Article <v1m5ej$1jc0p$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<v1m5ej$1jc0p$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Arkalen <arkalen@proton.me>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Lenski experiments: an important correction
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 00:00:49 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 58
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <v1m5ej$1jc0p$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v1m078$1i7fl$1@dont-email.me> <v1m26e$1ike2$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="57774"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.14.0
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5UrH5jVxvC+JjirDiURdKGcf0Do=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v1m26e$1ike2$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4838

On 10/05/2024 23:05, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 10/05/2024 21:31, Arkalen wrote:
>> I recently found out that Richard Lenski of the eponymous long-term 
>> E.coli evolution experiment had a blog, and in it I found a correction 
>> I thought was relevant to the way those experiments are typically 
>> invoked as evidence in evolution/creationism debates:
>>
>> https://telliamedrevisited.wordpress.com/2024/04/01/a-small-correction/
>>
>> I hope we'll all have the integrity to take this new information into 
>> account properly.
> 
> Did you look at the date? I suspect it's an April Fool. (Or did you 
> identify it as an April Fool, and ran with it?)

I did eventually figure it out but I'm embarrassed to admit which 
paragraph it was at.

(also the previous post isn't at the same date but I also suspect isn't 
completely in earnest. I think maybe Richard Lenski might be a funny guy)

(EDIT I'm keeping the previous parenthetical for integrity's sake but 
the previous post actually *is* at the same date. How am I such a, um, 
what's the term again, "hard-working student")

>>
>>
>> "Since transferring the LTEE to Jeff Barrick’s lab at UT-Austin in 
>> 2022, we’ve been going over the old lab notebooks, making sure 
>> everything looks good. It turns out, though, that I made a small error 
>> when I started the LTEE back in 1988. I thought that transferring 10 
>> ml into 10 ml was a hundred-fold dilution because there’s a 0 right 
>> there after each of the 1s, and 100 has two zeros. QED: a hundred-fold 
>> dilution. Right?
>>
>> Well, it turns out I was a bit off. That’s only a two-fold dilution 
>> because, apparently, the correct way to do the math is 10 / (10 + 10) 
>> = 1/2. Who knew? New math, I guess. Anyhow, everyone in the lab 
>> thought I had figured it out, since I was the perfesser, and they just 
>> kept doing the same thing all these years. So instead of 75,000 
>> generations, it was only something like 11,250 when we sent the 
>> ^H^H^H^H^H^Hstupid amazing LTEE to Taxes. Oh well, still a big number.
>>
>> We also discovered another tiny error. You know, I always thought some 
>> ^H^H^H^H^H^Hsucker hard-working student came in and did the transfers 
>> on weekends and holidays. I never quite knew who it was, but I figured 
>> someone did the ^H^H^H^H^H^Hunpaid ^H^H^H^work transfers. Well, it 
>> turns out, not so much. OK, never. Fridays were ok at 40%, and Mondays 
>> were even better at 53%. On Tuesdays, we maxed out at 73%. Not bad! We 
>> trailed off a tad at 59% and 47% on Wednesdays and Thursdays.
>>
>> Anyhow, after correcting for these tiny oversights, the LTEE had gone 
>> past 4,300 generations before we sent it down to Taxes. Speaking of 
>> Taxes, I hope I don’t get audited again this year. But I hear you can 
>> stall if you’re a big shot. Being a PI qualifies, right?"
>>
>