Siteadmin, 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
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 146:
Line 146: + +
Talk:Flaws in Richard Lenski Study (view source)
Revision as of 03:38, July 16, 2008
, 03:38, July 16, 2008→Expertise in Statistics: reply to Argon
::::::The first replay experiment was run under different conditions - roughly 3700 generations in continuous subcultures. One can't compare population sizes or rates between the first and last two replay experiments. As I noted, Blount et al. acknowledged the possible anomaly of lower than expected mutants in the third run. Still, the second and third experiments were run under different conditions. The plates in the second replay experiment were seeded with fewer cells per plate than in the third experiment. That change can affect the survival rates of cells on plates over time (e.g. different rates of nutrient exhaustion). Given the extremely low mutation rates involved, there is no simple means of normalizing the numbers of mutants recovered for the second and third experiments. One might expect 'roughly' 10x more mutants in the third experiment but that's truly a 'rough' estimate that would be affected by conditions under which cells are exposed. It's certainly a question that remains and they may be able to clear up with future research. In any case, the pattern of data does not support Andy's claims of contamination or that the hypotheses of the paper is in error.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::The first replay experiment was run under different conditions - roughly 3700 generations in continuous subcultures. One can't compare population sizes or rates between the first and last two replay experiments. As I noted, Blount et al. acknowledged the possible anomaly of lower than expected mutants in the third run. Still, the second and third experiments were run under different conditions. The plates in the second replay experiment were seeded with fewer cells per plate than in the third experiment. That change can affect the survival rates of cells on plates over time (e.g. different rates of nutrient exhaustion). Given the extremely low mutation rates involved, there is no simple means of normalizing the numbers of mutants recovered for the second and third experiments. One might expect 'roughly' 10x more mutants in the third experiment but that's truly a 'rough' estimate that would be affected by conditions under which cells are exposed. It's certainly a question that remains and they may be able to clear up with future research. In any case, the pattern of data does not support Andy's claims of contamination or that the hypotheses of the paper is in error.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:27, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Argon, you have free will and it's clear to me that you are going to exercise it to the point of embracing absurdities. This time you claim that "extremely low mutation rates" would not result in mutations that scale with sample size (of course they would), and that density completely alters mutation rate (if that silly claim were true, then Lenski's experiment was flawed from the get-go). Your belief system is remarkable, but it's not logical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:38, 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)
Is there anyone here with expertise in statistics who could give an analysis? [[User:Fyezall|Fyezall]] 16:15, 15 July 2008 (EDT)