17
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 237:
Line 237: + + + + + +
Talk:Significance of E. Coli Evolution Experiments (view source)
Revision as of 22:07, March 18, 2009
, 22:07, March 18, 2009no edit summary
ElyM, you've provided nothing to address the basic flaw that "The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." See [[Flaws in Lenski Study]]. Also, do not impose your view on the content page until after SJohnson has had an opportunity to respond to your posting. As to "Fred", his put-downs are getting tiresome and I'm going to review his edit pattern now to see if he's been contributing anything of value to this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
ElyM, you've provided nothing to address the basic flaw that "The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events." See [[Flaws in Lenski Study]]. Also, do not impose your view on the content page until after SJohnson has had an opportunity to respond to your posting. As to "Fred", his put-downs are getting tiresome and I'm going to review his edit pattern now to see if he's been contributing anything of value to this site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:06, 15 March 2009 (EDT)
::Mr. Schlafly, per your request I have not added anything to the content page as SJohnson has not yet responded to my posts. Since all of my comments have been in regards to SJohnson's use of the chi-square test in this particular article, I'm not sure why you expect me to address Blout's use of Monte Carlo - that issue seems to be addressed on the [[Flaws in Lenski Study]] page. SJohnson has added a reformulation of the chi-square test for two possible outcomes, and stated that the chi-square test is at a minimum when all success probabilities are equal. He then extrapolates from this to claim that the chi-square test is an effective test for the data from Blount.
::The reformulation of the equations for two possible outcomes does not address the underlying problem that the chi-square test has universally accepted parameters outside of which it is considered an invalid test; I have provided references for these parameters and shown that the data from Blount lies outside them. None of the expected cells in SJohnson's analysis have values above one, and the total n is four. SJohnson's own reference states that the application of the chi-square test in this circumstance is a "violation of good statistical practice". Analogously, combining F=ma and t=(vf-vi)/a into t=(vf-vi)m/F and showing that t is a minimum when m approaches zero does not address the fact that those Newtonian equations do not apply as velocities approach the speed of light. The legitimacy of Blount's arguments cannot be determined by the application of illegitimate counterarguments. If SJohnson or others can point to references from the statistical literature that show that Blount has made methodological errors - as I have been able to do with SJohnson's chi-square analysis - I would welcome their input, and no doubt Conservapedia's other readers would as well, and this page would be greatly improved.
::I have not seen a rebuttal from SJohnson in the four days since my last post, although he has added new material to the content page since then. In light of this, I would appreciate some guidelines as to when it is appropriate for me to add my information and references to the content page. I can add citations from the primary mathematical literature if necessary, but in general I find that these are less helpful as they are not easily accessible by readers without access to academic libraries.--[[User:ElyM|ElyM]] 18:07, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
== References ==
== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{reflist}}