https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=MikeR 2026-09-22T07:00:06Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Science_of_global_warming&diff=589073 2008-12-17T15:51:34Z

<p>MikeR: /* Scientists */</p> <hr /> <div>[[/Archive 1]]<br /> [[/Archive 2]]<br /> <br /> == Editing This Page ==<br /> <br /> *Please refrain from wholesale editing, rollbacks, re-directs. Adding pertinent information is encouraged, however please discuss here first before major changes are implemented. It does not do the site a service to keep making drastic changes, then having someone else roll them back ten minutes later! '''We will start with the basic FACT that the Earth does appear to be in a warming cycle, and that its ''natural occurrence'' is aggravated by man's burning of fossil fuels in increasing amounts.''' It is simply not a proven fact, among a preponderance of scientists that warming cycles are only caused by Humans. In any event, from what I have read by the most alarmist backers like Al Gore, all mediating efforts that we could undertake, cannot and will not reverse what they claim is going to happen. So, we should treat this as a theory, and one that is at least as much a political item as one of Natural Science. --~ [[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User_talk:TK|Talk2Me!]]&lt;/sup&gt; 21:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Al Gore is not a climate scientist. You really shouldn't make any judgements based on what he says.<br /> Two things are quite clear at the least regarding global warming: the Earth has been warming since c.1850 at the very least and the rate of change of temperature is unprecedented; 0.76 degrees in a century and a half has not happened before in at least 800,000 years (using temperature reconstructions from proxy data in the EPICA ice core).<br /> <br /> Why is the article locked from editing, by the way?<br /> Surely registered members at the very least should still have edit privileges. I have spotted several errors and omissions and wish to correct them.<br /> --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I'm confused about the nature of this encyclopedia. Should a wiki-based encyclopedia be able to be edited by it's user community? Is the present system democratic? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 13:20, 14 December 2007 (GMT+1)<br /> :As a general rule, yes it is edited by its community, but sometimes articles need to be locked. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)<br /> ::Could I ask why? -- [[User:Lw2007|Lw2007]] 01:26, 17 December 2007 (GMT+1)<br /> ::: In general (I'm not specifically talking about this article), two reasons would be repeated vandalism and edit wars. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:58, 17 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Solar variation and global warming ==<br /> <br /> A recently published study discounts this. The full text of the study can be found in http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070702/full/448008a.html . For those that lack a subscription to Nature, various journalists commenting on the article: [http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html] [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2123448,00.html] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] . I hope that this material can be properly integrated into the main article. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:02, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> And a link to the article published at the Royal Society [http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf] --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 14:09, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It's also worth pointing out that Pluto is so far out that any increase in warming there from the sun would effectively fry the Earth! This is basic astronomy. Let us not forget that planets are in elliptical orbits - not perfect circles - which take them closer to and then further away from the sun. Pluto's orbit is highly eccentric. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 06:54, 3 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Controversy over the facts ==<br /> <br /> Despite the simple view above (pun intended! ;-) there is substantial controversy over what the facts are. The United Nations climate panel initially agreed with the scientific consensus about longterm temperature variation, i.e., the existence of the [[Medieval Climate Optimum]] and the [[Little Ice Age]]. A few years later, they decided to drop the facts in favor of Mann's [[hockey stick graph]].<br /> <br /> Another way of stating it is that they decided to make an issue about what the facts were. The UN created a controversy over what the facts are. That is what is meant by terms such as &quot;controversial facts&quot;. It's not the facts ''themselves'' which are controversial, as I'm sure all liberals know, but whether the ''reported facts'' are ''actual facts''. Those who pretend not to understand this have no standing in this discussion. <br /> <br /> In fact, those who aren't interested in improving the article should instead voice their views at [[Debate:Is there any evidence for the global warming theory?]] and stop bothering the rest of us here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 14:36, 11 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Until the section on Al Gore has better sources, it needs to be deleted ==<br /> <br /> The whole section echoes [http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article this] article by James M. Taylor. At the bottom it states he's a member of the Heartland institute. It's been consistently proven the Heartland Institute is funded by Exxonmobil [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxonmobil#Funding_of_global_warming_skeptics 1][http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1876538,00.html 2][http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1361276,00.html 3]. I mean, I'm pretty loyal to the guy who signs ''my'' checks. --hoboace<br /> <br /> : Agreed, for a similar reason. There was no &quot;November 23, 2003&quot; issue of Nature magazine, as cited in the Mount Kilimanjaro &quot;example&quot; of Gore &quot;being wrong&quot;. There was an issue on the 20th and the next week on the 27th (see [http://www.nature.com/nature/archive/index.html?showyears=2003- here]). Neither of these, nor a search of the Nature.com website using Google, shows any trace of this article. Nor would one research paper by one investigator be sufficient to prove Gore's guess (and it was only a poorly made guess) wrong. Citing secondary sources to make scientific claims like this one should be highly discouraged. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:30, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> A number of the later refererences don't use the regular reference format so they show up under the References section. It may be wise to convert these for consistency with the rest of the article. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Let me know if you want it open, and when, okay? --[[User:TK|&lt;small&gt;Sysop-&lt;/small&gt;TK]] &lt;sub&gt;[[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]]&lt;/sub&gt; 23:44, 15 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :We could try right now as we're both on and probably some of the only ones up. ;-) It shouldn't take long. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 23:49, 15 July 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Also, why is the IPCC discredited in one instance, &quot;Because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific&quot;, but used as a credible source in another, &quot;Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes&quot;? If the IPCC is not a credible source in one instance, then why is it in another? {{unsigned|Creationist}}<br /> : I've not studied the particular references you make, but the general principle that if you must either reject or accept everything that someone or some group says is fallacious. There can be good reasons for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data, including some being factual research and the other being opinion, some being based on good research while the other is not, etc. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:04, 12 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Your point is well taken. I am not familiar with the research either. I was curious what the good reasons were &quot;for rejecting some data whilst accepting other data&quot;, with regards to the information provided by the IPCC? I attempted to check the validity of the source used to discredit Gore's and the URL no longer exists. # ↑ http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article. None of the references used in the section discrediting Gore are valid, since the URL's no longer exist.<br /> <br /> == Lead sentence suggestion ==<br /> <br /> The article leads with &quot;The global warming warming issue ...&quot; I don't think the second 'warming' adds anything. Of course, I would suggest that saying that Global Warming &quot;is mainly used to justify support for the Kyoto Protocol&quot; does not summarize this complex issue best. I might say &quot;The global warming issue is a political battle over the possible anthropomorphic influence on recent anomalies in the Earth's average temperature&quot;. {{unsigned|Gantczak}}<br /> <br /> :I agree, suggesting that the justification of support for the Kyoto Protocol is the focal point of the global warming issue is absurd. {{unsigned|Calebdelworth84}}<br /> <br /> == Ed Poor ==<br /> <br /> [http://www.aetherometry.com/global_warming/Section_I.html] --&lt;font color=&quot;#0002AC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;OOFFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 00:04, 9 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It's all a bunch of hot air, Terry. The fact is that since 1850 average surface air temperature, as measured by ground based thermometers at weather stations, has gone up by one degree Fahrenheit (around 0.6 to 0.8 Centigrade).<br /> <br /> The [[Anthropogenic Global Warming]] (AGW) theory is that MOST of this is the result of human activity, i.e., spewing out [[greenhouse gas]]es like carbon dioxide.<br /> <br /> The scientifically accepted theory is that [[natural forces]] account for nearly all of this, and that the effects of human activity are comparatively small.<br /> <br /> The [[Politics of global warming]] article is about the conflict between liberals and conservatives over (1) what the facts are and (2) what the science says theory-wise. Liberals pretend that there is a &quot;[[scientific consensus]]&quot; in favor of their view. Conservatives, largely drowned out in the media, remind us that science does not operate by consensus and that there are plenty of scientists who disagree with AGW.<br /> <br /> In fact, the most prominent and highly credentialed scientists nearly ALL disagree with AGW. It is only a few liberal activists (who either are lobbying for [[Kyoto Protocol]] or are partisan supporters of [[Democratic Party]] candidates, etc.) in the scientific community who are the odd men out. <br /> <br /> There has been immense scientific misconduct and fraud on this issue, which is not surprising since over 1 billion dollars a year in US [[federal funding]] is at stake: if there's a problem, the funds will continue; if it's all a &quot;bunch of hot air&quot;, Congress will not want to spend a lot of money to study a non-issue.<br /> <br /> There is both a fact and a theory here. Liberals try to confuse us by blurring the distinction. It will take a lot of editorial work to straighten it out. It's not cut and dried, like [[DDT]] and [[Malaria]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 23:17, 9 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Ed, perhaps you need to remove your comments above to the link I supplied? --&lt;font color=&quot;#0002AC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;OOFFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 20:58, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Bug Discovered In NASA Temperature Data==<br /> In 2007, Steve McIntyre discovered a bug in NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) temperature datase, thus forcing NASA to re-rank the hottest temperature record in US. As a result, 1998 is no longer the hottest year in US history, 1934 is.[http://michellemalkin.com/2007/08/09/hot-news-nasa-fixes-flawed-temperature-data-1998-was-not-the-warmest-year-in-the-millenium/][http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383][http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html][http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/] [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 09:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Those numbers are particular to the US, where the global temperature anomaly is not as pronounced. Even if these bloggers are right, it does not contraindicate the much larger pool of data which shows a significant increase in global mean temperature over the past fifty years. But that's what the liberal conspirators want us to think, isn't it? [[User:Gantczak|Gantczak]] 13:39, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Try to avoid sarcasm; this is a scientific subject. If you want to address the [[Politics of global warming]], go there. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 13:59, 10 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *See http://climateaudit.org. NASA has been claiming for years 1998 was the hottest year on record for the planet. Climate Audit forced them to admit their mistake in calculations. 1934 was the hottest known year, followed by 1998 and 1927. ''In fact 5 of the hottest recorded years came before World War II.'' --&lt;font color=&quot;#0002AC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;OOFFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 21:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> **This is not the first time an outsider has found errors in government statistics about [[global warming]]. We should write an article about [[Steve McIntyre]] and his scientific watchdog work. <br /> **It's also a sad commentary on the state of climate science that simple mistakes like this take so long to correct. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The difference in temperature between 1934 and 1998 using the corrected data was 0.02 degrees Celsius.<br /> Global mean temperatures remained almost exactly the same, showing the same 0.76 degrees C (+/- 0.2 degrees C) warming since c.1850 as they did before.<br /> --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:54, 26 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory|[http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+Half+of+all+Published+Scientists+Endorse+Global+Warming+Theory/article8641.htm]==<br /> <br /> Gosh, I wish I could be there as some of you alarmists read this.....<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the &quot;consensus view,&quot; defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers &quot;implicit&quot; endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no &quot;consensus.&quot;'''&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the &quot;primary&quot; cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for &quot;catastrophic&quot; global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- '''the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.'''&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of &quot;90% likely&quot; man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of &quot;thousands of scientists&quot; involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of &quot;lead authors.&quot; '''The introductory &quot;Summary for Policymakers&quot; -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to &quot;ensure compliance&quot; with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.'''&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;<br /> <br /> '''By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, ''including every leading scientific journal in the world.'''''<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> --&lt;font color=&quot;#0002AC&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;OOFFAA&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 07:01, 31 August 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Lord Monckton released the names of some of the papers that the study claims reject the consensus outright. Out of seven or so studies that Monckton mentioned, only two actually reject the consensus, and that's if you give the anti-AGW crowd the benefit of the doubt. Peiser tried the same trick before, and in the end, he only found one or two (out of the thirty-odd that he claimed) that rejected AGW outright. The Oreskes study was flawed, but this one's even worse.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 12:57, 15 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Are the images really necessary?==<br /> Down next to http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_Warming#Politics_of_global_warming , there are two images which are downright immature and certainly don't belong in such a place.<br /> Perhaps they could be moved into a section labelled 'Satire of global warming theory' instead?<br /> --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 19:25, 26 September 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == I agree with Ed... ==<br /> <br /> ...100% about this article. It's not so hard, actually. I have an very good book by conservative author Wario C. O. Jones, and it will be my basis for the whole new article. I can't wait to start. --[[User:Phyllisrules|Phyllisrules]] 10:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT) Oh yeah!<br /> <br /> == Needed Entry ==<br /> In order to assure that Conservapedia remains a non-biased and objective source of information, I think there needs to be something mentioned somewhere about Dr. John H. Marburger. Dr. Marburger is the president's main science advisor, who supports global warming. It also needs to be noted that President Bush supports certain initiatives to combat global warming. {{unsigned|Bag221}}<br /> <br /> *No one is disputing naturally occurring warming, Bag221. Of course there is evidence of that! But the majority doesn't believe what that nut-job, wing-nut Gore is blabbing about either. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 13:38, 7 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> Actually, the correct term, as Blogs 4 Brownback has taught us, is 'moonbat'. 'Wingnuts' are what we liberals sometimes (if we are resorting to [[liberal mockery]]) call opponents on the right. :)--[[User:SayaSan|SayaSan]]<br /> <br /> *LOL...I must thank you for just making my morning! Sorry you had to get uncivil and urinate on my gesture of hospitality, my wishing you might contribute and become a productive editor, like you never managed before. My bad. Say goodnight, Gracie. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 14:02, 7 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I am not sying that I agree or disagree with Dr. Marburger. I think that there needs to be something put in the article about his views on the subject. This is important due to the fact that Dr. Marburger has a great amount of influence on the president, and therefore a great amount of influence on US policy. Bag221<br /> <br /> *Yes, Bag221, I can see your point! Sorry, but I was distracted by someone being rude to my hospitality....and that just angers me so! I will be happy to unlock the article for you to incorporate your suggestions, if you would like. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 14:18, 7 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> In science, it hardly matters what percentage of researchers ''think'' or ''believe'' or ''guess'' something is true. It only matters how the evidence compares to the theory. If the evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is discarded. It's as simple as that. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 22:14, 13 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Global warming predicted by scripture ==<br /> <br /> I'm kinda new at this *net*pedia stuff, so I don't know where to post or if to post some things.<br /> But I did figure out how to comment about 'Global warming'....as the page points out, other planets are experiencing warming as well. The common denominator is THE SUN. The Bible predicted that this would occur, and during this particular time. Read Isaiah 30:26 as well as 2Peter 3:10-12, Malachi 4:1. Michael, --[[User:Witnessnbr1|Witnessnbr1]] 13:57, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Uranus is in fact cooling, bucking the trend. If it were down to the Sun then we would expect it to be a Solar System wide event. &lt;br /&gt;<br /> :We would also expect planets closer to the Sun to warm more, in accordance with the inverse square law as it applies to intensity of E-M radiation. However, this is not thought to be the case. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:07, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> *Atmospherics plays the biggest part, in all of that. I don't think anyone of sound logic can deny their is general warming for Earth. My only sticking point, as it is for thousands in the scientific community, is people running around blaming engines or this or that. Man can be very egocentric in wanting to always take the blame or credit for everything....that is pretty simplistic. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 14:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :On the other hand, there are very few other things which we ''can'' blame for the warming. Solar activity, on average, has gone down in the past 30 or so years which, even accounting for time lag, should result in decreasing temperatures, something which hasn't been seen. Cosmic rays similarly have been on the decrease, and the hypothesis had some major flaws in the first place.<br /> :Coupled with these two things, we are somewhere in the middle of the current climate cycle, and shouldn't be able to discern any significant trend in global temperatures. We are able to, however, and we can also see (by comparing instrumental records with historical proxy data) that the current rate of change of temperature is unprecedented.<br /> :The warming was not produced by humanity alone; solar activity probably contributed up to 0.18-0.2 degrees C warming prior to 1940. However, since then, it is extremely unlikely that natural forcings have had any significant warming effect (indeed, most research I've seen suggests a net cooling from natural forcings over the twentieth century).<br /> :I'm of the opinion that nuclear power in combination with renewables and feasible substitutes for the products of crude oil should be able to see us through with little, if any, effect on our quality of life, not to mention also remove our current dependence on oil (which is primarily found in the politically unstable Middle-East, with smaller amounts also in Russia and even less in the USA) which will not, after all, last forever. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 14:42, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::If you know anything about [[solar variation]] and terrestial air temperature, you can add it to the article. Even better if you know how [[cosmic rays]] affect [[cloud cover]]. <br /> <br /> ::As we all know, on a cloudy day, air near the surface (below the clouds) tends to be cooler than usual. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 15:15, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::That last part is true, and clouds do indeed have a cooling effect during the day (due to their reflection of IR radiation, much like the Arctic ice sheet and the aerosols and sulphates responsible for the 1940-1970 Northern Hemispheric cooling period). They also serve to increase temperatures during the night by reflecting IR from the Earth back at the ground.<br /> :::The net effect from cloud cover is one of cooling.<br /> :::It is believed that cosmic rays have little, if any, effect on cloud formation (and by extension cloud cover). In simple terms, the hypothesis essentially stated that the ionising effect of cosmic rays would cause a larger number of particles to which water vapour would 'stick' (these particles were called cloud condensation nuclei; however, whilst they could theoretically help clouds to form, the accepted explanation is effectively saturation of the atmosphere at the point at which clouds form), thus increasing cloud formation.<br /> :::However, no effect such as this has been reliably seen to exist. The hypothesis didn't match up with reality very well.<br /> :::I don't know how long TK intends to unlock the article for at whatever point; until he does it I'll write an outline of the additions so that I can then quickly make the edit. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 15:29, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Don't say ''it is believed'' when discussing science. Only politicians and theologians deal in beliefs. Say rather that this or that scientist has published a [[hypothesis]] or a [[theory]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 16:13, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::A small selection:<br /> :::http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Laut2003.pdf (Peter Laut)<br /> :::http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf (T. Sloan, A.W. Wolfendale)<br /> :::http://www.mps.mpg.de/dokumente/publikationen/solanki/r47.pdf (N.A. Krivova and S.K. Solanki)<br /> :::http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf (Mike Lockwood and Claus Frohlich)<br /> :::There are numerous others. --[[User:Scientist|Scientist]] 17:11, 14 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> : Oh great- another idiot misquoting the bible. Those quotes provide no evidence of the current time, nor do they talk about Global Warming as we are supposedly experiencing it. <br /> :* Isaiah 30:23 provides a chronological reference saying &quot;in that day shall thy cattle feed in large pasture&quot;, but we hold our cattle in very small feeding pens these days. <br /> :* Your quotation of 2Peter 3:10-12 reads &quot;But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise...heavens being on fire&quot;, but the alleged &quot;global warming&quot; is hardly a rapid process or so dramatic. And where's the great noise? <br /> :* The same goes for Malachi 4:1's &quot;that shall burn as an oven&quot;. Or would you like to claim that we're in the &quot;pre-heat&quot; stage? [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 15:14, 29 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Section Needed on the Saturation Problem ==<br /> <br /> In my own investigation of the global warming issue, the single most disturbing oversight in the analysis of global warming alarmists is the saturation problem. To oversimplify a bit, the problem is this: (1) the greenhouse effect is caused by the absorbtion of photons emitted by the Earth's blackbody radiation, delaying the release of that energy into space; (2) there is, therefore, a maximum greenhouse effect, defined by the fact that it is physically impossible to absorb more than 100% of the photons; (3) nevertheless, climate change models generally assume that the contribution to warming by greenhouse gases is logarithmic--that is, for any given doubling of CO2 (for example), there will be a constant increase in temperature. In short, the contribution to warming from greenhouse gases should probably be characterized by a logistical curve; a logarithmic curve will systematically over-estimate the contribution to the greenhouse effect of future increases in greenhouse gases.<br /> <br /> Unfortunately, for reasons I cannot fathom, I've found almost no real scholarship on the matter. The difference between the logistical curve and the logarithmic curve will be very small when the absorbtion fraction is close to zero, and will be much greater when it's close to 1. As near as I've been able to work out, the fraction of photons in CO2's absorbtion spectrum that are absorbed is about .85, but I don't know whether that part of the curve is more like 0 or 1 (though I suspect it's a lot more like 1). <br /> <br /> Incidentally, the chief oversimplification I'm making is treating greenhouse effect as linear with the number of photons absorbed. In fact, the function is frequency dependent, and not necessarily in a very understandible way. Because the energy of a photon is related to its frequency, and because absorbed photons are re-emitted as photons of other frequencies, you'd almost have to emperically measure the emission spectrum from excited atmospheric CO2 over time, frequency by frequency throughout its absorbtion spectrum, to build up a model that accurately reflects how much energy is actually retained over time by CO2 when it absorbs a photon. Again, I've found no scholarship addressing the frequency dependence of CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. This appears to be a gaping hole in the state of climatology. [[User:QBeam]] Oct. 19, 2007 5:11 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I'm confused what you are trying to say, let me see if I understand it.<br /> <br /> :First of all, it's weird to talk about absorbing photons in this case, because that implies some sort of step mechanism. In fact, absorbed radiation causes resonance vibrations in the bonds of molecules (the oxygen-carbon double bond, in the case of carbon dioxide). This doesn't really change what you are saing, but I thought it should be said before we go further.<br /> <br /> :So, adding that correction to your argument, I agree with your point (1) above, with the caveat that it does not &quot;delay&quot; the heat radiated to the atmosphere, but partially blocks it. Statement (2) is kind of correct, there is a theoretical maximum to the ''percentage'' (not necessarily the amount) of radiation absorbed, however there are a lot of other interesting effects that come into play. For example, changing the surface temperature of the earth changes its blackbody radiation emission spectrum. There are also interesting effects like the phase of water (Venus only has a runaway greenhouse effect because it doesn't have enough water!). You've completely lost me on point (3) however. Whatever dependence temperature has on CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;, it's not based on a logarithm just because; it comes from an energy balance. Most likely whatever you are reading has simplified it in order to make it easy to talk about the affect of increasing CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt;. I'm not sure where the logistic function comes in at all.<br /> <br /> :I'm also completely lost on your last couple paragraphs. Are you trying to say that we do not understand how CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; absorbs radiation? Because we understand it really well (I've done it in intro-level college chem lab). All this talk of photons makes me think that you are confusing global warming with a luminescent effect. Also, are you trying to say that climate change models don't take into account the fact that CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; only absorbs in certain waveleghts? That's the only way global warming works! If we assumed that CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; absorbs *all* radiation, then it would absorb ''incoming'' radiation as well, which leads to global ''cooling'', not global warming. In fact, greenhouse gases pass the high frequency radiation from the sun and absorb the low frequency radiation from the earth -- if you haven't found any scholarship addressing this issue, I have a text book to recommend!<br /> <br /> :I'd like to stress that I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm trying to understand what you are saying. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:55, 19 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::To answer your last point first, I'd say your comments show good faith, and a helpful and entirely appropriate attempt to get to the core of the (potential) dispute. <br /> ::On one level, we may just be talking past each other. I say &quot;delay&quot; because excited molecules will eventually relax, and new photons (in a different spectrum) are emitted. Your comments suggest that you mistakenly believe that all of the energy of a black body photon is permanently returned to the Earth as thermal energy just because it's absorbed by an atmospheric molecule. But the molecules that are excited this way have much more of a tendency to shed the energy through re-radiation than mere black-body radiation. These molecules shed energy through a couple of different mechanisms, including new photon emission directly radiated into space, as if the energy was never absorbed in the first place. Other mechanisms are less direct, and therefore take longer; still others really do end up dumping the energy back into the Earth as thermal energy. Thus, to fully describe the effect of the absorbtion of photons at a given quantum of energy, you need a graph over time that shows the expectation value of the fraction of that energy that ends up being radiated into space anyway. It may be that a physical chemist's training is better suited to the task of calculating that curve from first principles, but, from my perspective as a physicist, I'd say that the curve needs to be measured empirically. Worse, it needs to be calculated for each quantum of energy throughout the absorbtion spectrum, because the tendency of a molecule to want to relax through photon emission is a function of its quantum mechanical properties (and because the re-emitted photons are in a different spectrum, and, therefore, not likely to be absorbed by primary greenhouse molecules). The shapes of these curves are the major unknown I'm pointing to. [[User:QBeam]]<br /> :::I think you are right, we are just talking past each other. It seems that physicists and chemical engineers go about explaining things in different ways (for example the photon/wave difference)!<br /> :::As for the time vs. emission graph, I'm not sure it's necessary. The number of particles is large enough and close enough to uniform distribution that the effect can be modeled on the aggregate level. I don't think you need or want me to get into the specific calculations, but the radiation balance on the earth can be modeled the same way you would model any other system. It follows the same principle as figuring out the steady state temperature of a roof in full sunlight in the wintertime. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Now, regarding my third point, the logistical curve, let me try to reformulate. There are a certain, relatively fixed number of ergs/year emitted by the Earth in CO2's absorbtion spectrum. (Your point about the spectum being T dependent is correct, but of small effect, since T==300K and delta-T&lt;~3.) The maximum greenhouse effect would have every one of those ergs absorbed (and then a certain fraction of them would be re-emitted anyway in other spectra, and the rest &quot;trapped&quot;). Call that fraction, as a function of the amount of CO2, x(C). For any incremental increase in CO2, delta-C, the number of ergs retained is proportional to (1-x(C)). Logistical curves behave this way--logarithms do not. In short, the horizontal asymptote of a logarithm is infinity, but the horizontal asymptote (and upper bound) on the greenhouse effect is finite. [[User:QBeam]]<br /> <br /> :::Ah ok I get what you mean by the logistical curve now. I'm not sure that I can say definitively that this ''isn't'' what scientists are doing, though. You normally hear the &quot;doubling CO&lt;sub&gt;2&lt;/sub&gt; will cause X&quot; mantra by scientists when it's meant for the public. They never say that ''every'' doubling will increase the temperature by a certain amount, only that a doubling from current levels. I might be mistaken about this (I don't exactly spend a ton of time in the scientific literature), but I'm fairly confident that the scientists are doing their calculations from first principals (or second principles, since, as you said, the quantum mechanics aren't fully known), not from exrapolation. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::One thing we do know is that the models aren't built from first principles. They are mathematical models, that attempt to predict future climate change by fitting data to mathematical functions and extrapolating. <br /> <br /> ::::I can't say I know definitively that they're using logarithms, because I've never seen them publish their models. I can say the evidence suggests otherwise. Firstly, I'd think it odd if every model-builder is using a logistical curve, but they uniformly say they're using a logarithm. Surely someone would actually use the right word? Secondly, logarithms are one of the four basic curves that are normally used to build mathematical models; logistical curves aren't on that list. Finally, while both curves would tend to fit the data pretty well for lower levels of greenhouse effect, they would diverge at higher levels. In fact, the models have over-predicted recent warming, and had to be tweaked downwards--that is, they've behaved exactly as you would predict if they'd mistakenly chosen a log function. [[User:QBeam]] 2:25pm Nov. 2, 2007 (EDT) <br /> <br /> :::::First of all, how can you say &quot;the models aren't built on first principles&quot; if you've &quot;never seen [any published] models?&quot; (I presume you are talking about predictive models; descriptive models are ''not'' based on fitting the data). Like I said before, I don't know that they ''aren't'' using a logistical function, I just know (with my measily 3+ years experience in a major which has a very small focus on modeling techniques) that no scientist worth their salt would use an entirely wrong function, just because. If you can point me to any evidence of this, I'd love to read it.<br /> <br /> :::::At any rate, how do you know they are using the wrong function at all? If scientists who study these sorts of things for a living all use a logarithm, how do you know they are wrong? [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:17, 4 November 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> :*The problem is, you are assuming good faith. Unfortunately on the Internet that is at the top of the charts for never happening. QBeam was stringing together buzz words and silly science in the hope they would lend creditability to his/her post, a fact you just proved, HelpJazz. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 01:01, 20 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> ::If you believe you can identify an error in my (or anyone's) reasoning, then you should point that out. Vacuous cheer-leading like this only serves to discredit whatever ideology it is you think you're representing. Simply labeling something a &quot;buzzword,&quot; even if it were accurate, is not a substantive response. [[User:QBeam]]<br /> :::I dunno, if it's buzzwords it sure fooled me (twice)! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:39, 30 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Article is Thin ==<br /> <br /> Given the huge scope and significance of this article, I think the posted article is rather thin in covering only a few issues. I am gratified that you note solar warming throughout the solar system. <br /> <br /> == PRE-POSTING DRAFT Mechanism ? ==<br /> <br /> This article and its controversial nature prompts an idea. COULD YOU CONSIDER THIS AS AN IMPROVEMENT OF CONSERVAPEDIA -- AND A VAST IMPROVEMENT OVER WIKIPEDIA?<br /> <br /> Maybe you could have a DRAFT version of the article, not visible to the public, which would allow editors to work on an article, and then ask for APPROVAL before changes are posted to the final article.<br /> <br /> I say this because -- like in this case -- there could be DOZENS of subtopics that are IMPORTANT which I think could be added. It would be hard to merely suggest such changes, with so many of them, instead of SHOWING the recommended changes.<br /> <br /> In fact, as a vast improvement over the CHAOS at Wikipedia, perhaps you could do this....<br /> <br /> Suppose you programmed a page for EACH user interested in the particular article. Let them modify a COPY of the article saved under their user ID, but not visible to the outside public. REMEMEMBER there could be dozens of changes involved, all in different places. SO it is hard to DESCRIBE what one wants to add. <br /> <br /> Then responsible editors could review different PROPOSED versions of the final article, take what they agree with from various versions, and come up with a high-quality final result.<br /> <br /> Wouldn't that be better than the CHAOS at Wikipedia?<br /> <br /> Jon Moseley<br /> <br /> == URANUS COOLING -- NOT CERTAIN ==<br /> <br /> I read the referenced article on Uranus cooling, and I think that -- while it is interesting and should be mentioned -- the data does NOT confirm that Uranus is in fact cooling. The C. article should say that it MAY be cooling. However, the measurements at issue where taken from different parts of the planet. The higher (earlier) temperature measurement was taken from the DUSK side of the planet. That is the side that had been in sunlight all day long. The lower (later) temperature reading was taken from the DAWN side of the planet. That is, the side of the planet that had been in darkness all night long. Therefore, it is unknown if these measurements actually represent a cooling planet Uranus or simply the effects of day versus night. I think fairness and integrity calls for mentioning the observation. But I DO NOT THINK THE OBSERVATION SHOULD BE STATED AS CONCLUSIVE, when it is uncertain and subject to further observation. Jon Moseley<br /> <br /> *You need to sign articles with four ~ instead of as you are. There is a place in &quot;My Preferences&quot; for this as well. Time/Date stamping is as important as your name. Thanks. --&lt;font color=&quot;#1E90FF&quot; face=&quot;Comic Sans MS&quot;&gt;[[User:TK|şŷŝoρ-₮K]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;sup&gt;&lt;font color=&quot;DC143C&quot;&gt;[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]&lt;/font&gt;&lt;/sup&gt; 15:10, 26 October 2007 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Politician Al Gore&quot; ==<br /> I don't think it is proper to call Al Gore a &quot;politician&quot;. He was at one point, but at that time he was also was also called &quot;the Vice President of the United States of America&quot;. Intentionally calling him VPOTUS lends credibility, while using &quot;politician&quot; lends lack there-of. Either way, today he campaigns (whether or not you agree with him) for a super-national cause. So using a current title suggests that the neutral &quot;activist&quot; would be proper.<br /> <br /> == Request ==<br /> <br /> Can somebody add [[:Category:Liberal Myths]]? Please and thank you, God bless. {{unsigned|RyanMiller}}<br /> :It is not just liberals. Pat Robertson is on the boat, too! {{unsigned|Creationist}}<br /> <br /> ::Not to mention the reinsurance industry. Both Munich Re and Swiss Re - both huge businesses that insure insurance companies - have published numerous reports on the status of global warming, or rather global climate change as it should be referred to. If they're worried about this, I think that we should be too. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:44, 4 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> == Millions of Years ==<br /> <br /> I am a firm believer in the Bible time line, yet this article refers to the earth being millions of years old. <br /> <br /> However, the article states, &quot;According to temperature reconstruction made within an Old Earth paradigm, there have been many cycles of naturally-caused global warming and cooling over many millions of years (see climate cycles).&quot;<br /> <br /> This view is not consistent with the Bible time line. I thought the point of conservapedia was to present a Christian view of the world. Can the sentence quoted above please be removed because of it's discrepancies with the Bible? According to the Bible, the earth is no where near a million years old. The sentence quoted above would also give credence to notion that there have been ice ages, when in fact the Bible never mentioned one.<br /> <br /> {{unsigned|Creationist}}<br /> <br /> : Are you in the habit of not capitalizing [[Bible]]? Hope you don't mind my asking.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:06, 12 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> Are you in the habit of providing irrelevant comments? If it is your mission to correct everyone's grammar on this site, you have a long quest ahead of you. {{unsigned|Creationist}}<br /> <br /> ::I hope that you understand that there is difference between not capitalizing ''Bible'' and a common grammar error. This site is also frequently vandalized by atheists, it's normal that Mr.Schlafly is wary. Don't take it personally. Another point: please sign your posts with four 'tilde' ('~') characters, like this: [[User:Leopeo|Leopeo]] 12:27, 13 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> I now realize my mistake in grammar and it has been corrected. In the normal course of my day, I usually do not type Bible and that is the root of my mistake. [[User:Creationist|Creationist]] 13:49, 13 December 2007 (EST)Creationist<br /> <br /> : I noticed that line there recently and wanted to change it, but couldn't quickly come up with an alternative. I don't think simply deleting the line is appropriate, because it is validly pointing out that the evidence (according to the secular view) is not consistent with the claims. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:00, 12 December 2007 (EST)<br /> <br /> I agree and thanks with the explanation. The other point of view will help provide a neutral standpoint. I believe that most Christians, including myself, would not agree with that statement.<br /> <br /> ==Source of the gasses<br /> The article needs to mention that carbion dioxide does not come from industry. There was a movie that showed it was from oceans.<br /> I tried to add this but, the edit button is broken for this artical.<br /> <br /> == Section about global warming's unfalsifiability ==<br /> <br /> I'd like to add a section about how global warming advocates see everything as proof that global warming is happening - e.g. glaciers melting, glaciers growing, more frequent and stronger hurricanes, less frequent and weaker hurricanes, unusually warm winters, bitterly cold winters, etc. This is easily documented from news articles over the past few years. If everything proves global warming and nothing disproves it, then it is unfalsifiable and thus is an invalid scientific theory. Your thoughts? [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:29, 30 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> :I like the idea of a section pointing out the fact that everything these days seems to be related to global warming, but I think it's going too far to say that because various different people use different (seemingly) contradictory examples, that they all believe all of these examples, especially if many of them are from non-experts. Also, if GW ''were'' really happening, then you wouldn't be able to &quot;disprove it&quot;, but that doesn't make it non-falsifiable. I think there's a subtle but important distinction there.<br /> <br /> :I think you are on the right track, and a section about this would be interesting and enlightening, but you need to be extremely careful about your wording and what sources you use. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 16:20, 30 January 2008 (EST)<br /> <br /> <br /> == Order of Article Items ==<br /> <br /> I would humbly suggest that an Admin switch #1 with #2 - that is, put # 2 &quot;The Modern Warm Period&quot; first, then the #Controversy second. I think it would better convey the details about &quot;global warming&quot; before the controversy is discussed.<br /> <br /> Can we add something about how the media has flip-flopped between catastrophic global warming and cooling over the past 100 years? Or should that go on the [[Global Warming Controversy]] page? [[User:Donaldson|Donaldson]] 17:10, 3 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Science and opinion==<br /> <br /> Position statements are not science. Saying that &quot;X believes something&quot; is unrelated to the truth of falsehood of that thing. Many individuals and organizations have made statements about [[global warming]], and it has become one of the most discussed political controversies of modern times. <br /> <br /> <br /> [[Global warming theory]] has been used to justify [[wealth redistribution]], a pet project of [[Socialists]]. But this article is not about economic benefits. It's about the science of the world's climate. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:13, 10 April 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Problem With Top Image ==<br /> <br /> The top image is inaccurate. No official predictions were made about global warming until 1992. Any predictions in 1980 would have been the work of a lone climatologist, and not the work of the scientific consensus. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:05, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> :Prove it. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The proof is in the fact that the IPCC (which is the only organization that had ever produced long range climate forecasts) was not created until 1988, as per their website http://www.ipcc.ch/about/index.htm [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 00:32, 3 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Who determines when a &quot;prediction&quot; is &quot;official&quot;? Or better yet, when. Just because a prediction happened to be wrong doesn't make it not official. Its evident that environmentalists are backpedaling. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:57, 4 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'd assume it would be the organizations in charge of such efforts who determine when a prediction is official. [[User:IndianaJ|IndianaJ]] 02:01, 4 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Exactly. There was no organization for predicting the climate until the IPCC (there are now several). Thus, any predictions made prior to that would have been the work of an independent forecaster, and would not have reflected the views of the overall scientific community. Also, even if there had been someone creating such forecasts at that time, that graph is inaccurate in the sense that the &quot;predicted&quot; line is linear, whereas the predicted increase in temperature is, and always has been, exponential. Thirdly, the graph itself is out of date. It only goes up to 1996. [[User:TheNobleSith3|TheNobleSith3]] 12:32, 4 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::You're welcome to find a &quot;true&quot; graph... if you can. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 00:41, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> The graph from this site is accurate. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html [[User:TheNobleSith4|TheNobleSith4]] 00:49, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :None of those graphs represent global warming accurately. You're welcome to find a better one, just remember that it must be accurate and reflect reality, not what environmentalists pretend it to be. [[User:WilliamH|WilliamH]] 01:05, 5 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==IPCC==<br /> You removed the IPCC part stating they arent a scientific group but CP's own page states they are<br /> [[User:AdenJ|AdenJ]] 08:01, 23 May 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Communism? ==<br /> <br /> What does the fall of communist nations have to do with global warming? <br /> <br /> http://www.conservapedia.com/Science_of_global_warming#False_Claims_of_.22Consensus.22 <br /> <br /> I'm going to remove it. '''[[user:FernoKlump|&lt;font color=&quot;#000066&quot; &gt;FernoKlump&lt;/font&gt;]]''' 17:47, 7 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Sources==<br /> I think this a great source work for us to mine quotes and thoughts: [http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming1.pdf Comments on Global Warming by the founder of the Weather Channel]. It starts with:<br /> <br /> ::It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming... it is a SCAM.<br /> <br /> ::Some misguided scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long-term scientific data back in the late 1990's to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental extremism type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the &quot;research&quot; to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.<br /> <br /> ::Environmental extremist, notable politicians among them then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild &quot;scientific&quot; scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.<br /> <br /> ::Now their ridiculously manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.<br /> <br /> ::I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party.<br /> <br /> And just gets better from there. Also [http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php Global Warming Hoax] refutes many warming myths. [http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10488 The Heartland]'s common sense environmental page has a list of references on this topic. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 07:00, 15 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Barr vs Obama/McCain ==<br /> <br /> Should it in the politics section mention the fact that: [[Barack Obama]] and [[John McCain]] both subscribe to the theory that Global Warming exists, is caused by human activity, and that human activity must be curtailed to prevent Global Warming; and that [[Bob Barr]] is the &lt;i&gt;only&lt;/i&gt; candidate to disagree with humans-are-all-bad theory of Global Warming, and to disagree with proposals to legislate limitations on economic activity for the appeasement of anti-Global Warming activists?<br /> <br /> :Not unless we clarify what &quot;exists&quot; means; and how much is caused by human activity. <br /> <br /> :Temperature is up, around the globe, since 1850. But how much of this is a return to average from abnormally low temperatures? (See [[Little Ice Age]].) And how much does human activity affect global air temperatures, compared to [[solar variation]] and [[cosmic rays]]?<br /> <br /> :If you can nail down the candidates' exact positions, by all means add them. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:04, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Here's a link to a YouTube video of John McCain says the &quot;[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es overwhelming majority of scientific opinion in America today, and in the world, is that climate change is real. The fact is that it is real. The fact is that the solution to it is the development of technologies.... and a cap-and trade proposal]&quot;.... at the end McCain says &quot;the debate is over&quot;; obviously, unless you think Global Warming is man made, there would be no &quot;solution&quot; to use &quot;cap and trade&quot;. [[User:Pandeism|Pandeism]] 13:18, 3 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: For solar variation and cosmic rays, there was a study on that published [http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf here]. News articles on the article [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml] [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm] --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 19:17, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::&quot;a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest?&quot; - Try not to supply one-sided sources if you want anyone to pay attention to you. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:33, 19 June 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: In all fairness, any source that is going to try to prove a point will be one sided. The links for cosmic rays and the solar influence are also one sided. The important thing to do would be to show ''all'' the links and ''all'' the data and let people draw conclusions from that rather than just having a site that supports one side of the controversy and represses the other. --[[User:Rutm|Rutm]] 20:10, 19 June 2008 (EDT<br /> <br /> == Obama's carbon cap a &quot;far-reaching, giant tax&quot;? ==<br /> <br /> Jpatt, please try not to completely break sentences by re-inserting your edits. Also, I need a reliable source that says that Obama's suggested carbon cap is a tax. A source that calls said tax far-reaching and giant would be even better. I have looked, and the closest thing I could find when I made my edits was that the carbon cap would accomplish the same a tax would, but that most definitely doesn't mean that it ''is'' a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 17:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I didn't reinsert the entire edits, just the far reaching tax. Since you took it out already, I am not going to source. As for the 'far-reaching and giant tax', what do you call ''( &quot;an economy-wide cap on U.S. carbon emissions)''? So for the sarcasm, but I don't call it a stimulus package. Economy wide is far reaching and giant. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 18:06, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::You equate a price set by market forces with a tax. I don't know what you would call ''that'', but I would call it &quot;wrong&quot;. At ''best'', it's inaccurate and potentially misleading to simply state that he wants to introduce a tax. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 18:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::First, market forces aren't setting a price, but the Obama government, for an item not charged today. Second, who will pay for the measure? Let's see, loss of many jobs, cost of living increases, $10.00 a gallon gas. If I am not mistaken, the American people will pay the increased costs because &quot;we can't have our thermostats at 72 degrees&quot;, unless we pay up. Increase in costs is called a tax. Wrong? doubt it. Misleading? Obama's plan is more misleading than my explanation. A Cap is not a Tax, that is debatable,-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 20:18, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Idoltry ==<br /> <br /> I global warming idoltry?[[User:American78|American78]] 22:17, 5 September 2008 (EDT)American78<br /> <br /> I just wanted to say, finally, I found a bunch of people who realized how stupid the idea of man made global warming is, and actually look at the facts. Thank you.<br /> <br /> ==Scientists==<br /> <br /> We need to get actual scientists to write this article. It's too complex for us laymen. Can we get in touch with MIT Professor [[Richard Lindzen]] or retired atmospheric physicist [[Fred Singer]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:48, 17 December 2008 (EST)<br /> : I am a scientist who worked with the British Antarctic Survey until last year, but I accept that claims of authority on here can be dubious. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 10:51, 17 December 2008 (EST)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=519688 2008-09-18T17:28:50Z

<p>MikeR: /* Data from several experiments */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> ==Initial discussion ==<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?<br /> <br /> :::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> :::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: I've not really seen any &quot;hysteria&quot; here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.<br /> <br /> ::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:<br /> <br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]<br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]<br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]<br /> <br /> Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::The first article clearly is criticizing a pro-evolution article. You said '''MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws.''' Above are the links to three articles that &quot;contain meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article.&quot; I don't know how to be more clear. There are pro-evolution articles published in the PNAS. Three of them are criticized in the letters above. What more do you want? [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 21:38, 17 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> what if the other two were indeed the type of articles you were asking for? [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 16:02, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.<br /> <br /> == Statistics examples ==<br /> <br /> I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can<br /> give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say<br /> I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are &quot;pro&quot; (support) and 52 are &quot;con&quot; (against) the hypothesis.<br /> So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose<br /> in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were &quot;pro&quot; and 2 were &quot;con.&quot; <br /> If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 &quot;pro&quot; and 54 &quot;con&quot;, so more than 50% &quot;pro&quot; (in a large total sample size!), <br /> appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Data from several experiments ==<br /> <br /> I would like to contribute to this discussion because I have taught statistics to graduate biology students for 16 years.<br /> <br /> The combination of data from several experiments is a specialist and sometimes difficult area of statistical theory but a simple example shows why Aschafly’s concern about combining the results of three different experiments is not justified and why this aspect of his criticism of Lenski’s recent paper in PNAS is not valid.<br /> <br /> Suppose we want to conduct a test of whether or not men are taller than women on average. For the sake of the example, I generated random heights of people from a population in which men had an average height of 175cm (5’10’) and women of 165cm (5’6”). The standard deviations of height in both sexes were 7cm. I think these numbers are approximately correct for people in the UK but the details aren’t important.<br /> <br /> Suppose we take 5 samples of 2 men and 2 women. Here are the numbers I generated:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Man1 !! Man2 !! Woman1 !! Woman2 !! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! P<br /> |-<br /> | 176 || 179 || 157 || 148 || 177.5 || 152.5 || 25 || 5.27 || 0.017<br /> |-<br /> | 180 || 176 || 160 || 164 || 178 || 162 || 16 || 5.66 || 0.015<br /> |-<br /> | 176 || 175 || 167 || 165 || 175.5 || 166 || 9.5 || 8.50 || 0.0068<br /> |-<br /> | 169 || 171 || 168 || 173 || 170 || 170.5 || -0.5 || -0.19 || 0.57<br /> |-<br /> | 179 || 175 || 166 || 178 || 177 || 172 || 5 || 0.79 || 0.26<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> P in the last column is the t-test probability for a one-side test of women being shorter than men. (Formally, it’s the probability of getting a value of t greater than that calculated from the data if women are in fact taller than men on average.)<br /> <br /> Should the fact that, in the fourth sample, the average height of the women is taller than that of the men make us doubt that men are in fact taller on average? Should we be concerned about the last sample, in which the difference in height of the two sexes is rather small, though in the expected direction? No, in both cases. When we combine the data on all 10 men and all 10 women, we get this:<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Men mean !! Women mean !! Mean difference !! t !! ''P''<br /> |-<br /> | 175.6 || 164.6 || 11 || 3.85 || 0.00058<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Clearly, combining the data from several similar experiments strengthens the conclusions considerably, as shown by the fact that ''P'' is much smaller for the combined data than for any individual sample.<br /> <br /> Although the combination of data from several experiments is a specialised area of statistics, I see nothing particularly incorrect about the approach used by Lenski and his colleagues. The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so. (For example: A. Combining the results of five samples of the heights of men and women is clearly valid. B. Combining three samples of heights of men and women with two samples of lengths of male and female squid clearly isn’t.) Generally speaking, the outcome of a combined analysis of several small experiments which all point in the same direction (or at least in a similar direction) will be more significant than that of any one of those experiments, as is shown in the larger table above.<br /> <br /> I hope this clarifies the extensive discussion on this point and puts Aschafly’s mind at rest on this subject. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 08:20, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's very nicely put, thanks. You should work on some of the stats pages here. Of course, technically any sample is ultimately just a combination of ''n'' samples of size 1. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 13:28, 18 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518949 2008-09-17T19:15:04Z

<p>MikeR: /* Improper */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?<br /> <br /> :::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> :::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: I've not really seen any &quot;hysteria&quot; here, it's just that a number of us are not entirely convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I can really disagree with regarding the statistics (although they don't exactly say a lot either). I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.<br /> <br /> ::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:<br /> <br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]<br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]<br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]<br /> <br /> Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.<br /> <br /> == Statistics examples ==<br /> <br /> I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can<br /> give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say<br /> I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are &quot;pro&quot; (support) and 52 are &quot;con&quot; (against) the hypothesis.<br /> So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose<br /> in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were &quot;pro&quot; and 2 were &quot;con.&quot; <br /> If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 &quot;pro&quot; and 54 &quot;con&quot;, so more than 50% &quot;pro&quot; (in a large total sample size!), <br /> appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518948 2008-09-17T19:13:28Z

<p>MikeR: /* Improper */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?<br /> <br /> :::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> :::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: MikeR, I obviously welcome another unbiased outside opinion. Let us know when you get one. But beware, the [[evolution syndrome]] you've seen here will make anyone think twice before they criticize any aspect of any paper that promotes evolution. Anyone seeking funding or tenure will think twice before daring to question any aspect of an evolution paper, lest they be subjected to the hysteria you've seen here. So I'm not optimistic that you will be able to find anyone willing to attach his name to this dispute. You may have to use your own mind on this one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:32, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: I've not seen any &quot;hysteria&quot; here at all Andy. I think it's clear that a number of us are not convinced that you're right. You could persuade us by explaining, specifically, why you believe that the Monte Carlo or Z-transformation approaches were wrong, and what p-values you believe should have been obtained. I think the PNAS letter is somewhat rude, but there's nothing much in it that I disagree with regarding the statistics. I don't see a problem with combining samples of different sizes using a Z-transformation, for example, as it's a technique I use on a regular basis, and what I believe is a pretty standard statistical approach at this level. Indeed, that's why Fisher's Z-transformation technique was invented, to combine samples of different sizes. I'm genuinely interested to know what the issue is with it in this case.<br /> <br /> ::::::::As a side note, some of these statistical terms might be worth elaborating on in articles here on Conservapedia. I might make that my next project actually, if anyone wants to help. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 15:13, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::Aschlafly, would you accept that your description of PNAS is directly analagous to your own resistance to criticism of an anti-evolution stance? I ask you again - i) are you 100% certain that your analysis is correct, ii) do you believe you are the best person to make that judgement, and iii) would you consider bringing in an unbiased third-party statistician to review your methodology? What could be wrong with that if you are certain you are correct? It could only but strengthen your argument. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 13:15, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Aschlafly - here are three links to letters published in 2008 by PNAS which do, in fact, contain meaningful criticism of pro-evolution articles.:<br /> <br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/E3.full Ancient lineages in the genome: A response to Fagundes et al]<br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/22/E27.extract Natural selection does not explain cultural rates of change]<br /> * [http://www.pnas.org/content/105/35/E56.extract When sleep or hide makes the difference in macroevolution]<br /> <br /> Perhaps you might care to modify your claims in the light of this....[[User:BillK|BillK]] 12:41, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Your first example is a ''defense'' of a theory of evolution, and thus tends to support my point. Given the failure of your first citation to support your point, I did not bother to look at your other two.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:48, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.<br /> <br /> == Statistics examples ==<br /> <br /> I see lots of people are clamoring for some specific statistical data on here, and although I am no expert on statistics, I can<br /> give a simple example that demonstrates flaw #5 in the letter to PNAS (that combining different samples is invalid). So lets say<br /> I am testing some hypothesis, and I got a 100 samples, of which 48 are &quot;pro&quot; (support) and 52 are &quot;con&quot; (against) the hypothesis.<br /> So this doesn't support my hypothesis at all. But just for fun lets do another, smaller, experiment, with just 10 samples. And suppose<br /> in this smaller (statistically insignificant by itself) experiment I only used 1- samples, of which 8 were &quot;pro&quot; and 2 were &quot;con.&quot; <br /> If I combine the 2 experiments, I get a total of 56 &quot;pro&quot; and 54 &quot;con&quot;, so more than 50% &quot;pro&quot; (in a large total sample size!), <br /> appearing to support the hypothesis, even though that's obviously not the case! --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 14:33, 17 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518830 2008-09-17T16:27:53Z

<p>MikeR: /* Improper */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: PNAS won't publish any letter critical of evolution in any way, even when the letter points out 5 obvious statistical flaws.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:58, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?<br /> <br /> :::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> :::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: MikeR, PNAS never publishes a letter containing a meaningful criticism of a pro-evolution article, no matter how obvious and egregious the flaws. If the Lenski evolution article had incorporated a flaw tantamount to claiming that 2+2=5, the PNAS would still not admit the error. Check out [[evolution syndrome]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:14, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Perhaps but Andy, with respect, I'm not convinced you were correct in your belief that all of those 5 points were genuine flaws. That's why I think it's worth getting a second opinion from an unbiased outsider with post-graduate expertise in statistics. You've not really given an explanation of why the Monte Carlo or Z-Transformation approaches were wrong, nor have you stated what you believe the correct p-value should have been, and until you do I'm going to continue to have doubts about your analysis, based on my own knowledge. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 12:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518764 2008-09-17T13:57:20Z

<p>MikeR: /* Improper */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. What would you use, and what p-values would you obtain?<br /> <br /> :::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> :::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518761 2008-09-17T13:56:37Z

<p>MikeR: /* Improper */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. <br /> <br /> :::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> :::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518758 2008-09-17T13:55:46Z

<p>MikeR: /* Improper */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: {removed personal and non-substantive attack that violated clear rules for this discussion; also, unsubstantiated claims of expertise are not allowed - --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:16, 15 September 2008 (EDT))<br /> <br /> ::: I'm still a little unclear on your position ASchlafly - are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' your own statistical analysis is correct on this? Before you proceed further it's important to know that the technical analysis you are presenting is indeed indisputable. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 12:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Ben, if you have at least a 9th grade-level education, then you can look at the 5 errors and decide for yourself, and comment in a substantive manner. Yes, they are obvious and basic errors, and the fact that the reviewer of my letter at PNAS would not attach his name to a specific denial speaks volumes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschlafly, I'm a little confused as to why you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;curid=73292&amp;diff=517424&amp;oldid=517408 removed this comment of mine]? I did not cast any aspersions on your argument, and was merely answering your question as you posed it to me? Is &quot;declining to comment&quot; an indictable offense? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:20, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: Your comment was not an &quot;indictable offense,&quot; but it violated the rules of this page: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; Got it? Either say something substantive, or edit somewhere else. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:33, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: This is confusing. Is &quot;I agree with your thesis&quot; or &quot;your methods are 100% correct&quot; a substantive comment? It can be very hard to infer your intent, Mr.Schalfly, I'm sorry to say. I have no quarrel with you, but I'm becoming confused as to what is and isn't appropriate comment on what is labelled a &quot;Talk Page&quot;. Are there special rules for this Talk Page? If so, perhaps the title on the page might be changed? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 19:42, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: No, your quoted phrases are obviously not substantive comments. Your statement of agreement means nothing. I doubt you are even using your real name, for starters, which renders your agreement evens sillier. I repeat for the nth time, say something substantive or edit somewhere else.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:52, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: (removed another non-substantive posting)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:28, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Aschafly, perhaps you did not realize that my earlier questions were meant for you. I wish to address the statistical errors in a specific way, which requires a better understanding of your position. I will repeat my main questions: why was it incorrect to apply Monte Carlo techniques to the data in the paper, or in what way was the Monte Carlo technique performed incorrectly? Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly? In lieu of the Monte Carlo/Z-transform techniques, what statistical calculations ''should'' have been performed? Feel free to be technical; I have more than a ninth grade education.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: If you're skipping over the main points, then concede their validity or explain why you've skipped over them.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:14, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::: If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response to my previously-stated questions about points three and five: your statements about the incorrect application of Monte Carlo resampling and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation). --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:00, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::: Substantive postings are welcome, but I still don't have an explanation for why you skipped over the main points 1 and 2. Do you concede them?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:04, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::::: With all due respect Aschlafly, and excuse me if I feel the need to tiptoe as gently as possible here, but I would cautiously disagree with your statement that &quot;Substantive postings are welcome&quot;. It seems to me that you have explicitly removed ''only'' the substantive comments from this page. What is left are weak and non-substantive comments, to be sure. It seems very difficult to comment in any way here on this matter, as you seem to be of the opinion that you and you alone are correct. WIth the best will in the world, I certainly don't feel able to speak freely here, despite being well qualified to do so. Perhaps a slightly more lenient approach might help your own cause? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:23, 15 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> ::::::::::: Since I am new here I am a bit timid about chiming in on this discussion, but I feel compelled to say that (as I pointed out in the section below), I think this page should be reserved for appropriate responses to the PNAS letter - not for opinions regarding how Aschlafly is running this website. If you think you have valid points to bring out about that - maybe post them to his talk page? --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 22:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent) No, I do not concede points one and two; I've commented on them on the [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]] page. I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to. Similarly, your point four is not something that can be resolved by argument. The only way to prove that the results were due to contamination would be to repeat the experiment with different controls in place and demonstrate different results - which might spur some other labs to run a third or fourth trial to see who was right. It seemed to me that the only points that could be solved by discussion were three and five, since they made statements about the statistical methods that can potentially be resolved through debate. So, once again, what is your response to my questions regarding points three and five?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 22:34, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Brossa, I could not find a meaningful rebuttal by you of point 1, and I found no comments by you on point 2, at [[Talk:Letter to PNAS]]. Are you trying the classic trick of &quot;the answer is over there,&quot; when it isn't? Point 2 alone completely disproves the PNAS paper's thesis, and yet you avoid it and skip towards less obvious errors. I'm happy to address the subtle errors once you address the obvious ones.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:10, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Aschlafly, you are avoiding Brossa's question. Why can't you just answer it? Brossa said that he wanted to limit the discussion to these points. The reason that he wants to do that is because it the PNAS response targets your approach to the statistical analysis. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 16:24, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I don't mind addressing points one and two; I just don't think that we'll come to an agreement about them. Point one represents a misunderstanding of the figure 3, which is labeled &quot;Alternative hypotheses for the origin of the Cit+ function...&quot; The figure does not represent the results of the experiments and does not conflict with them. It is a cartoon of the a priori hypothesis that was generated before the experiments were performed; it is not itself the hypothesis (the map is not the country). Note that the vertical axis lacks a scale; there is no way of knowing what the actual mutation rates are ahead of time. The location of the vertical jump on the graph is abitrary; it has to lie somewhere between 0 and 31,500 generations, but that point could be anywhere. Quoting from the paper: &quot;The historical contingency hypothesis predicts that the mutation rate to Cit+ should increase after some potentiating genetic background has evolved. Thus, Cit+ variants should re-evolve more often in the replays using clones sampled from later generations of the Ara-3 population.&quot; The hypothesis as stated does not specify a generation at which the potentiating mutation occured. The hypothesis is not that potentiation took place at generation 31,000 rather than some other generation; it is that there ''was'' a potentiating mutation ''rather than'' a rare-mutation event. The results of the experiment do not disprove the contingency hypothesis; they confirm it and suggest that the potentiating mutation took place at generation 20,000. You think that the figure is the hypothesis; I think that the hypothesis is what is stated explicitly in the text of the paper; I doubt that we'll agree.<br /> <br /> :Point two states: &quot;Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this.&quot; I disagree with this statement. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same. One could imagine a hypothesis that men commit murder most often between the ages of 25 and 35, with samples taken from the male populations of L.A., Singapore, and London. One would find different murder rates among the men of those three cities, but still might find (or not) that murderers in those cities tend to be between 25 and 35 years old. The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were not the same, just as Singapore is not the same as Los Angeles. The rare-mutation hypothesis does not mean that the mutation rate to Cit+ is the same for ''all experimental conditions anywhere''; just that the mutation rate is constant ''given the conditions of a particular replay''. It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.<br /> <br /> :Point two also states &quot;If the authors claim that it is inappropriate to compare for scale the Second and Third Experiments to each other and to the First Experiment, then it was also an error to treat them similarly statistically.&quot; This is also incorrect in my view. One can state that the murder rate is different between two cities, and yet the murderers have some characteristic in common. Combining results from different samples is the bread and butter of statistical analysis. Meta-analysis, for example, is used to combine the results of studies that are much different than replay experiments one, two, and three. If you wish to make a more specific argument about the '''techniques''' used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform), as opposed to point three which mentions the Monte Carlo technique separately. <br /> <br /> :I therefore repeat my questions about points three and five, as stated previously. If you have other questions that I must answer first, please list them all at once, as I'm eager to move on to that discussion.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 17:53, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It's foolish to debate someone who has already closed his mind. Point 1 is plainly correct: the PNAS article should admit and disclose that the false hypothesis was indeed proven to be false. If you stand behind the falsehood, then you'll refuse to admit other errors also.<br /> <br /> :: Your refusal to concede point 2 is even more egregious. Lenski combined his experiments, and you can't claim that combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect. Moreover, the lack of scale also exists between Experiment 2 and 3, again disproving the underlying thesis of the paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:31, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did. It seems foolish to then treat those points as a shibboleth and refuse to discuss the other points, which I am fully prepared to concede provided you elaborate on why the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transform were either the wrong tests or performed incorrectly. I am capable of accepting two items from a list of five even if I reject the other three. Even if I were completely incapable of agreeing with you, I still don't see why you won't put your best mathematical argument forward about the paper's statistics. Were there too few Monte Carlo resamplings? Do you feel that the Z-transformation was performed incorrectly? Is the Z-transform itself suspect? Do you propose some other statistical analysis? If you do, there are any number of us here who can crunch the numbers again. What a coup it would be for you if we could use a technique that you suggested to obtain results that smashed Lenski's smug complacency!<br /> <br /> :::I don't claim that the combination was simultaneously correct and incorrect, by the way - I claim that it was correct. Where do I imply otherwise? Also, it's not only improper to compare replay one with replays two and three ''for scale'': it's impossible. Replay one involved constantly changing numbers of cells whereas replays two and three started with fixed numbers. How do you count the number of cells in the first replay to compare it to the other two? Is it the number of cells transferred each time? Is it the maximum population achieved in each flask prior to transfer? 750 generations passed in one case and 3700 generations in another before the Cit+ trait was seen - how do you factor that into the 'scale' equation? It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across ''any and all'' experimental conditions.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 19:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments, and how Experiment 3 does not scale with Experiment 2. Given that you don't address the main errors, it's foolish to waste time discussing more subtle points with you. Put another way, there are plenty of open-minded contributors on this site. Why would one waste time discussing with a close-minded person instead?<br /> <br /> :::: Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:06, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly:&quot;Brossa, you don't address how Lenski ''did'' combine the three experiments&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments.&quot; &quot;Second, why was it incorrect to apply the Z-transform to the data from the three replays, or in what way was the Z-transform performed incorrectly?&quot; &quot;...and the erroneous combination of the three replay experiments (the Z-transformation).&quot; &quot;If you wish to make a more specific argument about the techniques used to combine the three replay experiments into a single result, I'll address it. I think that the second part of point two is essentially the same as point five in that it criticizes the statistical method used to combine the results of the three replays (the Z-transform)...&quot; <br /> ::::::Blount and Lenski used Monte Carlo to derive a p-value for each of the three replay experiments; then used the Z-transformation to derive a final p-value from the three Monte Carlo p-values. I've mentioned the Z-transformation multiple times in connection to combining the results of the three experiments.<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Brossa, you don't address...how Experiment Three does not scale with Experiment 2.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page: &quot;The problem with comparing the 'sample sizes' in replays two and three is that the experimental conditions were similar, but not the same.&quot; &quot;It is possible to have different baseline mutation rates among the three replays, all of which follow the historical contingency pattern. Or the mutation rate could actually be the same across all three replays, and the results seen here are just a statistical fluke that would vanish if the replays could be run thousands of times. Either way, it's not fatal to the paper's conculsions.&quot; &quot;It is only the superficial resemblance of replays two and three that brings up the concept of 'scale'. The &quot;underlying thesis&quot; of the paper is not that there is a unique rate of mutation to Cit+ that applies across any and all experimental conditions&quot;<br /> <br /> :::::ASchlafly: &quot;Your account will be blocked for your [[90/10 rule]] violation unless you improve soon.&quot;<br /> ::::::Me, earlier on this page:&quot;If you would like me to through the original letter point by point, and respond to all of the claims in detail, I'd be happy to - but only after I have your explicit permission to do so on this talk page (or some other page of your choosing). Until I'm given that permission, I'll await your response...&quot; &quot;I just don't think that there is any chance that we will agree on those points, so there's little value in rehashing them unless you want to.&quot; &quot;I already said that I didn't think that we would reach common ground on points one, two, and four, and that it would be a waste of time to rehash them. You asked me to, so I did.&quot;<br /> ::::::I came into this discussion wanting to discuss specific issues: the basis of your objections to the Monte Carlo technique and the Z-transformation used to combine the results of the three replays into one final p-value. This could have been resolved quite quickly, but you said that I had to address all the points of your letter before you would answer my questions. I said repeatedly that I did not wish to do so without your explicit permission, which it seemed that you gave. So I jumped through those hoops, only to be accused of a 90/10 violation. Have I simply walked into an cunning trap?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 21:20, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Please provide your statistical analysis ==<br /> <br /> Andrew, If you are so sure that your statistical analysis of the Lenski paper is correct, you should publish it on Conservapedia. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:38, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 08:50, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: It is not the function of the editorial board to &quot;defend&quot; a paper. They mainly said that, from what Mr. Schlafly has written they could not see the mistake in Dr. Lenskis statisics suggested by Mr. Schlafly. It is neither the function of a reviewer to &quot;put his name&quot; on something. A reviewer should check if the average reader of a journal will be able to learn something from a letter. If he thinks there is nothing to learn, either because the letter fails to bring new insight, or because the readers may not understand how using only conservative methods in statistics and nothing which is mathematically considered to be fragile by people who have average mathematical knowledge, is favourable, then they should reject the letter. Although I had the impression from the wording of the response that the reviewer did have at least a brief look at the original article. And PNAS refuses the Letter for the very same reason people her are asking, namely the complete absence of alternative estimations for the numbers. I dont want to check the calculations, if Mr. Schlafly states that by using a well defined method, he finds another result and states this result clearly, i am a priori very willing to believe that, because i see no reason not to believe his word on that (Since he has, to my best knowledge, no record of scientific fraud). After he states his result, i may find the time trying to reproduce it (although i am very busy). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 13:00, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Could you direct me to the page showing your calculations? [[User:MickA|MickA]] 15:41, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Improper==<br /> I have no knowledge on this branch of science, so I won't comment on whether the results were correct, or if PNAS's letter was unbiased. Then again neither does Schlafly, who, of what info about him is known to the public is not a biologist. I find it somewhat ''inappropriate'' for someone with no training on a specifict field to come and tell someone that has actually learned something about that field, and say he hasn't done his job right. It's common sense. [[User:Fred1776|Fred1776]] 14:30, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's an extraordinary and offensive remark from someone who admits complete ignorance. How come you - Fred1776 - have an exact knowledge of how expert Andrew Schlafly's knowledge of the issue is? He may not be a mathematician, but he is an experienecd educator, amongst other things, with a legal training that enables his mind to get to the crux of a problem, as has been demonstrated very many times in this project. Biologists are properly open to the scrutiny of others. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:34, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::I simply can't turn down the opportunity of agreeing with Bugler! Biologists, as with all experts, should be open to scrutiny from everyone. It's good to use people's expertise, but not at the expense of raising their pronouncements to the status of dogma. True, the lay person may not be able to formulate much criticism but sometimes, and especially when they stray outside the purely technical, all experts make mistakes that are evident to others. We should respect expertise, but stopping all questioning is giving respect beyond what is due. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:45, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::(EC)Well, the PNAS seems to think his understanding of statistical analysis is less than &quot;elementary&quot;. The question is, given that virtually none of us are experts in statistics, why wouldn't we believe the PNAS? I mean, they are the trained scientists, right? If they told me my mis-understanding of statistical analysis was too fundamental to warrant a response in their journal, I'd show some humility and accept that as valid criticism. But hey, that's just me. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:48, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Kim, if you're naive enough to believe everything that the [[Liberal]] establishment tells you, well, hey, don't let us stop you. But don't think that you will be allowed to infect this site with your credulity. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 15:54, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Well if I'm credulous because I'd accept the opinion of an expert in very difficult and technical field I have no formal training in, then so be it. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 15:57, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Bugler, is it possible for you to talk without threatening someone? Try some civility. --[[User:IanG|IanG]] 16:08, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::::::::(At the risk of a block) Not &quot;believe everything on the basis that they are experts&quot;, but neither &quot;disbelieve everything on the basis that they are assumed to be Liberal&quot;. If one is to make use of expertise then you need to accept ''something'' told you on the basis of expertise: you will have to revise at least one belief because of what the expert says. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:09, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> KimEide, the experts on Christianity are overwhelmingly in agreement: Jesus rose from the dead. Yet I expect that you don't accept that expert view. Meanwhile, you seem to accept the &quot;expert&quot; view of Lenski about statistics despite his having, as far as I can tell, no expertise in that subject.<br /> <br /> Those who don't want to think for themselves can return to Wikipedia and other playpens. Those who have substantive insights about the logical and statistical issues here, please do comment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:16, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I happen to know for a fact that Lenski is thoroughly trained in the statistical analysis of experiments like the one in question. In fact, he's published extensively in that area. And I'm afraid the historicity of the Resurrection is a minority view among New Testament scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:22, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::What might wash with [[Liberal]] [[agnostic]] [[theology]] [[professor values|professors]] won't wash with true [[Christians]]. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:27, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::I agree completely. That doesn't change the empirical fact that it's a minority view among scholars. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 16:28, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::I disagree. I have found that when people use the word &quot;scholars&quot; that it is very specific to their side. So what is your definition of a scholar? In my life I have had the privilege of attending a number of different churches, three of which were run by men with PHDs. All three of them believed in the bodily resurrection of Christ. Taken across America, that number would be much higher. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::If those men had PhDs in New Testament studies (or something related) from a serious University, I would certainly count them as scholars. But they would be in the minority in the field of New Testament studies. That's just an empirical fact I happen to know from being employed by a Liberal Arts University. In general though, I think of a scholar as someone who has 1)Studied the literature extensively 2)Defended his knowledge before a panel of other people who have studied the literature extensively (i.e. been awarded an advanced degree) 3)Published in peer-reviewed journals 4)And is or was actively engaged in the professional field, either through writing, teaching (or preaching), researching, giving papers at conferences, etc. That's just off the top of my head though. Most scholars will have all four of those. Some will only have three. Maybe occasionally one might just have two. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 17:49, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::This is a ridiculous arguement. The resurrection of Jesus is a matter of faith and can not be verified except by referring to the Bible. Statistical analysis is a branch of mathematics. The truths of mathematics are not subject to debate and are not matters of faith. Appealing to authorities in mathematics is completely different than appealing to a religious authority. [[User:MickA|MickA]] 17:52, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> (undent)We're not arguing whether the opinion of a majority of biblical scholars is a reliable indicator of whether Jesus rose from the dead or not. We're just arguing what that majority opinion is. It may seem irrelevant, but it is a crucially important to the issue at hand...ummm...somehow. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 18:02, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Christian theologians hold the equivalent of PhDs, and yet you reject the conclusion of those &quot;experts&quot;. I have found nothing in Lenski's published background to indicate any expertise by him in statistics. Yet you accept Lenski's view on statistics without even thinking through the issues on your own, while rejecting the consensus of Christian experts. Why? The answer is obvious: bias and lack of open-mindedness.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 18:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Biological studies routinely require at least some application of statistical theory, especially when studying populations of organisms or molecules which molecular (and evolutionary) biology usually involves. Biostatistics (the statistical theories commonly used in biomedicine) is often a required course for PhD students for this reason. Established researchers in the life sciences do not need to have a degree in statistics to indicate expertise - Lenski's publication record itself indicates that he has successfully applied statistical theory in his analyses many times. At any rate, if someone can simply claim without proof that he has taken (and understood) statistics courses on the level needed to evaluate Lenski's paper, then he has no basis on which to accuse others of lacking expertise.<br /> <br /> ::: Malarkey. I've taken and excelled in upperclass statistics courses, and there were not biology students, college or graduate, in them. If Lenski has expertise in statistics then let's see it. His own &quot;biographical sketch&quot; doesn't even disclose what his undergraduate major was at Oberlin or what his PhD concentration at the University of North Carolina were <br /> in.[http://myxo.css.msu.edu/BioSketch.html]--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, the bottom line is the PNAS publishes letters online criticizing their publication all the time. Every single issue. It's the whole function of &quot;Letters to the PNAS&quot;. It's the only reason the letters section of the PNAS exists. They would have published your letter if it had shown the requisite understanding of the issues at hand. How do we know this? Because they do it all the time. Why didn't they publish yours? Because your understanding of how to statistically analyze experiments involving bacteria populations isn't up to snuff. How could it be? A man who was truly interested in learning would show humility, accept criticism, and dive into the relevant literature about Monte Carlo, z-transformations, etc. A man who was only interested in protecting his ego would carry on the lie that Lenski and the PNAS don't know what they are talking about. [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 09:27, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Andy, no offense, but when I referred to my own statistics knowledge and suggested that I saw no problem with the two examples picked out above, you left me warning that included tell me not to appeal to my own &quot;expertise&quot;. I don't see why this is any different?<br /> <br /> ::::I still, having read your previous comments on the original letter, don't feel that you've explained either a) why the use of Monte Carlo was wrong, b) why the use of Z-transformation was wrong, nor c) critically, what alternative analysis you would have used, and what p-values you would have obtained with it. That last point is what I feel you really need to address if you want PNAS to really take notice. <br /> <br /> ::::Additionally, graduate level statistics is really quite basic by scientific standards. The gap between a Ph.D. and degree level knowledge is like the gap between a degree and junior high school. Biology as a field is hugely intertwined with complex statistics, and many biologists will have gained an understanding well beyond graduate level. <br /> <br /> ::::I'm not &quot;anti&quot; this letter, I'm not a liberal agitator, I've made decent contributions in my time here, but I really feel that this letter needs somebody to just take a step back, and consider that maybe the first attempt can be improved. As I mentioned previously, I think some good, proactive steps would be to concentrate more on the missing data claim, and to bring on board somebody with an expert knowledge of statistics or biology to help refine the claims, and double check whether you're right on some of these points or not. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:55, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==<br /> There has been, I think, undue outrage over the fact that the reviewer's name was not included in the response to Schlafly's letter. To clarify, this is standard procedure when reviewing manuscripts for scientific journals and does NOT in any way indicate cowardice or uncertainty. Anonymous peer review allows for reviews that are rigorous, honest, and, most importantly, objective, since if no one knows your identity, no one can threaten you, bribe you, or otherwise influence your evaluation of the material. Thus, you can carry out your professional duties without concern over how your review of Person A's paper will affect Person A's opinion of you or his/her review of your paper in the future, for example.<br /> <br /> The anonymity of the response is standard procedure in scientific publishing and necessary to ensure objectivity of the evaluation process, and should not be construed negatively as has been done here.</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeR&diff=517530 2008-09-16T00:47:28Z

<p>MikeR: /* Reversion */</p> <hr /> <div>{{welcome}}<br /> Croeso, Meic! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:56, 19 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Many thanks, Bugler :) [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 19:29, 19 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Libellous accusations==<br /> Do you think it clever to try and spread malicious lies about me? Have your 'friends' sent you here to do that, and to try and disrupt this work? If you believe it to be true, then I suggest you communicate your beliefs to Mr Schlafly, or to senior sysops, and good luck to you. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Reversion ==<br /> <br /> Keep the comments on [[Talk:PNAS Response to Letter]] substantive, don't claim special expertise for yourself, and avoid personal attacks ... or it will unfortunately become necessary to block your account.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Of course, if one claims to have reviewed scientific or engineering papers in the past, then that seems to be OK, at least for some editors.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 14:26, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Thanks Argon. I'm lost... I didn't feel my comment was an attack at all, just constructive criticism. It's very clear to me that a number of the claims being made are simply wrong, and that those pursuing this should try and bring on board somebody with expert knowledge to try and create a more solid argument. Numerous Conservapedia editors have pointed this out, yet those of us who believe that the letter to PNAS was anything less than 100% perfect have our comments deleted, and get threatened with bans. It's not like I've made any trouble here whatsoever. I joined a month or two ago, I've quietly made a number of contributions for which I've had no acknowledgment (nor asked for it), yet when I dare voice my opinion on a talk page specifically created to discuss the PNAS response, I get threatened with a ban... [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 20:47, 15 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=517027 2008-09-15T13:08:36Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Well said, Andy and Jpatt. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the President of the NAS is a &quot;climate scientist&quot;. If the Academy is dominated by [[pseudoscience]] of that kind, it's hardly a surprise that their response was to cover up and deny the truth. Nevertheless, they had to be given their chance to make good before further steps are taken. I suggest now that the issue be put to potentially supportive congressmen/women and senators, given the public funding for Lenski's activities. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 05:46, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Right. The next step is to criticize the taxpayer funding of this junk science. When the authors and the publishing organization will not even address statistical errors in the work, then it's time to pull the public funding.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:13, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::They did address your claims of statistical errors: they said that you were wrong to the degree that they were able to determine what you were talking about. You made a qualitative argument and got a qualitative response.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:00, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: Which of the 5 specific errors do you think they addressed? None, as far as I can tell.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::The response addresses your qualitative claims about the paper's statistical methods raised in points two, three, and five by the following:&quot;Nevertheless, from a statistical point of view, it is proper to combine the results of independent experiments, as Blount et al. '''did correctly in their original paper'''&quot;(emphasis added); in fact the longest paragraph in the response deals entirely with the statistical claims of the letter and dismisses them.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::But that's never going to happen because the data availability requirements for public funding have already been met. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)10:56, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: No, I don't think the researchers have met NSF guidelines as referenced in the letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:11, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Proof?[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : As I said, the NSF guidelines are references in the [[Letter to PNAS|letter]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:29, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> You mean the notebooks and ect? [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 11:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Oh my dear God, I can't believe this!! Where has this beautiful country gone to if even science is not reliable anymore nowadays. Hope things will change in the future. Good thing there still are people like Mr. Schlafly, &lt;includeonly&gt;suckadick moron&lt;/includeonly&gt;who have the brains and power to stand up, and turn the people of America in the right direction again. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:24, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Mr. Schlafly, I have a question BTW. Was this letter received on a paper, or electronically? Because if it was on a paper, perhaps it would be a good idea to scan it, and post it. It would add a lot to the encyclopedic value of the article. [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : PNAS procedures required me to submit the letter electronically using its own electronic submission software. When the PNAS acknowledged that my submission complied with all its requirements, it also said that the authors of the original paper had been notified of my letter.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:39, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Too bad. It doesn't make much sense though, guess that tells a lot about PNAS. What they should care about is the actual text, not the medium it is in. That's not the case IMHO for encyclopedias however. If not for anything else, a scan would have been useful as a reference for the digital text. Oh well... [[User:Raul|Raul]] 12:53, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Honest question, is it against the rules to disagree with Andrew Schlafly or criticize that letter? I just want to know so I don't end up in the same situation as other people who have been censored here.--[[User:IanG|IanG]] 17:03, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I believe this this page is only for discussion of the response, which is quite straightforward. Criticism of the letter should have gone on it's talk page, but it's too late now. Oh well. There is no censorship on Conservapedia. Your comment is not substantive - please refactor it. Praise Jesus, [[User:Pila|Pila]] 17:26, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: if you REALLY believe that Lenski has committed acedemic FRAUD then lodge a formal complaint with his University. They are taken very seriously and can lead to loss of tenure and dismissal from the university, and with that on his record no other institution would hire him on any basis. [[User:Markr|Markr]] 19:40, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (deleted non-substantive comments). Again, the heading on this page will be enforced: &quot;Substantive comments only, please.&quot; If you have a substantive comment about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them, then please comment. Non-substantive comments will be removed. This is an encyclopedic-based search for the truth, not a blog or a place to refuse to contribute in a substantive manner.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:29, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Since you've taken the liberty of deciding what is substantive or not in deleting posts like my last one, then I have a serious, respectful question to ask; What exactly do you mean by &quot;substantive&quot;? I didn't attack you or your letter; I was attempting to state that the PNAS response did, in fact, address the points of your letter. Whether one considers the PNAS response to be ''correct'' or not is a separate matter - they read your objections and responded to them instead of ignoring them, that's all.<br /> <br /> :My last post would therefore seem to have met Webster's definition of ''substantive'' - &quot;having or expressing substance&quot;, but apparently the measure of &quot;substantive&quot; for a comment on this page appears to be whether it agrees with your view or not. That's your prerogative, but if you intended to allow comments on this page other than endorsements of your view, then please let me know what I did wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Dinsdale, we're here to think and learn. You can look at my letter, look at the PNAS's response, and provide some ''substantive'' insights. We're not here to say something like, uh, go ask someone else if a (9th grade-level) graph is correct or not. If you think the substantive issues are beyond your depth, and I don't, then comment on them in a substantive and intellectual and specific way. This is not another waste-of-time blog, and it's not going to become one.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:19, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::DinsdaleP, you did attack ASchalfy at least indirectly. Suggesting that the PNAS response has merit might also be interpreted by some that the letter ASchafly sent wasn't the very best it could be. Now, contrast that to my deleted comment suggesting that a time-tested response would be to actually try reproducing the experiment. Many bad experiments are exposed when others fail to get the same results as the original authors. I think this would be an excellent, substantive avenue to pursue.--[[User:Argon|Argon]] 21:23, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ASchlafly- you said above, &quot;PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors&quot;. As you say, in a fair discussion of the merits of two sides of an argument, it's important that both sides take a good, hard look at their own propositions. Since your position is that PNAS has errors on its own side, I'm just curious to know if you are in any way prepared to accept that there might be errors in your own argument, or are you ''absolutely 100% certain'' that your position is error-free? I'm wondering if perhaps before submitting this issue to funding authorities, you would be prepared to have an independent statistical expert take a look at your proposal? [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 22:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The only thing I was criticizing in my original comment today was the Main Page headline statement that &quot;PNAS refuses to address the 5 errors in the Lenski study identified by the Letter to PNAS&quot;. What I pointed out is the fact that they ''did'' in fact respond, by criticizing the statistical analysis used by Aschlafly. I'm not supporting or attacking Mr. Schlafly's analysis, because I'm the first one to admit that I have no expertise in this area. My conclusion was a constructive suggestion that Mr. Schlafly present a rebuttal to the PNAS decision by showing how his analysis and conclusions were not erroneous in the manner they claimed. A public, statistical defense of Mr. Schlafly's work, perhaps accompanied by the endorsement of some regarded experts in the field, would be the best response to PNAS choosing to respond by email instead of through the journal. <br /> <br /> :I wrote both the original draft letter to PNAS from Mr. Schlafly's notes and my earlier comments today with the intent of contributing constructively. I hope this clarification of my view is substantive enough to remain. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:24, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Folks, I've pointed out five ''very specific'' statistical (logical) errors. The torrent of nonsense above even includes an absurd demand for me to try to repeat the experiments, as thought that would somehow correct a flawed paper.<br /> <br /> The math is wrong in the PNAS paper. No one at PNAS is even willing to put his name on a response claiming that the math is correct, because it isn't. I'm not going to allow further nonsensical postings here. If you want to address the statistical (logical) errors in a specific way, fine. If you feel it is beyond your depth to do so, then move on. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 22:49, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :&quot;The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events.&quot; Specifically, why is it incorrect to apply a Monte Carlo test in this circumstance, or why was their application incorrect? Do your own calculations produce a p-value that differs from the published p-value of 0.08?<br /> <br /> :&quot;The Third Experiment was erroneously combined with the other two experiments based on outcome rather than sample size, thereby yielding a false claim of overall statistical significance.&quot; This sounds as though you disagree with the use of the Z-transform technique used to combine the data from the three replay experiments, or believe that the Z-transform analysis was performed incorrectly. Which do you disagree with - the technique, the application, or both, and why? --[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 23:31, 14 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'll second that. I hold a Ph.D. in complexity theory, and I don't see any problem with the two techniques above. That's just my opinion, but the fact that other opinions exist should at least make people pause for thought on this one. I'm certainly no raving Liberal, as I hope you can see from my edits here.<br /> <br /> ::I '''do''' think the PNAS letter was '''very disrespectful''' in its attitude, and perhaps too brief and dismissive, but I think it did make a valid point (in a bad way). Ultimately Andy, as great as you are at other things, from what you've written here you don't appear to have any real expertise in statistics beyond that of a reasonably-gifted layman. I don't think you're going to make any headway against these people until you acknowledge these limitations, and seek out somebody like Behe who has the relevant expertise and can add some academic weight to your arguments. <br /> <br /> :: Where do we go from here? I think we should stop, take a step back, reevaluate some of the claims made here (some of which I'm afraid were wrong imho) and seek out heavyweight help. I hope you don't mind this constructive criticism and take it at face value. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:08, 15 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pheromone&diff=505157 2008-08-26T14:55:07Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Pheromones''' are chemical signals released by an organism that affect the behaviour of other members of the same species (although they can also be sensed and responded to by unrelated organisms). Although they are especially-well studied in insect species, they are also thought to be used by many plants and vertebrates, with some evidence suggesting that humans exchange pheromone signals too. <br /> <br /> The name Pheromone comes from the Greek words ''pherein'' (to transport) and ''hormone'' (to stimulate), and Pheromones are perhaps best explained to a lay audience as exchangable [[hormone]]s. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pheromone&diff=505156 2008-08-26T14:54:34Z

<p>MikeR: Edited to remove some misconceptions in the original introduction, although the article needs a lot of expansion.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Pheromones''' are chemical signals released by an organism that affect the behaviour of other members of the same species (although they can also be sensed and responded to by unrelated organisms). Although they are especially-well studied in insect species, they are also thought to be used by many plants and vertebrates, with some evidence suggesting that humans exchange pheremone signals too. <br /> The name Pheromone comes from the Greek words ''pherein'' (to transport) and ''hormone'' (to stimulate), and Pheromones are perhaps best explained to a lay audience as exchangable hormones. <br /> <br /> [[Category:Biology]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ant&diff=505151 2008-08-26T14:38:37Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>Needs a lot of work still, with much more expansion needed, along with references. Citations also need redoing in the proper format. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 10:33, 26 August 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ant&diff=505149 2008-08-26T14:38:08Z

<p>MikeR: /* Relationship with People */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Ants''' are social [[insects]] that live in highly organized colonies that include workers, drones, and [[queen]]s. Considered a highly successful insect, ants have colonized all parts of the world except for [[Greenland]], [[Antarctica]] and [[Iceland]]. Ants form part of the ''Hymenoptera'' family of species with [[bee]]s and [[wasp]]s and this close relation can be observed in their similar social structure. There are over 12,000 known species of ants in the world [http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu:210/hymenoptera/tsa.sppcount?the_taxon=Formicidae].<br /> <br /> == Colony Organization ==<br /> <br /> Highly organized, ant colonies are coordinated by the release of [[pheromones]] - chemical signals passed between individuals that allow information to be passed around the colony. Pheremones can be used for such diverse purposes as: marking trails, identifying which task group an ant belongs to, triggering alarms, and even spreading confusion among invading colonies. <br /> <br /> == Relationship with People ==<br /> <br /> While commonly seen as pests, ants actually have many benefits for human agriculture including pest control, and aerating soil, and even collecting seeds for farmers. They also regarded as food by many cultures - ant larvae known as ''escamoles'' in parts of Mexico are regarded as a kind of [[caviar]], and can sell for as much as $80 per kilo [http://cornellcollege.edu/biology/insects2005/9richardisaac/e%20is%20for%20escamoles.htm]. Remarkably, in some parts of the world Army Ants are even used as rudimentary sutures, their powerful jaws clamping wounds together to assist healing [http://www.ewma.org/pdf/fall04/Historical_Aspects.pdf].<br /> <br /> == Intelligent Design ==<br /> <br /> Creation scientists see the complex social behavior of ants to be evidence for an [[intelligent design]]er. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/insects.html Incredible insects of the rain forest]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Insects]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.ento.csiro.au/education/insects/hymenoptera.html Hymenoptera: ants, bees and wasps]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ant&diff=505148 2008-08-26T14:36:53Z

<p>MikeR: /* Relationship with People */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Ants''' are social [[insects]] that live in highly organized colonies that include workers, drones, and [[queen]]s. Considered a highly successful insect, ants have colonized all parts of the world except for [[Greenland]], [[Antarctica]] and [[Iceland]]. Ants form part of the ''Hymenoptera'' family of species with [[bee]]s and [[wasp]]s and this close relation can be observed in their similar social structure. There are over 12,000 known species of ants in the world [http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu:210/hymenoptera/tsa.sppcount?the_taxon=Formicidae].<br /> <br /> == Colony Organization ==<br /> <br /> Highly organized, ant colonies are coordinated by the release of [[pheromones]] - chemical signals passed between individuals that allow information to be passed around the colony. Pheremones can be used for such diverse purposes as: marking trails, identifying which task group an ant belongs to, triggering alarms, and even spreading confusion among invading colonies. <br /> <br /> == Relationship with People ==<br /> <br /> While commonly seen as pests, ants actually have many benefits for human agriculture including pest control, and aerating soil, and even collecting seeds for farmers. They also regarded as food by many cultures - ant larvae known as ''escamoles'' in parts of Mexico are regarded as a kind of [[caviar]], and can sell for as much as $80 per kilo. Remarkably, in some parts of the world Army Ants are even used as rudimentary sutures, their powerful jaws clamping wounds together to assist healing [http://www.ewma.org/pdf/fall04/Historical_Aspects.pdf].<br /> <br /> == Intelligent Design ==<br /> <br /> Creation scientists see the complex social behavior of ants to be evidence for an [[intelligent design]]er. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/insects.html Incredible insects of the rain forest]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Insects]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.ento.csiro.au/education/insects/hymenoptera.html Hymenoptera: ants, bees and wasps]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Ant&diff=505146 2008-08-26T14:33:31Z

<p>MikeR: New page: Needs a lot of work still, with much more expansion needed, along with references. ~~~~</p> <hr /> <div>Needs a lot of work still, with much more expansion needed, along with references. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 10:33, 26 August 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ant&diff=505145 2008-08-26T14:32:55Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Ants''' are social [[insects]] that live in highly organized colonies that include workers, drones, and [[queen]]s. Considered a highly successful insect, ants have colonized all parts of the world except for [[Greenland]], [[Antarctica]] and [[Iceland]]. Ants form part of the ''Hymenoptera'' family of species with [[bee]]s and [[wasp]]s and this close relation can be observed in their similar social structure. There are over 12,000 known species of ants in the world [http://atbi.biosci.ohio-state.edu:210/hymenoptera/tsa.sppcount?the_taxon=Formicidae].<br /> <br /> == Colony Organization ==<br /> <br /> Highly organized, ant colonies are coordinated by the release of [[pheromones]] - chemical signals passed between individuals that allow information to be passed around the colony. Pheremones can be used for such diverse purposes as: marking trails, identifying which task group an ant belongs to, triggering alarms, and even spreading confusion among invading colonies. <br /> <br /> == Relationship with People ==<br /> <br /> While commonly seen as pests, ants actually have many benefits for human agriculture including pest control, and aerating soil, and even collecting seeds for farmers. They also regarded as food by many cultures - ant larvae known as ''escamoles'' in parts of Mexico are regarded as a kind of [[caviar]], and can sell for as much as $80 per kilo. Remarkably, in some parts of the world Army Ants are even used as rudimentary sutures, their powerful jaws clamping wounds together to assist healing. <br /> <br /> == Intelligent Design ==<br /> <br /> Creation scientists see the complex social behavior of ants to be evidence for an [[intelligent design]]er. &lt;ref&gt;[http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/insects.html Incredible insects of the rain forest]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> [[Category: Insects]]<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> {{reflist|2}}<br /> <br /> ==External Links==<br /> *[http://www.ento.csiro.au/education/insects/hymenoptera.html Hymenoptera: ants, bees and wasps]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_should_atheists_be_barred_from_Conservapedia%3F&diff=502344 2008-08-21T11:48:01Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>Wow, just think of all the mental illness you could prevent by keeping the views of atheists off this site - it's practically a public health initiative. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:27, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Dear Dinsdale, If you have an opinion, why don't you voice it in the debate, rather than using sarcasm? That is what debates are for. And what has mental illness to do with this? --[[User:EmilyC|EmilyC]] 09:33, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I made my comment here because it is indeed sarcasm, and I wanted to keep it off of the debate itself so it doesn't devolve into people taking shots at each other. (Note that Aschlafly has endorsed the use of sarcasm when appropriate, but it needs to be expressed in the proper place). Frankly, Bugler's proposal is so ridiculous that addressing it seriously is to give it credibility, which I will not do. As for the mental illness reference, you must have missed reading [[Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?]] --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Clearly a Parodist ==<br /> <br /> I'm sorry, I don't want to make random accusations, but I've seen some of Bugler's edits lately, and I for one am convinced that this is the work of a parodist. If I'm wrong, then I apologize, and I understand criticism of atheists and liberals, Bugler takes this to the point that I cannot believe he is genuine. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 19:23, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> :That's quite a strong accusation. Do you have a specific edit in mind? Discrediting valuable contributors is the desperate's tactic. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 19:54, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::Pretty much this entire page... I mean come on, trying to block atheists? Suggesting atheists and liberals have a mental illness? Even if Bugler somehow does believe this to be true, putting such views up here is damaging to the credibility of the rest of us. We are Christians, and our duty is to reach out to atheists and agnostics, not to lock the doors. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 07:48, 21 August 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_should_atheists_be_barred_from_Conservapedia%3F&diff=501605 2008-08-19T23:23:44Z

<p>MikeR: /* Clearly a Parodist */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>Wow, just think of all the mental illness you could prevent by keeping the views of atheists off this site - it's practically a public health initiative. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 09:27, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Dear Dinsdale, If you have an opinion, why don't you voice it in the debate, rather than using sarcasm? That is what debates are for. And what has mental illness to do with this? --[[User:EmilyC|EmilyC]] 09:33, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I made my comment here because it is indeed sarcasm, and I wanted to keep it off of the debate itself so it doesn't devolve into people taking shots at each other. (Note that Aschlafly has endorsed the use of sarcasm when appropriate, but it needs to be expressed in the proper place). Frankly, Bugler's proposal is so ridiculous that addressing it seriously is to give it credibility, which I will not do. As for the mental illness reference, you must have missed reading [[Talk:Mystery:Do Liberal Teachings Cause Mental Illness?]] --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 10:25, 19 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Clearly a Parodist ==<br /> <br /> I'm sorry, I don't want to make random accusations, but I've seen some of Bugler's edits lately, and I for one am convinced that this is the work of a parodist. If I'm wrong, then I apologize, and I understand criticism of atheists and liberals, Bugler takes this to the point that I cannot believe he is genuine. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 19:23, 19 August 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia_conference&diff=491794 2008-07-22T15:16:58Z

<p>MikeR: /* War Against Smokers? */</p> <hr /> <div>Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it!<br /> [[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Stem cell research==<br /> <br /> I added [[stem cell research]] to the list. While it's debatable whether it's junky science, it's certainly morally corrupt because it effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells. I personally believe they could probably achieve at least some of the things they say, which is why I hesitate on the &quot;junky&quot; label. But this real possibility of satisfying their goals is part of why stem cell research is so scary. People will be impressed by the results and forget the way they were obtained--an awful application of the ends justifying the means. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Stem cells are quite the hot topic. What I find striking is that you can get stem cells ''without'' resorting to embryo's however we never hear about it. Its as if some are determined to cheapen human life by any means possible. Anyway, my above transcript request stands.....Oh please please!!!!<br /> [[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 03:33, 20 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Great resource ==<br /> <br /> Just found [http://www.junkscience.com JunkScience.com], which has some great articles and facts related to the CP conference idea. Definitely worth checking out in prep for the conference. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:41, 20 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Gun Control ==<br /> <br /> Just added a couple myself. One thing though, is gun control really science? [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==War Against Smokers?==<br /> <br /> I won't remove it, but some clarification is needed as to why this was added. I'm assuming this is about secondhand smoke and restrictions on smoking in public, because I seriously doubt anyone on CP thinks that smoking itself is not harmful. I know there's debate as to where the line on smoking restrictions versus rights should be drawn (i.e. is it child endangerment to smoke in a car with kids as passengers?), but as to the science of whether smoking is harmful or not? I thought that was settled long ago, and is not considered junk science by anyone including the tobacco companies (who focus on a smoker's informed-right-to-choose instead). --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 11:20, 21 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I was referring to the Liberal desire to turn those who smoke in public into criminals on the basis of junk science, as Milloy describes on his site. Actually Milloy has a long history of things to say about the tobacco industry. It'd be interesting to see him give a talk. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 11:16, 22 July 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Conservapedia_conference&diff=491524 2008-07-21T13:27:33Z

<p>MikeR: /* Gun Control */ new section</p> <hr /> <div>Hey is there any way you could post a transcript of the conservapedia conference? I cant attend but would love to read it!<br /> [[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 22:45, 19 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Stem cell research==<br /> <br /> I added [[stem cell research]] to the list. While it's debatable whether it's junky science, it's certainly morally corrupt because it effectively aborts an embryo to extract the cells. I personally believe they could probably achieve at least some of the things they say, which is why I hesitate on the &quot;junky&quot; label. But this real possibility of satisfying their goals is part of why stem cell research is so scary. People will be impressed by the results and forget the way they were obtained--an awful application of the ends justifying the means. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 02:00, 20 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Stem cells are quite the hot topic. What I find striking is that you can get stem cells ''without'' resorting to embryo's however we never hear about it. Its as if some are determined to cheapen human life by any means possible. Anyway, my above transcript request stands.....Oh please please!!!!<br /> [[User:JJacob|JJacob]] 03:33, 20 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Great resource ==<br /> <br /> Just found [http://www.junkscience.com JunkScience.com], which has some great articles and facts related to the CP conference idea. Definitely worth checking out in prep for the conference. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 10:41, 20 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Gun Control ==<br /> <br /> Just added a couple myself. One thing though, is gun control really science? [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 09:27, 21 July 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_conference&diff=491523 2008-07-21T13:26:03Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>List here suggested topics for talks, and possible speakers, for the next conference on &quot;federally funded junk science&quot;:<br /> <br /> * [[global warming]]<br /> * [[gun control]]<br /> * [[evolution]], see, e.g., [[Flaws in Lenski Study]]<br /> * [[stem cell research|embryonic stem cell research]]<br /> * [[DDT|ddt ban]]&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/topten2006.html Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * trans-fat ban&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/topten2006.html Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * increased hurricane season predictions&lt;ref&gt;[http://www.junkscience.com/topten2006.html Top Ten Junk Science Moments for 2006]&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> * &quot;war&quot; against asbestos<br /> * &quot;war&quot; against smokers<br /> * concealment of dangers of vaccinations<br /> <br /> (add more)<br /> <br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> {{reflist}}</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:MikeR&diff=491417 2008-07-19T23:29:57Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>{{welcome}}<br /> Croeso, Meic! [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 17:56, 19 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Many thanks, Bugler :) [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 19:29, 19 July 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:MikeR&diff=491409 2008-07-19T21:47:30Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>Hi everyone! I'm Mike, from Wales. At some point I'll update this with something more interesting :)<br /> <br /> {{User Christian1}}</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Specific_gravity&diff=491292 2008-07-18T17:37:25Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Specific gravity''' is a property of any given sample of matter, defined as the [[ratio]] of its [[density]] to that of [[water]] at a given temperature. <br /> <br /> Substances are denser than water if they have a specific gravity greater than 1, and less dense if it is less than 1. However, it does not follow that water has a specific gravity of 1, since the density of water varies according to the temperature.<br /> <br /> The use of specific gravity is generally discouraged in present-day scientific and technical writing, with absolute values of density preferred.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Physics]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Oil_prices&diff=491290 2008-07-18T17:32:55Z

<p>MikeR: New page: '''The price of crude oil''' refers to the spot price of either WTI/Light Crude on the New York Mercantile Exchance (NYMEX), or Brent as traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). The ...</p> <hr /> <div>'''The price of crude oil''' refers to the spot price of either WTI/Light Crude on the New York Mercantile Exchance (NYMEX), or Brent as traded on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE). The price of a specific barrel depends mostly on its grade (determined by [[sulphur]] content and [[specific gravity]]) and location. <br /> <br /> Oil's price is mostly affected by supply and demand. Demand is highly dependent on global economic conditions, with high growth pushing up oil prices, but high oil prices restricting growth. Supply can be affected by events such as [[Hurricane Katrina]] or the [[War on Terror]], and by the actions of suppliers. [[OPEC]], which consists of [Algeria]], [[Angola]], [[Ecuador]], [[Iran]], [[Iraq]], [[Kuwait]], [[Libya]], [[Nigeria]], [[Qatar]], [[Saudi Arabia]], the [[United Arab Emirates]], and [[Venezuela]], controls some 75% of the World's [oil reserves]], and was set up to allows its members to control the price of oil, leading some to accuse it of operating like a [[cartel]].</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shale&diff=491037 2008-07-17T11:38:57Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Shale''', sometimes called ''Mudstone'' is a fine-grained [[sedimentary rock]] made from clay or mud. Shale is the most common type of sedimentary rock, and a large proportion of [[fossils]] are found in it.<br /> <br /> == Locations ==<br /> <br /> Shale is often found near water, such as lakes, rivers, lagoons or deltas, and sometimes on continental shelves. They often contain fossils, small impressions of animal tracks, or even what appear to be raindrop patterns, making them of great interest to [[Geologists]] eager to find out how they were formed.<br /> <br /> == Uses ==<br /> <br /> Shale can be converted into slate by the application of heat and pressure, which is used in building construction, and for a number of other useful items such as chalk boards.<br /> <br /> == See Also ==<br /> * [[Oil shale]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Sedimentary Rocks]]<br /> [[Category:Geology]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Shale&diff=491035 2008-07-17T11:33:28Z

<p>MikeR: New page: Just corrected a mistake in the original, and added a little more information. It's still not much more than a stub though. ~~~~</p> <hr /> <div>Just corrected a mistake in the original, and added a little more information. It's still not much more than a stub though. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 07:33, 17 July 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Shale&diff=491034 2008-07-17T11:32:54Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Shale''', sometimes called ''Mudstone'' is a fine-grained [[sedimentary rock]] made from clay or mud. Shale is the most common type of sedimentary rock, and a large proportion of [[fossils]] are found in it.<br /> <br /> Shale can be converted into slate by the application of heat and pressure, which is used in building construction, and for a number of other useful items such as chalk boards.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Sedimentary Rocks]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Oil_Shale&diff=490658 2008-07-16T18:55:48Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>Oil shale is a class of [[sedimentary rock]] (not necessarily [[shale]]) that contains significant amounts of Kerogen, a waxy substance from which [[oil]] can be obtained through a process called pyrolysis. The worldwide oil reserves contained in oil shale are estimated to be in the region of three trillion barrels [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf], but obtaining this oil is both economically and environmentally expensive - a problem that has limited its use to date &lt;ref name=aeo2006&gt;<br /> {{cite<br /> | author = World Energy Council<br /> | title = Annual Energy Outlook 2006 <br /> | publisher = Energy Information Administration <br /> | date = February 2006 <br /> | url = http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf <br /> | format = PDF <br /> | accessdate = 2008-04-18<br /> }} ([http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf web])&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> <br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:Geology]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Oil_Shale&diff=490653 2008-07-16T18:49:27Z

<p>MikeR: </p> <hr /> <div>Hi Guys, this is my first edit here, so be nice!<br /> <br /> I corrected a mistake in the previous version (oil shale isn't always shale, in spite of the name), and added a little more information to the stub. I can expand this article if you want to give a lot more detail, but I thought I'd leave it there for now, and if you guys are happy I'll carry on with it late. Hope you like it! [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 14:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> :P.S. - I wasn't quite sure of the citation syntax, it seems to be slightly different from Wikipedia. Might need correcting. [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 14:49, 16 July 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Oil_Shale&diff=490650 2008-07-16T18:48:06Z

<p>MikeR: New page: Hi Guys, this is my first edit here, so be nice! I corrected a mistake in the previous version (oil shale isn't always shale, in spite of the name), and added a little more information to...</p> <hr /> <div>Hi Guys, this is my first edit here, so be nice!<br /> <br /> I corrected a mistake in the previous version (oil shale isn't always shale, in spite of the name), and added a little more information to the stub. I can expand this article if you want to give a lot more detail, but I thought I'd leave it there for now, and if you guys are happy I'll carry on with it late. Hope you like it! [[User:MikeR|MikeR]] 14:48, 16 July 2008 (EDT)</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Oil_Shale&diff=490647 2008-07-16T18:46:29Z

<p>MikeR: Corrected error (oil shale isn't always actually shale), and added a bit more info to the stub.</p> <hr /> <div>Oil shale is a class of [[sedimentary rock]] (not necessarily [[shale]]) that contains significant amounts of Kerogen, a waxy substance from which [[oil]] can be obtained through a process called pyrolysis. The worldwide oil reserves contained in oil shale are estimated to be in the region of three trillion barrels, but obtaining this oil is both economically and environmentally expensive [http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf] - a problem that has limited its use to date &lt;ref name=aeo2006&gt;<br /> {{cite<br /> | author = World Energy Council<br /> | title = Annual Energy Outlook 2006 <br /> | publisher = Energy Information Administration <br /> | date = February 2006 <br /> | url = http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf <br /> | format = PDF <br /> | accessdate = 2008-04-18<br /> }} ([http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo06/pdf/0383(2006).pdf web])&lt;/ref&gt;. <br /> <br /> <br /> {{reflist}}<br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:Geology]]</div>

MikeR https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:MikeR&diff=489968 2008-07-14T18:46:13Z

<p>MikeR: New page: Hi everyone! I'm Mike, from Wales. At some point I'll update this with something more interesting :)</p> <hr /> <div>Hi everyone! I'm Mike, from Wales. At some point I'll update this with something more interesting :)</div>

MikeR