evolution page ... has been accessed about 317,368 times ..."
That's quite a heap of bear shit.
Prospector C: Kevin's answer is better. He has your scenario equivalence exactly.
I hope you have a collar and tag, because Kevin now owns you. Yet again.
I spoke too soon. Larry is digging again.
>>>>>Kevin now owns you.<<<<
Kevin doesn't own anything -- and won't ever own anything -- other than his own lousy rotten hide, dunghill. Here is the new version:
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: Oil and The Lost Dutchman Mine. We won't claim the mine if we find it because finding it is not a goal.
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: Oil and The Lost Dutchman Mine. We won't claim the mine if we find it because finding it is not a goal.
That would mean Prospector B has two goals: finding oil, and finding the Mine. Do you seriously not understand what a "goal" is?
A goal is the objective of an action. It is the sought-after, intended result. The OED says it is "the object to which effort or ambition is directed."
What you have B saying is that finding the Mine is both a goal and not a goal. Aristotle's Law of Identity clear makes such a statement absurd and nonsensical; an item or idea cannot both possess a property and not possess a property at the same time.
You would also seem to be implying that Lenski was lying by omission, given that developing cit+ bacteria was not a stated goal of his experiment when he started it. And he would also be lying currently, as would his associate Blount, who stated that such was not the case.
So what we have here is a logical absurdity based on a crazy asshole's inability to read, and completely unsubstantiated accusations of fraud towards highly respected scientists. You're both a moron and a liar.
What are you talking about? You're unblocked, you still got edit rights (for those not familiar with CP: It's the right to make edits after Andy's bedtime; something that is usually given only to people who suck up), so you're free to speak your mind.
Of course, the moment you dare to imply that Andy is not the greatest human being or that he may actually be wrong in any way, you will be bullied and banned quicker than you can write a blog post about it. The moment you criticize Andy, 90/10 will strike you down, regardless of your edit ratio (What, you actually thought those numbers mean anything? Pffffft.).
>>>>> You're unblocked, you still got edit rights <<<<<
Tney told me that I would be allowed to make two more posts and I've made them.
>>>>> or those not familiar with CP: It's the right to make edits after Andy's bedtime <<<<<<
So that's the reason for the no-nighttime-editing rule.
I think that this request for the raw data has really backfired on Andy. I see hardly anyone supporting the request and he is mostly just creating sympathy for Lenski et al. while hurting his own image.
You could create a few new articles over there before resuming the debate, you know? Your blog seems to have a lot of base material, and you're allowed to submit your own material even if you published it elsewhere before. CP lacks content (Gosh, I wonder why...), so showing your willingness to do more than just debating would go a long way. If you weren't blocked so far, you still got a good chance.
I fully agree on the last point! Andy chose the worst angle to attack Lenski's work and in turn potentially made ALL critics look silly.
Some consider the possibility that he just did it for the publicity. Even though you have to wonder if he thought that this sort of publicity is going to make CP look remotely trustworthy.
> I think that this request for the raw data has really backfired on Andy. <
Just as your demand for answers that were given and which you then ignored.
Anonymous said...
>>>>>> I think that this request for the raw data has really backfired on Andy. <
Just as your demand for answers that were given and which you then ignored. <<<<<
Wrong. Zachary Blount gave no answers or did not give straight answers to my questions. He made ambiguous and inconsistent statements about whether the Cit+ evolution was a goal and I asked him to clarify those statements and he answered by bibliography bluffing. He gave no answer at all to my questions about the purpose(s) of the glucose cycling. I have been over these facts many times.
Since you missed it, I'll repost.
Prospector A: What are you looking for?
Prospector B: Oil and The Lost Dutchman Mine. We won't claim the mine if we find it because finding it is not a goal.
That would mean Prospector B has two goals: finding oil, and finding the Mine. Do you seriously not understand what a "goal" is?
A goal is the objective of an action. It is the sought-after, intended result. The OED says it is "the object to which effort or ambition is directed."
What you have B saying is that finding the Mine is both a goal and not a goal. Aristotle's Law of Identity clear makes such a statement absurd and nonsensical; an item or idea cannot both possess a property and not possess a property at the same time.
You would also seem to be implying that Lenski was lying by omission, given that developing cit+ bacteria was not a stated goal of his experiment when he started it. And he would also be lying currently, as would his associate Blount, who stated that such was not the case.
So what we have here is a logical absurdity based on a crazy asshole's inability to read, and completely unsubstantiated accusations of fraud towards highly respected scientists. You're both a moron and a liar.
Some guy who lurks on CP said...
>>>>>> You could create a few new articles over there before resuming the debate, you know? Your blog seems to have a lot of base material, and you're allowed to submit your own material even if you published it elsewhere before. CP lacks content (Gosh, I wonder why...), so showing your willingness to do more than just debating would go a long way. <<<<<<
I guess that explains, but does not excuse, the 90/10 rule -- Schlafly wants more material in the articles to help CP catch up with Wikipedia in the topics where CP specializes. I would like to contribute to CP's articles but now I am really worried about CP's future because of this Lenski flap.
Let's try another example:
Wife: I'm going to the store!
Husband: Why are you going to the store?
Wife: We need milk and eggs.
(Wife goes to the store, comes home with milk, eggs, cheese and sugar.)
Husband: Why did you get cheese and sugar?
Wife: Well, they were there, and cheap, so I got them, you know how useful cheese and sugar are.
Husband: I know you like cheese. . .DID YOU GO TO THE STORE TO GET CHEESE??!?
Wife: Uh, no, it was just there, and cheap. . .so I got it.
Sorry, Erin, but Larry does not respond to people who so conclusively prove him wrong. Thus I go unanswered too.
Alas, alas!
> Sorry, Erin, but Larry does not respond to people who so conclusively prove him wrong. <
He calls them "cyberbullies".
>>>>>> He calls them "cyberbullies". <<<<<<
Dunghill, I have made it quite clear why I called Kevin Vicklund a cyberbully -- he frequently tries to get me kicked off of other blogs. And he is lying when he denies it.
Yar! Landsman!!
>>> I guess that explains, but does not excuse, the 90/10 rule -- Schlafly wants more material in the articles to help CP catch up with Wikipedia in the topics where CP specializes. I would like to contribute to CP's articles but now I am really worried about CP's future because of this Lenski flap. <<<
90/10 was created to censor people, nothing more. If you watch the talk pages and some of the related blocks, you will quickly realize that 90/10 is used whenever a non-sysop makes an excellent point that blows the argument of a sysop out of the water.
They don't even count edits or pretend they did; and they don't have to because nobody can effectively challenge it:
- They guy who got blocked can't reply or protest right away (except via mail, and you'd be surprised how quickly they drop the "family friendly" attitude there)
- Anybody else who protests the block will also get blocked under the very inofficial "Mind Your Own Business" rule.
- When the block expires, you can protest of course, but said protest post will be a talk edit, and you'll be 90/10'd again.
If I were you, I'd give it a try. If nothing else, you being banned would make it clear that you're not silently endorsing them. Especially now that Andy is apparently looking for legal means(!) to get to the data (see the front page).
Phae (10:09 AM): What you have B saying is that finding the Mine is both a goal and not a goal. Aristotle's Law of Identity ...
...
Larry (6:24 PM): Wrong. Zachary Blount gave no answers or did not give straight answers to my questions. ...
Apparently the Aristotle's Law of Identity citation actually slowed Larry down for a few hours. I attribute this to his two (2) remaining effective neurons. It is these, I think, that fascinate us so. Unfortunately they were no match for the other circuits. JS was slowed down for even longer; he may have five neurons uncompromised.
"Especially now that Andy is apparently looking for legal means(!) to get to the data (see the front page)."
Ugh. It's a damned shame that he's giving star billing to this folly. Most of the other stories there are mostly right, e.g.:
In the News
...
Those Mean-Spirited Liberals [13]
"Conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less... and even hug their children more than liberals."
P.S. The Guardian sucks, as does the NY Times.
Hmm, I seem to remember already giving an analogy that answers this, which Larry seems to have ignored (much like he tends to ignore anything else which points out how he's wrong), which I think is actually far more accurate. Mine didn't involve prospectors. To alter it to fit this form, it goes like this:
Traveller A: Where we going again?
Traveller B: To the town ten miles that way.
Traveller A: OK.
Traveller B: I just realised something. The Lost Dutchman Mine is around here somewhere. Wouldn't it be cool if we accidentally found it?
Traveller A: Yeah, it would.
*both walk on for a bit*
*Traveller B's leg suddenly goes through the ground. Traveller A pulls him out and peers through the hole*
Traveller A: You know something? I think this is the Lost Dutchman Mine.
*Both Travellers investigate what's down there*
Traveller B: Bloody hell, you're right, it is.
Some guy who lurks on CP said (Thursday, July 03, 2008 9:41:00 AM) --
>>>>> 90/10 was created to censor people, nothing more. If you watch the talk pages and some of the related blocks, you will quickly realize that 90/10 is used whenever a non-sysop makes an excellent point that blows the argument of a sysop out of the water. <<<<<<
Reminds me of the way that Wikipedia rules are arbitrarily used to "lawyer you to death" (in the words of radio talk show host Bill Greene). The Wickedpedia rules are invoked in astonishingly irrelevant situations -- for example, expressing your personal opinion on one of the talk (discussion) pages might be called a violation of the rule against "self-promotion." This blog has dozens of articles condemning Wickedpedia's arbitrary and unfair practices (the post labels are in the sidebar).
>>>>> If I were you, I'd give it a try. <<<<<
I don't want to waste my time contributing to articles in an online wiki encyclopedia that does not have fair practices and that might not have a future. Conservapedia had the potential to be a good alternative to Wikipedia on certain topics, but Schlafly is really blowing it with this Lenski affair.
>>>>> Especially now that Andy is apparently looking for legal means(!) to get to the data (see the front page). <<<<<
The main page says,
Conservapedia challenge: Who will be first to figure out a legal means for obtaining public disclosure of Lenski's underlying federally funded data?
>he (Kevin) frequently tries to get me kicked off of other blogs. And he is lying when he denies it. <
On the contrary, you are lying when you claim it. Please give us an example of where Kevin has tried to get you kicked off any blog. In the absense of such we will just have to assume that Kevin is telling the truth, as he normally does, and that you are lying, as you usually do.
>>>>> Please give us an example of where Kevin has tried to get you kicked off any blog. <<<<<
See this post and comment thread.
Apparently the Aristotle's Law of Identity citation actually slowed Larry down for a few hours. I attribute this to his two (2) remaining effective neurons. It is these, I think, that fascinate us so. Unfortunately they were no match for the other circuits. JS was slowed down for even longer; he may have five neurons uncompromised.
No, that response isn't even to me! He still hasn't deigned to reply to me on this, because he is so clearly in error. Larry appears to have the habit of arguing on a topic right up until he is made obviously wrong publicly, and then suddenly deciding someone is a troll and aren't worthy of a response. This trait is commonly known as "cowardice."
Thjank you for linking to the page that proves that I am telling the truth. As I have maintained from my very first comment on this blog on April 16, 2006, I:
1) have never tried to get Larry banned from a blog
2) tried to offer a Larry an incentive to prevent him from getting banned from PT
3) pointed out when Larry was posting on blogs where he had already ben banned
Larry even implicitly admitted that that was true in his response on the page he links to.
So, Larry, got any proof of your accusations, or are you just a bald-faced liar without a shred of credibility?
Kevin, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
Often, when I was commenting on a blog, you would point a finger at me, sayimg, "hey, it's Larry again, who was banned here."
>>>Kevin, you are so full of living crap that it is coming out your ears.
Often, when I was commenting on a blog, you would point a finger at me, sayimg, "hey, it's Larry again, who was banned here."<<<
Thank you for admitting that I am telling the truth.
>>>>> Thank you for admitting that I am telling the truth. <<<<<
Aha! So you admit your guilt.
>>>>> Thank you for admitting that I am telling the truth. <<<<<
Aha! So you admit your guilt.
Arguing with you is like playing chess with a child who doesn't know the rules. He lines you up, executes, and sits back with a smile. Then you reach forward with chocolate-stained fingers, a smile on your chubby face, and declare blithely, "King me!"
Yes, as I have freely and openly admitted since my first comment on this blog, I am "guilty" of never trying to get you banned, trying to prevent you from getting banned at PT, and pointing out when you were posting on blogs where you had already been banned.
>>>>> Please give us an example of where Kevin has tried to get you kicked off any blog. <<<<<
> See this post and comment thread. <
103 replies, most of which seem irrelevant. You asked for specific page numbers and were given them. Now be more specific yourself.
> Often, when I was commenting on a blog, you would point a finger at me, sayimg, "hey, it's Larry again, who was banned here." <
Larry admits sockpuppetry! This is clearly not a case of trying to get Larry banned as he had already been banned here. Kevin is only guilty of identifying a sockpuppet which is easy with Larry's characteristic insanity.
Observers should note that Larry has refused to address my point about how his example is absurdly, fatally flawed. He clearly has no answer yet is too cowardly to admit it.
Phae said...
>>>>>> Observers should note that Larry has refused to address my point about how his example is absurdly, fatally flawed. <<<<<<<
Dunghill, you are so full of living crap that I don't even bother reading most of your drivel anymore.
And why should I answer you when you say that you come here just to laugh at my answers, bozo?
Look at the gross double standard here -- it's OK when Blount does not answer my simple polite basic questions about the Cit+ study, but it's not OK when I don't answer trolls' rude stupid comments here.
And there's no rule that says bloggers have to answer any comments. There are lots of blogs where the bloggers rarely participate in the discussions -- Panda's Thumb, for example.
ViU drivels,
>>>>>> Larry admits sockpuppetry! <<<<<
You hypocritical jackass, all of your crap here has been Charlie McCarthyism -- you don't post under your real name.
And that sack of #@#@$ Kevin Vicklund would point a finger at me even when I was posting under my real name, doofus.
Dunghill, you are so full of living crap that I don't even bother reading most of your drivel anymore.
You should, because it shows how wrong you are on almost every conceivable turn. Your consistency is actually amazing.
And why should I answer you when you say that you come here just to laugh at my answers, bozo?
You really have no choice, because I make sense and make good points that tear yours apart. If you ignore them, then everyone can see that the real reason is that you have no answer for them and are too cowardly to admit it. Besides, if you stopped answering people who are here just to laugh at you, you'd have to stop replying to almost all of your comments. Because here's a hint: everyone laughs at you.
Observers should note that Larry has still refused to address my point about how his example is absurdly, fatally flawed. He clearly has no answer yet is too cowardly to admit it.
You added a bit while I was typing, it looks like.
Look at the gross double standard here -- it's OK when Blount does not answer my simple polite basic questions about the Cit+ study, but it's not OK when I don't answer trolls' rude stupid comments here.
Well, I tell you what: when you earn a doctorate and are discussing your experiments, I won't bother you with questions. But as long as you're Random Internet Jackass, you don't quite get the same defense.
Plus, he did answer your question, you just weren't capable of understanding the answer, as has been demonstrated repeatedly. Remember when I even walked you through the page numbers like you were an illiterate child so you could see how he told you the answers?
And there's no rule that says bloggers have to answer any comments. There are lots of blogs where the bloggers rarely participate in the discussions -- Panda's Thumb, for example.
Of course there's no rule. And you are absolutely free not to do so. I will, of course, continue to point out your glaring errors of logic and fact, and everyone will continue to see how stupid you are. You're really between a rock and a hard place, because if you don't answer you're a coward, and if you do answer you just keep looking stupider.
If it were not for my no-censorship policy, you lousy trolls' crap wouldn't even be here, so consider yourselves lucky.
Observers should note that Larry has still refused to address my point about how his example is absurdly, fatally flawed. He clearly has no answer yet is too cowardly to admit it.
Note he has responded to many other things I have said to which he had what he thought were clever replies, but not my substantive point. Undoubtedly, he is a coward.
> And that sack of #@#@$ Kevin Vicklund would point a finger at me even when I was posting under my real name, doofus. <
Show a place where he has done it or show yourself to be a coward and a liar.
>>>Show a place where he has done it or show yourself to be a coward and a liar.<<<
Careful, ViU. I freely admit to pointing out when Larry is commenting on a site where he is banned - it lets people know that the comment I am responding to is likely to disappear in the near future. It is his accusation that I have tried to get him banned that is false. Larry has been making this false accusation for over two years, and has never been able to back it up.
I'm beginning to notice a distinct pattern here - as soon as someone makes a point that irrefutably proves Larry wrong, he either goes deafeningly silent, or only responds by calling them 'trolls' or by making comments like 'if it were not for my no-censorship policy, you lousy trolls' crap wouldn't even be here, so consider yourselves lucky.'
>>>>>> I'm beginning to notice a distinct pattern here - as soon as someone makes a point that irrefutably proves Larry wrong, he either goes deafeningly silent, <<<<<<
Dunghill, read this blog's introduction again--
My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
My non-response to a comment does not mean that I have conceded anything. And I do participate in the discussions more than many or even most bloggers.
Larry fatuously flatulates...
>>>>>>Dunghill, read this blog's introduction again--
My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.
My non-response to a comment does not mean that I have conceded anything.<<<<<<
Well:
1) It must be by sheer coincidence, then, that every time someone points out how you are so absurdly wrong, you do one or more of the above things, and;
2) A failure by you to concede that you are wrong doesn't magically make you right. It just makes you seem too dumb to realise you're wrong.
"My non-response to a comment does not mean that I have conceded anything. And I do participate in the discussions more than many or even most bloggers."
OK, so you've made a disclaimer so as to never be shown to be wrong. EXCEPT that you respond to nearly every comment until someone makes one that is so irrefutable that it seems that you CANNOT and then you stop. We could probably do a study, write a paper on this phenomenon. . .but you wouldn't read it, so it would seem a futile effort, at best.
>>>>>>"My non-response to a comment does not mean that I have conceded anything. And I do participate in the discussions more than many or even most bloggers."
OK, so you've made a disclaimer so as to never be shown to be wrong. <<<<<<<<
You stupid fathead, I didn't say or imply that.
>>>>>> EXCEPT that you respond to nearly every comment until someone makes one that is so irrefutable that it seems that you CANNOT and then you stop. <<<<<<<
No, dunghill, there are a lot of discussions that I don't enter at all. And there are different reasons why I might stop commenting in a discussion: a comment is too stupid to answer, I get fed up with a discussion because a comment is so stupid, or I just get tired of answering. I have a lot of things to do other than answer the comments of trolls. And no comment that you trolls post here is irrefutable.
"You stupid fathead, I didn't say or imply that."
You DIDN'T?!? I'm so surprised that you don't admit it. Also, glad to see you're back to resorting to calling me names. As usual name calling and ad hominem attacks are especially effective. (for all you non-Larry types, note the transition to the name calling phase previously discussed)
"No, dunghill, there are a lot of discussions that I don't enter at all. And there are different reasons why I might stop commenting in a discussion: a comment is too stupid to answer, I get fed up with a discussion because a comment is so stupid, or I just get tired of answering. I have a lot of things to do other than answer the comments of trolls. And no comment that you trolls post here is irrefutable."
Well, based on your responses. . .you kind of sound like a child who's stomping his feet and saying "I'M NOT WRONG! I'M NOT WRONG! I'M NOT WRONG!" Now, I'm not saying that's not an effective strategy, but it does kind of make you look like a four year old.
But, to refute it point by point:
Where are these discussions that you allegedly "don't enter at all?" Could you please show me one?
Is there some reason that your "fed-up" and "deciding that it's stupid" times coincide with the best points that us "darwinists" make?
Also, considering that "have better things to do than answer the comments of trolls" you seem to do it an awful lot.
Finally, if **none** of our comments are refutable, let's start with your refuting. . .
Phae saying:
What you have B saying is that finding the Mine is both a goal and not a goal. Aristotle's Law of Identity clear makes such a statement absurd and nonsensical; an item or idea cannot both possess a property and not possess a property at the same time.
(July 02, 2008 10:09:00 AM)
Please do note how long ago that was. Also how many comments LF has made since then (13).
Post a Comment
<< Home