55
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 67:
Line 67: − + − + − +
Talk:Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments (view source)
Revision as of 01:13, March 9, 2009
, 01:13, March 9, 2009→Misinterpretation of test: Tidying up (typing too fast...)
== Misinterpretation of test ==
== Misinterpretation of test ==
SJohnson, Your analysis seems to misinterpret the test. You say the null hypothesis is no mutation. They see a mutation (4 mutations, in fact, in the data set you show) so the null hypothesis is disproved. That's perfectly simple.
SJohnson, Your analysis misinterprets the test. You say the null hypothesis is that this mutation cannot happen. They saw a mutation (4 mutations, in fact, in the data set you show) so the null hypothesis (as you state is) is disproved. That's perfectly straightforward.
I don't know what the "mean mutation generation" test is but applying a chi-squared test to this dataset tests if the mutations are evenly distributed throughout the generations. Your test says they are, so there's no strong evidence to suppose that mutations are likely to occur in one generation rather than another. in the series of tests. Blount's test says thay aren't, so it's more likely that the mutation will occur later in the series of tests.
I don't know what the "mean mutation generation" test is but you're doing when you apply a chi-squared test to this dataset is to test if the mutations are evenly distributed throughout the generations. Your test says they are, so there's no strong evidence to suppose that mutations are likely to occur in one generation rather than another in the series of tests. Blount's test says thay aren't, so it's more likely that the mutation will occur later in the series of tests. I can't tell which test is right without knowing more about the test that Blount used.
But that point (the foregoing paragraph) has no bearing at all on what you say the null hypothesis is. The mutation appeared, so that means that they hypothesis that the mutation can't happen is disproved. Very simple. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 21:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)
But that point (the foregoing paragraph) has no bearing at all on the null hypothesis, as you describe it. The mutation appeared, so that means the hypothesis that the mutation can't happen is disproved. Very simple. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 21:10, 8 March 2009 (EDT)