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
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + +
Talk:Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments (view source)
Revision as of 14:55, March 5, 2009
, 14:55, March 5, 2009in furtherance of SJohnson's remarks
:Which publications compare Monte Carlo to chi-square and show that the former is more accurate? Could you provide specific examples? Thanks. [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 18:50, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:Which publications compare Monte Carlo to chi-square and show that the former is more accurate? Could you provide specific examples? Thanks. [[User:SJohnson|SJohnson]] 18:50, 4 March 2009 (EST)
:In furtherance of SJohnson's remarks with respect to rarely occurring events, the use of the basic Monte Carlo method is plainly incorrect for modeling a rarely occurring event, as the Lenski paper did. This has long been pointed out in [[Flaws in Richard Lenski Study]]. I know [[evolutionists]] will never admit a flaw in anything promoting their pet theory, but this (and other) flaws in that paper is undeniable.
:Watch how evolutionists defended obvious errors in the Lenski paper, and then realize why the [[Piltdown Man]] fraud was taught for 40 years without evolutionists admitting it was a hoax.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:55, 5 March 2009 (EST)