Talk:E. coli long-term evolution experiment

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specific Mutation[edit]

Have they discovered the specific mutations that allowed for the metabolizm of citrate?

Not yet, I assume that will be the next in the series of papers. If I had to hazard a guess I would predict that it will be a mutation that changes the specificity of a sugar transporter. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should mention be made of the... interesting, to use a non-controversial word, criticism of the evolutionary changes, as mentioned by the lunatics in Conservapedia? Darkmind1970 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If their "criticism" ever makes its way into a reliable source, perhaps. However, the fact that some cranks can set up a website to publish their opinions isn't a reason to pay them any heed in a serious science article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The events in question are discussed in the conservapedia article. Though that discussion does not seem to use what I would consider the best source, which is this one [1]. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"a contributor suggested the exchange was making the site look bad" - sadly true, it certainly has shaken my previously naive belief in their stellar scientific credentials. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the 'debate' / 'controversy' over this experiment should be mentioned in this article. Or at least a link to another page that specifically discusses that 'debate'. It isn't relevant to the science itself but is relevant to the experiment in the broadest sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.14.219.137 (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no debate/controversy over the experiment. Just a crank site, of which there are thousands in the internet, not many of them worth mentioning in Wikipedia. At least, not their cranky opinions ;-) 201.216.245.25 (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. What those people think is really not at all relevant to the real world. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Schlafly-Lenski dialog appropriate as an external link from this article on the science? While it's certainly entertaining in its own way, and suitable for discussion in the Conservapedia article, I don't think it adds anything that a person interested in reading more about the science would find useful. Tasty monster (TS on one of those new fangled telephone thingies) 01:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind on this a little. In his recent book on the evidence for evolution Richard Dawkins gives a detailed account of Lenski's main experiment and some of the most important side experiments including Blount's detailed examination of the evolution of the efficient aerobic metabolism of the citrate medium. As a brief coda he discusses the Schlafly'sfly silliness. I think Dawkins work would make an excellent source for this article and his characterization of Schlafly is eminently quotable. Tasty monster (=TS ) 16:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Schlafly ordeal[edit]

Shouldn't the whole so-called "Lenski affair" be included here? It was widely written about on the internet at the time it happened. It was an exchange between Andrew Schlafly, the creator of Conservapedia, and Richard Lenski about the data from the experiment. Here is a transcript of their correspondence: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog Wikipediarules2221 02:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think we should. Although I applaud Dr. Lenski's patience with Schlafly and how he explained his data to a layman, this article is about the experiment itself, not about some ignorant person's claims. --Thorwald (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should, under a "Controversy" section. The theory of evolution, and the teaching of evolution, is under threat by people such as Schafly. Indeed, he argued that the experiment *was* controversial, so its inclusion under that heading would be NPOV, in an ironic way. Thus those searching for controversy regarding "evilution" might be educated as to the true controversy, thus fulfilling Wikipedia's aims, no? Bpdlr (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The affair is adequately dealt with on the Conservapedia page. That's a better link under "See also" than the current link to Schafly's page. Chris55 (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I added the "See Also" link as I was too lazy to create a "Controversy" section myself. But it makes sense that the "Dialogue with Lenksi" section on Schlafly's page should be linked to a "Dialogue with Schlalfly" section on Lenski's page. Or am I too big a fan of symmetry? Bpdlr (talk) 18:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Chris55. The affair is already dealt with just fine on the Conservapedia page. Schafly is not a scientist. He is just a layperson with an agenda. Should the article on Earth have a section on the "Controversy" dealing with flat-Earthers? It may not be the best analogy . . . but the point remains: This article is about the experiment. If there are reservations, challenges, other theories by real scientists out there about this experiment, then we should include them. Schafly's criticisms are irrelevant and should be ignored. --Thorwald (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a more neutral "Request for data by.." is appropriate and have changed it to suit. It wasn't really a dialogue was it. Chris55 (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New results[edit]

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/71318/title/In_evolution%2C_last_really_can_be_first A. Z. Colvin • Talk 06:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corresponding peer-reviewed journal article: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6023/1433 , doi:10.1126/science.1198914 —Keenan Pepper 22:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate[edit]

“Wild type E. coli cannot transport citrate across the cell membrane to the cell interior (where it could be incorporated into the citric acid cycle) when oxygen is present”

A revision may be needed on this statement (see below).

“The incidence of citrate-positive E. coli variants is reported to be very rare (2, 10). In the present study, citrate-positive E. coli variants were isolated from pigeons, pigs, a cow, and a horse with high frequency” - Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Aug. 1978 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC291204/pdf/aem00244-0013.pdf

“Atypical E. coli capable of utilizing citrate has been isolated from a variety of agricultural, laboratory, and clinical settings” - Journal of Bacteriology, Dec. 1983 - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC217945/pdf/jbacter00241-0049.pdf

Artcomp (talk) 21:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure the term "wild type" referred too here is the "common" type found in the wild. These sources clearly that these are "very rare" and "atypical" thus NOT wild-type. The statement is fine. Inclusion of the information that these mutations can and do occur in the wild, is valid with these sources probably, but it doesn't invalidate the findings of this experiment, since the starting E. coli in the experiment was citrate-negative and later became citrate-positive. — raekyt 00:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even though one study found Cit+ E. coli with “high frequency”, I agree the statement is fine if it can be tempered by adding “these mutations can and do occur in the wild “. - Artcomp (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Andrew Schlafly's nonsense[edit]

I removed the link to Andrew Schlafly's nonsense that he tried with the organizer of this experiment stating it wasn't that notable to this experiment. Chris55 reverted it staying it is notable. The same user also reverted another removal of it last November. Seems in Feb 2011 after a new user Bpdlr made an error inserting it into the article, Chris55 corrected the link and it has remained in the article since. I challenge that the notability of this is limited mostly to Andrew Schlafly and maybe, by extension, Richard Lenski (but there is strong consensus against adding it there by it's editors). As for a reader coming to Wikipedia to read about this E. coli experiment the encyclopedic value of a link to this information is non-existent. The link only serves to discredit Andrew Schlafly, and provides no insight to the science or understanding of this article. What value is it to the understanding of the reader of this subject, or even further exploration of this subject that a reader would need to link to Andrew Schlafly's page? Per WP:SEEALSO, "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic." I don't see, even a comprehensive expansion of this article would include this information? — raekyt 22:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe on Lenski's bio. Not here. Guettarda (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The malign influence of creationism on public life in the US is an important issue and this experiment is clearly capable of putting another nail in its coffin as is shown by the almost hysterical reaction to it in some quarters. The link has no relevance to the science but it does to general policy. Hence it is worth while for people reading the article from those viewpoints to be pointed at the general discussion of the issues raised. Chris55 (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then by that reasoning every article we have on biology should link to Objections to evolution, since evolution is the corner stone of all biology, and makes no sense without it. The article makes plenty of links to evolution articles, there the reader can learn more about the public's perception. Wikipedia is not a United States site, and it's irrelevant what the ad populum's opinion is for one country. — raekyt 22:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, to most of that. Chris55 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly not helpful to the argument. YEC's reject evolution and geologic time, and all kinds of scientific stuff, we don't need rebuttals and links to their crap in every article about every aspect of science they may object too... So what other argument you have for the inclusion of this link, because that one is very weak. — raekyt 16:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments were invalid inferences from my comment which is why I thought No enough of an answer. The link is to a Wikipedia article discussing the topic of this particular article and that should be enough justification. An encyclopedia is not about people taking sides. Chris55 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris55: A few sections back, you wrote "The affair is adequately dealt with on the Conservapedia page". I agree with the old Chris55. I also think that links or references to any YEC material should never be included in a scientific article. It would be somewhat like adding a "See also: Flat earth controversy" to the Earth article (well, not the same, but you get my point). This article should stick to the actual experiment in question. --Thorwald (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Thorwald, the next sentence I wrote there was 'That's a better link under "See also" than the current link to Schafly's page.' It's still linked to the Conservapedia page. So I'm still the same Chris! I still don't like a "Controversy" emphasis because it's likely to get confused with a 'scientific controversy' which it isn't. But if you follow the links you'll find Lenski's very amusing and tolerant treatment of his ill-considered questions. I notice that someone has now linked it to the original page - I wonder how long before it'll be to the archive. Chris55 (talk) 23:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incubator picture[edit]

@Zaalis: I'm also new at this, but wikipedia requires statements need to be backed, that much I know. I think that it would be best if you could provide a citation for the incubator picture. As to whether you can post your own work, I admit my ignorance - I know that one's own pictures can be released for use to wikipedia (copyright is involved), but there's a complex question of secondary vs. primary sources I haven't understood. WP relies on secondary sources a lot more heavily than primary ones.

Now that I stop to think about it, this is more complex than I thought: none of the other four pictures on the page seem to provide a citation, and two of them showing otherwise nondescript Erlenmeyer flasks, with no indication whatsoever about their relation to the LTEE. Honestly, I am no longer sure - we should check deeper. Meanwhile, I can't object to you uploading a picture with Dr. Lenski in it; there's, however, to think that all the pictures currently on the pages might be challenged as soon as someone with a better grounding than I am takes a look at them.

I also apologize, Zaalis, for not having thought out all the consequences. 79.49.120.161 (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@79.49.120.161
Oh, dear, source editing... I hope this ends up readable... This is fairly confusing. Wikipedia seemed so easy! I'm sure we can figure it out. I thought that it was okay to put in photos once I had put them onto Wikimedia Commons. I didn't think of the citations issue. I actually work on the project, which is why I can take such photos, post them, and know that they are what I say they are, but proving it to others? That's kinda difficult. The photos that are currently up I can definitely vouch for. All of them have appeared in articles on the experiment, and the flask photos were taken in the lab by our old tech, Brian Baer, who has photo credit on them. The information associated with the posted photos mentions this, I believe. As far as I know, Brian and Rich released all of them for free use.
I hope I haven't been too pedantic in my edits and edit conflicts with you. I only just last week noticed how little the article had been fleshed out, and am working on improving it as I am able amidst lab work, writing, and so on. I know that, being as immersed in it all as I am, I can sometimes get hung up on certain details. Thank you for challenging me on them. It has made me think more deeply about what I am adding.
Zaalis (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then it might be easier than I thought. The articles those pictures appeared in can be quoted; you're in a better position to do so than I am. On a second thought, if the incubator pic has appeared somewhere, it's easiest to quote it, otherwise a release in the public domain might be a good idea. There's something about it, very generic, in the help files. This shows my own inexperience, since it should have surfaced earlier, but is the incubator notable enough for the article? I've seen as many, if not more, challenges on notability as there are on copyright issues.
Don't worry about pedantic - this seems to be a functional editing collaboration, with a view on improving the article rather than fighting with each other. WP is definitely difficult, not exactly peer-reviewed as a journal article should be, it shares many peer review's features. 79.49.120.161 (talk) 07:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys. Check out WP:IUP for guidance on image issues. One thing that I can see is that in wikipedia, everyone is anonymous and so anyone can create an account and become an impostor and add any image by claiming they are someone "close" to the subject. That is one reason why images that are specialized, like the incubator from Lenski's lab, should be from a reliable source that also avoids all copyright issues. If one is not sure if the image meets such criteria, then one should avoid adding the image to be safe. If you look at other science articles, they usually do not have lots of images either way. Just a few thoughts.Mayan1990 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point and the problem. I have been adding only images and photos that have first been placed into free use on Wikimedia commons. I will see what I can do to be able to provide citations and a clear tie-back to Lenski and his colleagues to prove provenance. That said, I do see the point about the incubator. That was an idea that wasn't full thought through. We get requests for photos of it for teachers to use in classes, so I figured it would be interesting enough to include. Again, thank you both for your help and advice. Zaalis (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mayan1990:I changed out the photo of Lenski's page. It could replace the one you deleted on the LTEE page. It shows not only flasks, but also the incubator used in the experiment. I'll trust your judgement on whether or not it is worthwhile. I can see both sides, but that photo is an option. Zaalis (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental methods[edit]

May just be a cosmetic objection, but I find the mention of glucose and citrate concentrations in the experimental methods section unnecessary.

Wikipedia's target is not so much a trained microbiologist which may want to replicate an experiment, and therefore in need to know all the relevant details but a more or less informed lay person who may want to learn more about the topic. It is enough for the layperson to know that glucose is the growth-limiting factor and why and that citrate is non-limiting and why. Their actual concentration are a distraction, in my opinion.

79.49.120.161 (talk) 11:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@79.49.120.161 I see your point. They are small details, but I think they are worth including due to the importance of the small amount of glucose relative citrate to understanding the citrate work. Would making a statement regarding the amount of citrate relative glucose be okay in your estimation? That would avoid exact amounts while preserving an understanding of something that I think is fairly important. Your thoughts? Zaalis (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think so, yes. 79.49.120.161 (talk) 15:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again. Zaalis (talk) 16:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 79.49.120.161 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline picture[edit]

Any possibility to get important events of the experiment in the timeline pic? Appearance of cit+, mutator genotypes, whatever other mutation that can appear here? As it is, the timeline does not add much to the article. 79.49.120.161 (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's something I plan to do, but it takes time to dig those details out of the records. As it stands, I thought including the timeline gives a better visual representation of the temporal scope of the experiment, which I think can be difficult to visualize from just the text. Zaalis (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will let you guys experiment with the timeline. The length can be enlarged a bit further, but also it may look different and squished when others use a different browser or monitor screen (non-wide screen). It may be wiser to shape the timeline into vertical rather than horizontal configuration. It would be visually easier and important landmarks can be read easier there too. Or it can be chopped into sections. As long as we have the data and landmarks from one reliable source and does not infringe on copyright, it should be ok. Be careful not to combine data from many sources to make a new timeline because that would be WP:SYN and for sure WP:OR - a wikipedia editor making a conclusion or summary that is not found in any of the original sources, nor is it presented as such in the original sources.Mayan1990 (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Will do Zaalis (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IP jump - electricity went missing for a few minutes. Ramos/Mayan, my idea was to provide in the timeline picture the highlights of the experiment - the most important mutations recorded and published in the literature. Something like a list of the US presidents since Washington or the battles in WWII. Semiraw data, I guess it could be named, and it is likely they haven't all been published in the same paper. I am not sure how this can contravene SP:SYN or WP:OR. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy circumvent, as I can work that up, get it posted to a lab website, and make it available under a free use license. It's something I've been meaning to do in general, both for the use of lab folk as well as educators, other researchers, and the like. But like I said, it takes some digging to assemble, so it will take a bit to find the time to put it together. (I'm really busy with lab work right now.) Zaalis (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 87.6.135.76, the SYN policy says Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. This can apply to the timeline if an editor goes out of his way to compile a history of the LTEE from multiple sources that, of course, do not necessarily focus on the history explicitly. It is safer to use an already existing image that summarizes the history and does not have copyright issues. In many instances, when we summarize things as an image, they do imply original research because the editor is selecting the material that is both featured and left out. The Science page used to have a seemingly innocent collage of many scientists, which you would think would be acceptable. But people got into issues of who belonged there and who did not. Eventually it got removed from that page. The timeline at the moment is found on two sources already so it seems like it was done right. If Zaalis can add a history to the timeline and put it in a reliable source, then it should be ok.Mayan1990 (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Putting a timeline together in my capacity as a researcher, and then making it available for use here is what I was thinking. I figured that would be okay given that the synthesis it would involve would not be done by me acting as a Wikipedia contributor. A bit round about, but I understand the need to go that way. After your informing me of the policy, I'm really trying to stick to it. Just be sure to let me know if I get too close to any lines. Thanks as always for weighing in and giving advice! Zaalis (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know how the new version looks to you. I'll tweak it more later. I hope it isn't a problem that it refers to published findings that I haven't had a chance to incorporate into the article just yet. Zaalis (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Zaalis. The WP:SYN does not apply here because you (Zaalis) are not compiling or combining sources. From wikipedia's standpoint, you merely cited the source (Blount Lab) which already had the image (assuming no copyright issues are involved). The source itself (Blount Lab) can do or say whatever it wants. You as an editor on wikipedia are merely citing the source to give credit where the image came from - like quoting something and providing a citation for the quotation.
I will say that the image is from a relevant and "acceptable" source in this case. In general, blogs (self-published material) are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia, but I think "Blount Lab" would fit under the "exception" part of WP:UGC in this particular article. I don't think anyone will object to it. Does this help?
Yup, it does. I just wanted to check and make sure that I was doing it correctly. I'm learning, it seems! Zaalis (talk) 01:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking so long to answer - computer was out for repair. The timeline looks good, and thanks to Ramos for explaining.

Only point, a cosmetic one, is that the timeline picture pushes the Erlenmeyer flask picture too far away from the lead, where it belongs, in my opinion - I've commented out the link. I find that two pictures of Erlenmeyer flasks, albeit at different points in time, are too many for this article, the level of detail does not warrant it - I'd keep the second picture only. It's cosmetically more pleasant. but it's my own opinion, feel free to disagree. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep both photos of flasks. The first one is to show what the twelve population flasks look like as a whole, to give a sense of what the visual reality of the experiment is. The second photo is to show the increased turbidity of the citrate-using population. They provide different information, so I think they should both remain. I agree that it is probably a good idea to move the timeline down so that the 12 flask photo can be at the top. Thoughts? (I hope your computer is working well again!) Zaalis (talk) 15:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Try this alternative. There should be another pic on the left, I think, but there are only four pictures in total, and adding one or two might overcrowd the article. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yes the computer works again. Thank you for the concern. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that looks good. I don't think the photos or figures overwhelm the article. The ones that are there are not extraneous, and add to what a reader can get out of it. Moreover, they help to break up the text, though I admit that's just an aesthetic judgment. Thank you for the edit, and I am glad your computer is working again. I know how frustrating it can be when they are down. Zaalis (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as it is, there aren't too many pictures on the article. Might do some good to add a couple more; you're in a better position to judge than I am. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed the "only" in what you wrote. (A consequence of replying on the fly.) I do plan to add some more figures when I have time to add some visuals for the research findings. A colleague also has taken some good EMs of REL606, and I think one would be a good addition to the article, too. I'll get to that soon or later, and I look forward to your thoughts and suggestions when I do! Zaalis (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is it my browser or is the "Lead" and the "Table of Contents" in the center between the two images? All wikipedia articles have the Table of Contents and Lead to the left as the standard (click any wikipedia article or any of the blue links inside the article - for instance Experimental evolution, Anaerobic digestion). If the pictures are getting too crowded, try to distribute them into the article where there is more space available. One need not have too many images at the top since people will usually look into the article to get more details either way. The Lead is relatively short so reading into the article is what most readers will naturally do. The timeline seems better fit for the results section since it has lots of space and the timeline does reflect more results than anything else.Mayan1990 (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's your browser. I'm using Firefox, and it shows the twelve flask photo at the top, with the lead below it, and then the table of contents below, oriented to the left. Your point about the timeline is good, though, and I'll move it down. Zaalis (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm..I used Firefox and Chrome and I still got the flask picture on the left and the Lead + Table of Contents on the center/right. Let me try to move the picture to the right so everything else is on the left by default. This will make it like all other wikipedia articles when they start. You can probably adjust the picture size if you want.Mayan1990 (talk) 04:11, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weird. It's definitely fixed now, and I seem to be seeing it like you are since your edit. I increased the size a bit, but otherwise didn't change the location. Thanks for noticing the placement issue! Zaalis (talk) 05:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am responsible for the flask picture being on the left - but the toc was _below_ it. Glad that it has been fixed. :) 87.6.135.76 (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the cell size figure to the right! I agree with you on the alternation between sides, too. Zaalis (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Lenski affair"[edit]

I'm wondering whether it is worth its while to link to the lenski affair section in the conservapedia page either here or on the lenski page. I'll welcome any imput. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So long as it is a small and unobtrusive reference to the affair, I could see a good argument for linking in both articles. After all, the exchange was triggered by the announcement of the initial Cit+ findings, and there are a lot of people out there who only know of Lenski because of the exchange and its coverage on the web. That's my two cents at least. Zaalis (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Me included. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Nice. I would say that's another argument for linking! Zaalis (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added reference to the Schlafly dialog to the Lenski article. I couldn't find a way of including it in the LTEE article that wasn't jarring as it stands. I think it would be best to first create a section dealing with reactions to the experiment, including media coverage. A section of that could cover creationist reactions, and the dialog could be incorporated there. Thoughts? Zaalis (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia#Lenski dialogue is already available, I should have provided the link earlier.

But perhaps a paragraph like this? I apologize if I'm not fleshing it out, but my days of scientific writing are long over. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good placeholder until one of us gets around to writing up that section. I wonder about the "controversy" label, though. Schlafly and other creationists who have attacked or misused the LTEE generally don't have actual arguments, and just attack, often while not understanding the experiment. In science, there really isn't any controversy regarding the experiment, though there are some biologists who dismiss all experimental evolution work. Hmm... This is one of those areas where wording can get tricky. No worries on not fleshing it out. There's a goodly bit to summarize for that section. Did you leave academia for greener pastures? Zaalis (talk) 07:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, it's been reverted on a dubious interpretation of the guidelines - someone who didn't bother checking out whether there was work in progress, that is. Not going to enter *this* particular quagmire, since it was just a placeholder to let you know the direction I thought useful for the article. I don't think it was a controversy either, it was just the first label that came into my mind. "Dialogue" as it is termed in other articles is perfectly fine and probably more neutral as required by wp.
Okay. We'll deal with that stuff later, then. The link is there at the bottom, and I think it should be. That will do for now. For the record, I really find fights on technicalities tiresome. I think staying out of quagmires is a good thing. (Discretion, valor, and all that.) Zaalis (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Greener pastures", sounds better than what actually happened; we may leave it at that. 87.6.135.76 (talk)
Oh, dear. Whatever it was, I am sorry you had to deal with it. I hope you might one day relate it to me. Zaalis (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing special, don't worry. But it's still irking me after twenty years. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 07:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you shifted the "Implications" portion of the citrate work. I made that a sub-section of the genomic analysis section, as the implications were really those drawn out of the genomic analysis work, and were explicated in the same paper. It seemed more logical to have it nested that way. Is that just me, or does it make sense to you, too? Zaalis (talk) 07:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to that - the headings for x.x and x.x.x paragraphs are very similar in font andsize, and that the x.x.x. is a subheading of x.x shows clearly only on the toc. So it was just a cosmetic correction. I don't remember the technicalities required to change the x.x.x level of headings, so for the moment I've merged the two paragraphs together. Will look deeper later on. 87.6.135.76 (talk) 12:02, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think the merging is a good compromise for now. Zaalis (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

60,000 generations; 18 October 2017[edit]

"Evolution experiment has now followed 68,000 generations of bacteria". Ars Technica. 22 October 2017. Retrieved 3 November 2017. . . . Good, Benjamin H.; McDonald, Michael J.; Barrick, Jeffrey E.; Lenski, Richard E.; Desai, Michael M. (18 October 2017). "The dynamics of molecular evolution over 60,000 generations". Nature. 551 (7678). Springer Nature: 45–50. doi:10.1038/nature24287. ISSN 0028-0836. . . . dave souza, talk 07:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Schlafly again[edit]

Like several other people who have commented over the years, I am surprised that there is no mention of Andrew Schlafly's "critique". I realise that appropriate information is included at "Richard Lenski" and "Conservapedia#Lenski_dialogue". Nevertheless, I think that the "dialogue" is famous enough to justify a single sentence in this article, with a link to the Conservapedia subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment&oldid=1196144378"