185
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 135:
Line 135: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 00:01, July 16, 2008
, 00:01, July 16, 2008→Expertise in Statistics
:::Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
:::Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::Blount et al. discussed the unexpectedly low Cit+ conversion rate for the third replay set in the supplementary document. They have some speculations but don't know why it occurred. They are dealing with low probability events. I don't agree that the 'proper' interpretation is contamination. First, they isolated and tested each Cit+ isolate for the markers and sequences we've discussed on earlier Conservapedia pages. Second, the distribution of Cit+ isolates does not appear to be random: They correlate strongly with the later generations. If undetected contamination was random, it's unlikely the Monte Carlo resampling tests would reject the null hypothesis of the 'rare-mutation' hypothesis over the 'potentiated' hypothesis. As Brossa correctly notes, contamination would have affected all generations. Blount et al. write in the paper's supplement: "To facilitate handling and minimize possible confounding variables, we divided this third experiment into 20 blocks of 14 clones each. All of the clones within a block came from different generations, and the single ancestral clone was included in all 20 blocks."--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 20:01, 15 July 2008 (EDT)