Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
failure to scale is another flaw
Line 7: Line 7:  
3.  Lenski's largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance.  Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.
 
3.  Lenski's largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to support his hypothesis with statistical significance.  Even though this largest experiment was nearly ten times the size of his other experiments, Lenski did not weight this largest experiment correctly in combining his results.
   −
4.  Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit<sup>+</sup> variant generations.  Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.  Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104</ref>
+
4.  Lenski's two alternative hypotheses suggest a fixed mutation rate, but the failure of the mutations in his experiments to increase based on scale (number of samples) tends to disprove both of Lenski's alternative hypotheses.  Yet Lenski's paper fails to address adequately this obvious flaw in the paper.
 +
 
 +
5.  Lenski's paper is not clear in explaining how the results of his largest experiment (Third Experiment) failed to confirm his hypothesis with statistical significance, even with the incorrect inclusion of the Cit<sup>+</sup> variant generations.  Instead, his paper refers to his largest experiment as "marginally ... significant," which serves to obscure its statistical insignificance.  Other works published in PNAS are clear in defining statistical significance in the traditional way, which Lenski's Third Experiment (even with incorrect inclusion of the above-referenced generations) failed to satisfy.<ref>See, e.g., www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0701990104</ref>
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
    
<references/>
 
<references/>
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,363

edits

Navigation menu