65
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 180:
Line 180: + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 16:27, September 17, 2008
, 16:27, September 17, 2008→Improper
:::::: 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)
:::::: 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)
:::::: 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)
==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==
==Clarification on peer review and anonymity==