17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 144:
Line 144: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments (view source)
Revision as of 21:24, March 14, 2009
, 21:24, March 14, 2009→Misinterpretation of test
:: SJohnson, the way you're calculating the chi-squared statistic implies that you're testing the null hypothesis of a constant mutation rate over time against an alternative hypothesis of a mutation rate which varies over time. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:02, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
:: SJohnson, the way you're calculating the chi-squared statistic implies that you're testing the null hypothesis of a constant mutation rate over time against an alternative hypothesis of a mutation rate which varies over time. [[User:FredFerguson|FredFerguson]] 11:02, 9 March 2009 (EDT)
As it currently stands, the article makes the following statement: "The expected outcomes under the null hypothesis (no evolutionary innovation occurs) are also shown." This misstates the null hypothesis of the paper, which is elaborated in the Introduction section of the paper, and repeated in the section '''Statistical Analysis of the Replay Experiments''':
<blockquote>
For each experiment, we compared the observed mean generation of those clones that yielded Cit+ variants to the mean expected under the null hypothesis that clones from all generations have equal likelihood. The null thus corresponds to the rare-mutation hypothesis laid out in the Introduction."
Block quote
</blockquote><ref>www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/105/23/7899.pdf</ref>
The article also continues to describe 'mean mutation generation' as a ''test'' rather than a ''statistic'' to which the ''Monte Carlo test'' was applied.--[[User:ElyM|ElyM]] 17:24, 14 March 2009 (EDT)
==Unreferenced Claims==
==Unreferenced Claims==