Forget “all internet traditions” – there’s a new blog meme in town this week, and it’s a lot more fun.

A few weeks ago, Michigan State professor Richard Lenski announced that a long-term experiment in bacterial evolution had yielded a strain of E. coli capable of metabolizing citrate, a chemical found in their growth medium. This is significant because no strain of E. coli has previously been known to be able to do that. In fact, the inability of the E. coli to metabolize citrate is one primary identifying characteristics biology uses to classify the bacteria. Lenski’s research is a big chunk of steaming proof that, yes, evolution really is the mechanism whereby life forms and changes on Planet Earth. But some people, of course, are really pissed about that, so they decided to slander Lenski for no reason:

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.”

Boneheads sent letter to Lenski. Lenski replied, politely. Boneheads replied again, revealing breathtaking ignorance as well as an unfortunate willingness to sling mud without really knowing anything. Lenski replies back, this time with the gloves totally off.

And now…kaboom. Technorati lists 280 posts about “lenski,” almost all of which deal with this controversy. And almost none of those in the way that the creationists would like.