Bacteria evolve; Conservapedia demands recount

[William T Goodall]

"By John Timmer | Published: June 29, 2008 - 11:35PM CT
Noises off
This is a story that starts in triumph, takes a detour through farce,  
and inadvertently ends raising some profound questions. The triumph is  
one of scientific progress in the study of evolution; the farce comes  
courtesy of those who run Conservapedia, who apparently can't believe  
that any scientific evidence can possibly support evolution. The  
questions, however, focus on what access the US public should have to  
the research that their tax dollars support.

Ars covered the research earlier this month, when a paper reporting it  
was first published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of  
Science. Richard Lenski and his colleagues have been conducting a long- 
term experiment in bacterial evolution, one that has encompassed over  
30,000 generations of bacteria going back over 20 years. Many of the  
bacteria have evolved the ability to better utilize the sugar  
available in their cultures, but one strain underwent at least three  
distinct changes (at generation 27,000, 31,000 and 33,000) that  
enabled them to access citrate present in the medium—something their  
parents were incapable of. Lenski saved samples of every culture at  
intervals of 500 generations, and his paper suggested his lab was  
going back and sequencing the genomes of the intermediaries to try to  
find out the genetic basis for the evolution of this new trait.

Conservapedia meets cognitive dissonance
The denizens of Conservapedia were not amused. They apparently  
subscribe to the belief that acceptance of some scientific data goes  
against conservative values. The site tends to present the views of  
mainstream science and "creation science" as equally valid scientific  
perspectives, as evidenced by their discussion of kangaroo origins  
(which is actually much improved since we first checked). The site's  
relevant sympathies with creationism can be seen in its discussion of  
information, which uncritically repeats William Dembski's claim that  
"information cannot be created by natural (nonintelligent) causes."  
Despite never defining how to measure biological information, Dembski  
has used this claim to rule out evolutionary origins for new  
biological capacities.


Clearly, Lenski's bacteria appear to have evolved a significant new  
capacity. Fortunately, the residents of Conservapedia found a way out  
of this logical conundrum: Lenski was either misinterpreting his data,  
or he faked it. In an open letter to Lenski, Conservapedia's Andy  
Schlafly (an attorney with an engineering background) wrote,  
"skepticism has been expressed on Conservapedia about your claims, and  
the significance of your claims, that E. Coli [sic] bacteria had an  
evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study." Their solution? Show  
them the data: "Please post the data supporting your remarkable claims  
so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find  
justification for your conclusions."

Lenski replied, noting that the whole purpose of scientific paper is  
to discuss and display data and to use them to justify conclusions;  
the data were in the paper itself. He also pointed out he'd placed a  
copy of the paper on his website for those without subscriptions to  
PNAS. Lenski also spent some time reexplaining some of his  
conclusions, and pointing out errors and misconceptions in the letter  
he had received. This response prompted a second letter from Schlafly,  
suggesting he wanted to review the data underlying the data presented  
in the paper, and noting that the work is taxpayer funded, giving him  
a right to it as a taxpayer.

Backstage drama
 From here on out, standard Internet drama ensued. By the time of his  
next reply, Lenski had apparently read the discussion pages attached  
to the letters, and discovered that Schlafly hadn't actually bothered  
to read the paper he was demanding the data for. He has also  
discovered that some Conservapedia members were simply calling the  
whole thing a hoax, and accusing him of having engaged in research  
fraud. As a result, Lenski was apparently very annoyed, and his second  
letter is far more assertive.

Lenski again notes that the paper actually contained the relevant  
data, and that Schlafly's complaints suggested he wouldn't know what  
to do with any further data were Lenski to provide it to him. In this,  
he was backed up by a number of Conservapedia members, who said more  
or less the same thing in the attached discussion. Several of those  
individuals are apparently now ex-Conservapedia members, having had  
their accounts blocked for insubordination. In fact, anyone who  
questioned Schlafly's demands seem to have been branded an opponent of  
public access to scientific data; the statement, "I'll add your name  
to the list above of people who oppose the public release of data"  
peppers Schlafly's responses throughout the discussion.

Problems with group think and incendiary discussions are common  
complaints about what happens behind the scenes at Wikipedia. The  
irony here is that Conservapedia was ostensibly founded as a response  
to precisely that behavior. It appears that the victims may now be  
trying the role of oppressors on for size."

-- 
William T Goodall
Mail : wtg at wtgab.demon.co.uk
Web  : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk
Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/

Debunking bullshit is a thankless task.