Changes

The rest of this posting is cut-and-pasted from Longstop's contribution earlier this week.

The rest of this posting is cut-and-pasted from Longstop's contribution earlier this week.

The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.

''Quote starts here.'' The main point he [Kennymac] makes is quite correct, that combining experiments will tend to give a more significant result (i.e. a lower P-value) than any single experiment on its own.

The point that ASchlafly makes (headed '''REPLY''', shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.

The point that ASchlafly makes (headed '''REPLY''', shortly after KennyMac's example) is slightly misleading. You don't choose which experiments to combine on the basis of their outcomes - you either combine all relevant experiments or none. In this case, Professor Lenski chose to combine all the experiments and present a single analysis of them. That's fine.

The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data.

The conclusion, therefore, is that while there is a quantitative difference in the level of significance obtained by weighted and unweighted Z-tests, there is undeniably a significant biological effect. ASchlafly and other contributors should not be concerned that there is anything incorrect about the biological conclusions of Professor Lenski and his students or that there was anything at all underhand about their analysis or presentation of their data.

On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 17:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

On a different point, please would CP readers note that there's nothing at all suspicious about a paper being peer-reviewed in only 14 days. Editors of scientific journals ask reviewers beforehand if they are free to edit a paper within a certain period of time. If an academic agrees to review a paper for a prestigious journal such as PNAS within 2 weeks, they will generally ensure they have time during that period to read and comment on the paper thoroughly. ''Quote ends here'' [[User:DavyJones|DavyJones]] 17:12, 17 October 2008 (EDT)

== References ==

== References ==

<references/>

<references/>