Changes

::: If you're growing several of the same kind of plant in two different pots, one would expect that under the same conditions total stem growth would scale with sample size (number of plants in the pot). But would you still expect that if one pot received ample water, light and fertilizer while the other was unfertilized in dry, dim conditions? That's an extreme example, but nonetheless you wouldn't expect plants to grow the same way under different conditions. Also in this example, mutation rates in the plants would differ, since one pot received more radiation while the other contained plants that were less healthy and therefore less able to repair DNA damage- different environments lead to different pressures. So, once more, cells, be they bacteria or part of a multicellular plant, do not grow or "behave" the same way under different circumstances, and for someone always claiming that everyone else is erroneously grouping the experiments, you consistently keep doing it yourself here.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

::: If you're growing several of the same kind of plant in two different pots, one would expect that under the same conditions total stem growth would scale with sample size (number of plants in the pot). But would you still expect that if one pot received ample water, light and fertilizer while the other was unfertilized in dry, dim conditions? That's an extreme example, but nonetheless you wouldn't expect plants to grow the same way under different conditions. Also in this example, mutation rates in the plants would differ, since one pot received more radiation while the other contained plants that were less healthy and therefore less able to repair DNA damage- different environments lead to different pressures. So, once more, cells, be they bacteria or part of a multicellular plant, do not grow or "behave" the same way under different circumstances, and for someone always claiming that everyone else is erroneously grouping the experiments, you consistently keep doing it yourself here.[[User:Kallium|Kallium]] 23:06, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.

:3)The claim that the use of Monte Carlo resampling test was an error is unsupported by argument or counterclaim. ''Why'' is the use of that test an error? Problematically, if the test itself is invalid, why are you willing to accept the p-value for the third replay? Furthermore, the Monte Carlo test was not the test used to combine the three experiments to arrive at the final p-value of p<0.0001 - that was a Z-transformation method. Perhaps your real objection lies with this technique rather than the Monte Carlo test.