Changes

|}

|}

So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value.  It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0>P<0.05).  If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates  then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did.  The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P<0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P<0.04) whether or not”.  Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”.  Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun).   

So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value.  It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0<P<0.05).  If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates  then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did.  The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P<0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P<0.04) whether or not”.  Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”.  Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun).   

--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)

--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)