Wednesday, March 18, 2015

Richard Lenski answers questions about the long-term evolution experiment (LTEE)

Richard Lenski has a blog called Telliamed Revisited. He's been answering questions about his long-term evolution experiment and the latest answers are at: Questions from Jeremy Fox about the LTEE, part 2.
"Did the LTEE have any hypotheses initially, and if so, how were you going to test them?

Short answer: Yes, the LTEE had many hypotheses, some pretty clear and explicit, some less so. (What, did you think I was swimming completely naked?)"

Well worth reading ....


  1. Thanks, Larry, for this post. There are now four parts in my reply to these questions:
    Part 1
    Part 2
    Part 3
    Part 4

    1. Thanks for supplying the additional links.

      We spend quite a bit of time discussing your experiments in my molecular evolution class. I wish that everyone knew about them and appreciated the impact they've had on the entire field of evolutionary biology.

    2. As a layperson but a lover of science, I can say that whenever I want to give an example of careful, "elegant" modern scientific experiments, I point to these.

    3. How many organisms were involved in this socalled LTEE?

      And how does this number reflect primate evolution?

  2. In the last 15 posts on Sandwalk 8 have been about ID or creation, garnering 600+ comments. The non ID creation comments are a lonely 67. At what point is this blog labeled as a gang of self proclaimed intellectual giants bullying a group they consider to be "IDiots"? Is this really what you created this blog for professor? I can tell you speaking as a non scientist it's very unattractive. I really believe you're better than this and can use your knowledge in a better way. Unless your goal is simply to advance atheism? I'm just curious.

    1. One of my objectives is to respond to the claims of Intelligent Design Creationists and show why they are wrong. I think it's important not to let those claims go unchallenged.

      It's unfortunate that the IDiots making those claims are so stupid and uninformed because I'd really like to have a good debate. They invite riducule and mockery and that's a very appropriate response given the quality of posts on the main creation websites.

      The solution is obvious, isn't it? The best way to avoid being made to look like a fool is to make a strong rational case for intelligent design. You are more than welcome to make this attempt on my blog but don't expect to be treated with kid gloves. Creationists themselves made the decision to attack scientists with every trick in the book. They have no right to whine about getting a taste of their own medicine.

    2. Creationists should make up their minds. If they are given no attention, they complain of a conspiracy of silence. If they are given full attention, they don't like it either. Why is practically every OP at Uncommon Descent devoted to why mainstream science is wrong rather than what their alternative science buys us (or what exactly it is, in the first place)?

    3. Why are there so many OPs on UD about Darwin-Nazism and godbelief if ID is about science?

    4. Hey Beau,

      Why is it that the bulk of the comments made by IDiots are tone trolling, hand wringing, pearl clutching, self pitying missives devoid of any actual intellectual content ?

      And do you think Beau that you are possibly the least qualified person in the known universe to be offering advice on how Larry should comport himself ?

      What's next, tips on biblically inspired child rearing ?

    5. Beau says: "a gang of self proclaimed intellectual giants". This is false. We have never once proclaimed ourselves "intellectual giants", but we can recognize a real giant when we see one. Lenski is such a giant; most of us are not. Your use of the propaganda term "gang" is as commonly used on Fox News and rightist radio.

      This blog is frequented by REAL scientists and REAL experts in the relevant fields. Larry, Joe F, John H, Nick Matzke and some others are indisputably real experts in the fields relevant to disputing Intelligent Design.

      The same is not true of ANY Intelligent Design blog. ANY. At Uncommon Descent, they constantly falsify or inflate credentials of posters and commenters. Photographer Laszlo Bencze becomes a philosopher. An electrical engineer who works on semiconductors becomes an expert on exoplanets. Their resident "physicist", Rob Sheldon, has his authority invoked to prove that life violates SLOT. Joe G calls himself a research scientist doing classified research; so far as we can tell, he has no papers, no patents, no software-- he might have been an electronics engineer; he definitely lost his job because of making internet threats from his work computer; I suspect he is now a handyman, to judge from some hints he drops.

      The Discovery Institute is worse. They are full of lawyers and always hiring more. They call philosopher David Berlinski a mathematician. They call lawyer Casey Luskin a scientist. William Dembski is called a "leading scientist" by Christian rags. Philosopher Stephen Meyer is a called a scientist. Their associate at IDnet in the Midwest, lawyer John Calvert, calls himself a geologist because of a bachelor's degree earned a half century ago. And so on.

      UD and the DI are obsessed, obsessed, with authority and with falsifying or inflating credentials.

      If egomania and authority bother you so much, Beau, I dare you to go over to UD and yell at the narcissistic Dunning-Kruger IDiot egomaniacs over there.

  3. Why is practically every OP at Uncommon Descent devoted to why mainstream science is wrong rather than what their alternative science buys us (or what exactly it is, in the first place)?

    This, I believe, is known as a "rhetorical question." :-)

  4. Lenski's work is absolutely fantastic! Many people are probably jealous about it - "why didn't I think of something this simple?" A single paper describing its results is worth roughly 1000 papers from various genome analysts publishing their "signatures" of this and that.