4 ms·

> Thirty thousand generations into the experiment, one of the 12 lines evolved the ability to consume citrate, instead of just glucose. And that garnered quite

> Thirty thousand generations into the experiment, one of the 12 lines evolved the ability to consume citrate, instead of just glucose. And that garnered quite a lot of attention, and even some, shall we say, hostility from some people who are sceptical of the power of evolution. In case you haven't heard of this, Dr. Lenski dealt with some science deniers who tried to smear the experiment: https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog https://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
chadcmulligan 4y ago
That is one interesting web site
- DoItToMe81 4y ago
  Conservapedia is interestingly stupid, in that it attracted the ire of many communities back in the day who, in addition to raiding it, stuck around and Poe's Law'd their way in. There was a point where some of the more ridiculous claims were primarily from communities like /b/, seeing how insane they could be before they were called out. But the Conservapedia administration actually took it seriously.
  - eru 4y ago
    Keep in mind that much of the content of Conservapedia might as well be written by trolls. It's sometimes hard to say.
    - DoItToMe81 4y ago
      My view on it has always been that the admins are dead serious, but the users may not completely be.
      - neuronic 4y ago
        It would be far scarier if it was the other way around.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
qvrjuec 4y ago
What an awesomely scaling rebuttal by Dr. Lenski
tasty_freeze 4y ago
Ah, Conservapedia. Here is their page which "disproves" the theory of relativity, which starts off by conflating the theory of relativity with moral relativism. https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity In addition to ignoring all the experiments which confirm relativistic predictions, there cite various open issues (eg, no general solution to the equations) as if that is disproof, and they also cite the bible in a few places.
- prox 4y ago
  So conservapedia is wishful thinking and plugging your ears to anything one doesn’t like? Why do people do this to themselves?
  - airstrike 4y ago
    > In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things.[1] According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.[1][2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
  - Loughla 4y ago
    Self-soothing. It feels good. The world is confusing and difficult, so holding on to what is familiar, comfortable, and feels good is nice to do for your brain. It's massively common, but I would argue that almost everyone who does it denies that's what they're doing. To them, they're just using the best sources they can find. It's sad, and I'm sure it's a problem.
patrec 4y ago
Judging by a 3 minute browse of some of the articles of conservapedia, Schlafy seems to be a dimwitted crank. So I'm actually amazed at what must either be his intellectual honesty or delusion that made him post this humiliating and deserved smackdown by Lenski apparently more or less unedited and without gloss. May he be model to others of his ilk, regardless of their persuasions.
robertlagrant 4y ago
> In case you haven't heard of this, Dr. Lenski dealt with some science deniers who tried to smear the experiment: Reading it, it seems like the first request was silly, but the second was very straightforward and not rude. The second response was an extreme overreaction to the second request, which did little more than say, "Actually the paper doesn't contain all the data; please may we have the data?"
- failrate 4y ago
  It demonstrated that the requestor had not put in even the minimum amount of effort to identify the data present in the paper and lacked an understanding of how the entire domain and process worked. It is similar to going into a restaurant, ordering something that is not on the menu, and then being outraged that there's no wonton soup at the hotdog stand. The second response was also very rude. If someone is screaming at you that their taxes paid for your work, it is never polite.
  - robertlagrant 4y ago
    Your analogies fall down in that they in no way relate to the tone of what's written there. Unless you mean the second response is analogous to screaming.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

chadcmulligan 4y ago

That is one interesting web site

DoItToMe81 4y ago
Conservapedia is interestingly stupid, in that it attracted the ire of many communities back in the day who, in addition to raiding it, stuck around and Poe's Law'd their way in. There was a point where some of the more ridiculous claims were primarily from communities like /b/, seeing how insane they could be before they were called out. But the Conservapedia administration actually took it seriously.
- eru 4y ago
  Keep in mind that much of the content of Conservapedia might as well be written by trolls. It's sometimes hard to say.
  - DoItToMe81 4y ago
    My view on it has always been that the admins are dead serious, but the users may not completely be.
    - neuronic 4y ago
      It would be far scarier if it was the other way around.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

qvrjuec 4y ago

What an awesomely scaling rebuttal by Dr. Lenski

tasty_freeze 4y ago

Ah, Conservapedia. Here is their page which "disproves" the theory of relativity, which starts off by conflating the theory of relativity with moral relativism. https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity https://www.conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity In addition to ignoring all the experiments which confirm relativistic predictions, there cite various open issues (eg, no general solution to the equations) as if that is disproof, and they also cite the bible in a few places.

prox 4y ago
So conservapedia is wishful thinking and plugging your ears to anything one doesn’t like? Why do people do this to themselves?
- airstrike 4y ago
  > In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things.[1] According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.[1][2][3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
- Loughla 4y ago
  Self-soothing. It feels good. The world is confusing and difficult, so holding on to what is familiar, comfortable, and feels good is nice to do for your brain. It's massively common, but I would argue that almost everyone who does it denies that's what they're doing. To them, they're just using the best sources they can find. It's sad, and I'm sure it's a problem.

patrec 4y ago

Judging by a 3 minute browse of some of the articles of conservapedia, Schlafy seems to be a dimwitted crank. So I'm actually amazed at what must either be his intellectual honesty or delusion that made him post this humiliating and deserved smackdown by Lenski apparently more or less unedited and without gloss. May he be model to others of his ilk, regardless of their persuasions.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> In case you haven't heard of this, Dr. Lenski dealt with some science deniers who tried to smear the experiment: Reading it, it seems like the first request was silly, but the second was very straightforward and not rude. The second response was an extreme overreaction to the second request, which did little more than say, "Actually the paper doesn't contain all the data; please may we have the data?"

failrate 4y ago
It demonstrated that the requestor had not put in even the minimum amount of effort to identify the data present in the paper and lacked an understanding of how the entire domain and process worked. It is similar to going into a restaurant, ordering something that is not on the menu, and then being outraged that there's no wonton soup at the hotdog stand. The second response was also very rude. If someone is screaming at you that their taxes paid for your work, it is never polite.
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  Your analogies fall down in that they in no way relate to the tone of what's written there. Unless you mean the second response is analogous to screaming.