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 276:
Line 276: − + − == Dear Aschlafly, ==+ + + − After reading your letter, the response from the PNAS, and the entire Lenski affair you dragged yourself into, I have some information you might want to read. Simply put, the PNAS was on the right track, see below for why + − − 1.Figure 3 depicts an "historical contingency" hypothesis around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations "arose by 20,000 generations." The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved the contingency hypothesis depicted in Figure 3. − − Reading over the paper, I didn’t find anything about a “historical contingency” around the 31,000th generation. What I believe I am seeing is a misunderstanding, Lenski was looking for two scenarios, First he indicates that if the ability for the E. Coli to consume citrate was due to a mutation, than the rate of the mutation would remain constant, but if it was population that made the mutation more likely, there would be a point where the mutation rate would increase. The graph simply showed both options, so I believe there was a misunderstanding of the graph. − − 2.Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this. If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically. − − I am not sure what you are trying to point out here. As the PNAS pointed out, mutations are random. Another note is that Lenski adressed this in his paper, and highlighted it in the article, even pointing out changes in the third experiment. Just a question, what do you mean by treating “them similarly statistically.”? − − 3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim. − − Erm… why was the Monte Carlo resampling incorrect? I cannot make heads nor tail of what you were thinking when you wrote this. Also, the result was inconsistent with the null hypothesis by a margin of 92 percent. − − 4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants. − − First off, modern technology grants quite a decent ability to detect the amount of bacteria in the sample, and there were NO Cit+ variants in it, nor were they mentioned in the paper. Honestly, do you believe that Lenski and his assistants were playing “toss the bacteria around”? Your assumption that there *had* to be Cit+ bacteria in the sample is incorrect, and seems to be based off your misunderstanding of the field. − − 5. The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance. − − Again… what? There is simply nothing “wrong” or “incorrect” about combining different sized samples to test the results. There are correct techniques for testing this kind of things (“Z-transformation” method, to be specific!) and it was used to make the test. − Finally, your claim about the paper not being publicly available is false, as you can easily find it by going to [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/ Lenski’s site] All the information is right there, 3 clicks away from a Google search. − − Might I ask you to clarify the questions and insight I have provided above? [[User:AlexaJ|AlexaJ]] − − − : Your posting is filled with gross misspellings, "I don't get it" type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I suggest you try harder with an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT) − − ::... 7 slightly misspelled words doesn't give an apt enough excuse not to respond, Andy.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT) − − ::Can we assume from your lack of response to these points (and others above) that you don't have the expertise to answer these questions? It's okay if you don't, you should just be humble and admit it. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 09:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT) − − :::Are you not making an assumption here, JohnDee? If you were in his position, would you have answered a letter with all these mistakes and a condescending tone?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT) − − ::::Read over this talk page. Andy has never directly answered any criticism of his PNAS letter. He either removes the comment from the talk page, bans the user, or just refuses to answer the question. Sometimes all three. Given this and the criticism I've seen on this page from people who seem to know what they are talking about, the only conclusion I can come to is Andy doesn't actually understand why z-transformations are applied, what a Monte Carlo re-sampling test is, etc. If he understood any of this, I would assume he would actually answer their questions. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 10:20, 19 September 2008 (EDT) − − ::::'''''"Are you not making an assumption here"'''''. Spelling mistakes signify little beyond spelling. If you were to consider swimming to the bottom of the Pacific and I said "you won't be able to, you can't breathe underwater" then I would be right. If I were to write "U wont bee able to, yu can't breev undewatta" I would '''''still''''' be right about your ability to swim to the bottom of the Pacific. Woefully wrong about spelling, but spot on about the status of your gills. On the "tone" of the edit I might remind you that PNAS took exception to the "tone" of the letter. ''"Mr. Schlafly's final comment about release of data is uncalled for". '' Professor Lenski certainly took exception to the tone of ''both'' emails to him: ''"(g)iven the '''continued''' rudeness of your second email"'' (my emphasis). And, naturally, it makes little difference to the validity of the criticisms: if I were to say "you *******************, you can't breathe underwater" I would ''still'' be right. So "your spelling is bad" or "you are being rude" simply fail to negate the statement "the letter was wrong". In the abscence of a negation coupled with plenty of corroboration, we a forced to the conclusion that the letter had little merit. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT) − − :::::I am resting under a similar assumption. My next couple of questions, Aschlafly, first off, why did you refuse to give a direct answer to a single question, instead option to say "Your spelling was bad, hence, you are closed minded." I think you mean to say "I have no idea how to give a correct response, hence I will just refuse to answer you." Until you actually answer my questions, I will assume you do not understand how to answer. Second, yes, there are "I don't understand" parts in my questions, parts I wanted you to clarify so I could understand them. Refusing to answer those makes it look, again, like you simply don't understand, in this case, you don't understand what YOU wrote. Finally, the "general link" was a link to the cumulative research of Richard Lenski, so that point is completely invalid. If you could respond to my post WITHOUT brushing it off, it would be deeply appreciated. (by the way, I re-checked the spelling just for you.) [[User:AlexaJ|AlexaJ]]
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 23:24, September 19, 2008
, 23:24, September 19, 2008reply
It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DeanS&page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted "open mind" of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=DeanS&page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted "open mind" of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:It seems to me this talk page is basically a trap. The bait has been set: "substantive comments welcome!" but anyone who enters is pegged as vandal and banned. Well, it's been nice editing here. [[User:TomG|TomG]] 10:30, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
'''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, "The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance." The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.
In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.
When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
(rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)