Re: [asa] A graduate student speaks out

Ridlon says something only mildly interesting. His point is that "limiting
resources is not selective pressure".

Does that mean that drift is not even related to limited resources? In any
way? Really? Is anybody at that ASA even slightly concerned about the
accuracy of this claim?

Now, the next question to ask is whether the essence of Seelke's work
really is what Ridlon stated, or whether there are other factors that make
the research more than just "limiting resources".

But Liebig's Law is just a simple chemical principle of the slowest rate
of reaction limiting an overall reaction. That has nothing to do with
whether a new capability introduced into an organism will take advantage of
that limited environment and thus cause adaptation.

Seelke grows, what is it? Tens of thousands of generations of his
organisms? Is his sample size just physically too small? Really? One
wonders if therefore the sample size required in order to get a new
capability must be vastly larger. Perhaps thousands of generations in a
sample the size of the Pacific Ocean is actually required to get a new
capability?
What would that requirement do to the theory? Or is it perhaps millions or
billions of generations that would be required? Ridlon could help by
pointing out the conditions where a new capability would realistically be
expected. Is his criticism merely too simple minded?

A lot of Seelke's peers assume that what he is trying to see in the lab
actually is and does take place all the time. Some say thats a good reason
not to bother doing the research. By doing so one could only verify what is
already known (or assumed to be known) by doing so. They would probably be
surprised (or even shocked) to hear that the phenomena (that which they
assume is so commonplace) isn't supposed to take place because of Liebigs
Law.

********
Lets set the science aside and talk about community process and peer review
for a moment.

Seelke is criticized for not publishing enough. But where are the hundreds
of papers from his colleagues showing positive results from the exact same
type of experiments (in contrast to Seelke's negative results)? Is Ridlon
asking us to believe in those positive results with no papers at all?

On Jan 11, 2008 10:38 AM, Jack Haas <haas.john@comcast.net> wrote:

> This guy has his head on.
> Jack Haas
>
> Dr. Seelke, have you met Liebig?<http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/2008/01/dr-seelke-have-you-met-liebig.html>
> By JM Ridlon(JM Ridlon)
> "I also have an ongoing interest in *Christian* apologetics, which
> sometimes overlaps my professional career. I am convinced that *
> Christianity* is not only true, but that it is perhaps the only way of
> viewing the world that allows you to *...*
> Science: The Gap Filler - http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/<http://sciencethegapfiller.blogspot.com/>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with "unsubscribe
> asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jan 21 21:19:05 2008