SkipCaptcha
212
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 116:
Line 116: + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 01:20, September 17, 2008
, 01:20, September 17, 2008no edit summary
::::: But Aschlafly, you ''still'' have not yet explained your own mathematical analysis. It seems you will do anything to debate with others, but nothing whatsoever to actually ''explain'' your own thesis - constantly repeating that you are correct is not a reasonable argument. A very large number of editors have asked some very simple question which you must surely have the answers to, since they are fundamental to your thesis, yet you utterly refuse to provide an answer and instead debate, debate, and block. ''Surely'' this discussion can be kept on a reasonable, open-minded keel AND at the same time, include extensive statistical and mathematical explanations from BOTH sides of the issue? None of us - yourself included - are enjoying this 'debate about a debate'. Please, try to back up your argument with some actual evidence. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
::::: But Aschlafly, you ''still'' have not yet explained your own mathematical analysis. It seems you will do anything to debate with others, but nothing whatsoever to actually ''explain'' your own thesis - constantly repeating that you are correct is not a reasonable argument. A very large number of editors have asked some very simple question which you must surely have the answers to, since they are fundamental to your thesis, yet you utterly refuse to provide an answer and instead debate, debate, and block. ''Surely'' this discussion can be kept on a reasonable, open-minded keel AND at the same time, include extensive statistical and mathematical explanations from BOTH sides of the issue? None of us - yourself included - are enjoying this 'debate about a debate'. Please, try to back up your argument with some actual evidence. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 20:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
:::::ASchlafly:"Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments"
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.""Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?""...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).""If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)..."
::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.
:::::ASchlafly: "Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2."
::::::Me, earlier on this page: "The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.""It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.""It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The "underlying thesis" of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions"
:::::ASchlafly: "Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon."
::::::Me, earlier on this page:"If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...""I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.""I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did."
::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I fallen into an obvious trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==
== Please provide your statistical analysis ==