Talk:Richard Lenski

Untitled

I think the entire "Conservapedia Correspondence" section needs to go. I don't want to prematurely erase someone's work, but I question the encyclopedic necessity of including the fact that a non scientist wants to examine Dr. Lenski's work for himself.

It seems that the only purpose for the section is to draw attention to the website Conservapedia and their self-created "controversy" that is, in contrast to their claims, certainly NOT in the "public" interest. Therefore it must go. Enjo626 (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been reported in pharyngula. Does that make it sufficiently notable?--British cons (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I would argue not that it becomes notable because of pharyngula, but that it is clearly now a notable incident with multiple reports across the web and that pharyngula has been used many times as a source across Wikipedia. So yes, I think it should stay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If any thing it should be moved into the Conservapedia article as he real coverage on this incident is about how stupid conservapedia and Lenski is is just a channel for this. -Icewedge (*bleet*) 18:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

blogging about something does not come close to making it notable; all it proves is that way too many people have way too much time on their hands.  :=)

I really don't think that the fact that someone wrote a letter to Prof. Lenski and he responded makes it noteworthy. All it does is draw attention to the "opposing side" of the "debate." And the article entry for Prof. Lenski is not the place for said "debate." It is unfortunate that a very small group of people have taken it upon themselves to make personal attacks on someone, but it happens to every single public figure and so frequently that it would be impossible to document them all.

So I still don't think this article is the place for mentioning a random website that has absolutely nothing at all to do with Prof. Lenski and his work. If everyone disagrees and says its notable then do whatever but I feel senior editors will agree that it isn't and remove it. Enjo626 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What is notable is Lenski's long response letters. Since they were authored by Prof. Lenski and in his own words (see below) he wished them publicized, I would consider it as important as any of his other publications and worthwile leaving in his article. Nevertheless I think way too much space has been used for it the paragraph should be shortened to a sentence or two with an external link. 132.77.4.43 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

"I expect you to post my response in its entirety; if not, I will make sure that is made publicly available through other channels." -Lenski

I don't mind one way or another if it's purged, but I now notice the references have been removed and the section is now bare. What makes Lenski notable for his own article now? Does he satisfy WP:PROF? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ars Technica has discussed the Conservapedia issue at length [1], which might push this issue into noteworthy territory (or at least give it a SS verifiability). Richard Cooke (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

showed speciation of E. coli

“Andy Schlafly, the founder and owner of wiki Conservapedia, entered into correspondence with Richard Lenski about the results of the E. coli long-term evolution experiment which showed speciation of E. coli bacteria over 10,000 generations.”

The statement “showed speciation” maybe incorrect when Lenski himself indicates there is not a new distinct species at this time.

“Will the Cit+ and Cit− lineages eventually become distinct species? According to the biological species concept widely used for animals and plants, species are recognized by reproductive continuity within species and reproductive barriers leading to genetic isolation between species (67). Although the bacteria in the LTEE are strictly asexual, we can nonetheless imagine testing this criterion by producing recombinant genotypes. “

“If the Cit+ lineage is indeed evolving into a new species, then we expect, with time, that more and more of the beneficial mutations substituted in that lineage would be detrimental in the ecological and genetic context of its Cit− progenitor.” - Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli, April 2008, contributed by Richard E. Lenski - http://www.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899.full — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artcomp (talk • contribs) 22:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The biological definition of species doesn't apply to bacteria and other asexual reproducing organisms, and I can't really find this information in the source, so it should probably be removed since its silly to state that it's a new species when we're discussing bacteria, at least under the biological definition of a species. All bacteria that can interchange plasmids could be considered the same species where as any novel difference between populations of bacteria like tese Cit+ and Cit- variations could be considered different species. Regardless, there is plenty of observed speciation events, and this isn't one. — raekyt 00:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Schlafly nonsense again.

Although there is clearly no consensus to include a mention of Andrew Schlafly's attempt to discuss science with this distinguished scientist, it has recently been stuck back in. I have removed it because it is clearly giving rather grossly undue weight to an incident of ankle-worrying. --Tasty monster (=TS ) 04:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Major changes

I think that the Schlafy section should be replaced with a section on the experiment.142.22.115.49 (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)21:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. How can the introduction say that the experiments were his most famous contribution, while barely having any detailed information on it. 069952497a (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Either he should be wp:merged into the experiment page if there isn't really anything else hes notable for, or expand the article with his other works. The Conservapedia stuff has consistently been removed because no consensus for it's adding, read the rest of the talk page. — raekyt 18:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

E. coli experiment and Conservapedia

This edit which I made about the Conservapedia dialogue issue has been deleted since no consensus has been reached. However, I also made this edit about the E. coli experiment, which was also deleted, even though the experiment is clearly relevant to this article. Thus, I have restored the section about the experiment. In addition, I believe that the dialogue with Conservapedia should be summarized in a sentence or so at the end of the article, since it has received some coverage, while a paragraph would give it undue weight. 069952497a (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

A link to Conservapedia#Lenski_dialogue would be least intrusive, but consensus on the page (read everything above) is that it's not worth including. It's notable for Conservapedia's loon of a creator, but it's very MINOR to Lenski, due to WP:WEIGHT the coverage on this vs. all his other work is extremely minor. — raekyt 16:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, there is very little coverage of all his other work that isn't already at E. coli long-term evolution experiment. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints} 23:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Avida simulation

This simulation proved that we need inteligent projectant to make a computer and software (windows , linux, Avida) so the evolution of the program can occur. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.241.248.66 (talk) 02:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard Lenski. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815154133/http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2765/content.htm to http://newsroom.msu.edu/site/indexer/2765/content.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)