https://www.conservapedia.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Toffeeman 2026-10-30T11:19:42Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.35.14 https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Karl_Popper&diff=1009042 2012-09-25T16:26:32Z

<p>Toffeeman: Expand quotation to reveal Popper's meaning of &quot;Metaphysical research preogramme&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Image014.jpg|right|frame]]<br /> Sir '''Karl Popper''' (1902-1994) was an [[Austrian]]-born of Jewish origin [[philosopher]] of science widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century,&lt;ref&gt;{{hnb|Stanford|2006}}&lt;/ref&gt; who influenced the philosophy of science and politics. <br /> <br /> ==Philosophy of Science ==<br /> === Falsifiability ===<br /> {{main|Falsifiability}}<br /> <br /> In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it. A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory. For example, Newton's law of gravity is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the Law of Gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it, but importantly, would not 'prove' it.<br /> <br /> While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific. <br /> <br /> Karl Popper wrote that Darwinism is &quot;not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme— a possible framework for testable scientific theories.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&lt;/ref&gt; Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and [[Falsifiability of evolution|the actions he took after making that statement]]: &quot;Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable.&quot;&lt;ref&gt;http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/PoE/pe05scnc.html&lt;/ref&gt; Popper also criticized [[Sigmund Freud]] for being unscientific.<br /> <br /> The issue of the [[Falsifiability of evolution|falsifiability of the evolutionary position]] is very important issue and although offering a poor cure to the problem that Karl Popper described, committed evolutionists Louis Charles Birch &amp; Paul R. Ehrlich stated in the journal ''[[Nature]]'':<br /> {{cquote|Our theory of evolution has become, as Popper described, one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it. It is thus outside of empirical science but not necessarily false. No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas, either without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training. The cure seems to us not to be a discarding of the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory, but more skepticism about many of its tenets.&lt;ref&gt;L.C. Birch and P.R. Ehrlich, Nature, vol. 214 (1967), p. 349&lt;/ref&gt;}}<br /> <br /> === Universal Laws ===<br /> <br /> The falsifiability criterion arose as a result of Popper's analysis of the logic of universal laws. Universal laws have a logical structure which precludes certain existential statements : universal laws are a negation of an existential proposition. Popper's example was that of the color of swans. The universal statement &quot;all swans are white&quot; implies the negative existential statement &quot;no swans of a color other than white exist&quot;. To verify the negative existential we would need to trawl through the universe to ensure that no non-white swan existed anywhere in time or space. Conversely, if we saw just one black swan we could confirm the existential statement &quot;black swans exist&quot; and refute the universal &quot;all swans are white&quot;. <br /> <br /> Popper was uncompromising in his rejection of any attempt to take confirming instances as increasing the legitimacy, likelihood, reasonableness or probability of the universal statement. No matter how many white swans you see you are no more able to assume that all swans are white than if you had seen just the one white swan. The ease with which “verifying” instances can be found led Popper to the conclusion that an attempted verification of a universal law is worse than useless: to be science universal laws must be capable of being put to the test, to be falsifiable.<br /> <br /> ==Politics==<br /> A refugee from Austria after the rise of [[Nazism]], Popper dedicated the war years to the study of the roots of totalitarian thought. The “Open Society and its Enemies” analysed the contribution, as he saw it, of [[Plato]], [[Hegel]] and [[Marx]] to an anti-rational tribalistic “closed society”. The closed society was, for Popper, marked by a lack of criticism of established ideas (established societal norms being treated not as societal norms but as “taboo” or “the natural order”) together with a collectivism that subjected the individual to the group goal. Popper also saw “historicist” views and underpinning much of the thought behind the “closed” society. “Historicism”, dealt with in “The Poverty of Historicism” and criticised throughout the “Open Society”, both sees historical laws of development and bases much of its morality on these supposed laws. <br /> <br /> In contrast the concept of the &quot;Open Society&quot; reflects Popper's concept of science. Just as there is no method for generating a true description of a Universal Law there is no method for generating perfect (Utopian) social laws, norms or governmental actions. Society will always be in a state of less than perfection and may only improve by changing what was previously thought to be the best course of action. As society can only improve by self-criticism it follows that criticism must not be restricted. <br /> <br /> The view is criticised by those who see positive value in tradition, ritual and shared belief ''per se''. (A small scale example is the family Christmas tradition that most families have. They are usually dogmatically held and are of value precisely because they are dogmatically held: the shared dogma helps bind the family together). The view is also criticised by those who suspect our ability to decide on the full facts when looking at a social institution. All actions have unintended, unknown, consequences. We may simply not be aware of some functions of the particular institution, tradition or social norm being criticised. Avoiding rejection of institutions with good, but unknown, consequences necessitates some level of dogma to protect them.&lt;ref&gt;See, for example, A. O'Hear &quot;The Open Society Revisted&quot; in P.Catton and G MacDonald (eds.) ''Karl Popper: Critical Appraisels''. Routledge. Abingdon. 2004 &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Popper's views on politics cannot be placed along the traditional left/right axis. Bryan Magee, a liberal politician (MP for the British Labour Party and the British Social Democratic Party) who knew Popper personally, reflected that Popper began adult life an &quot;emotionally committed social democrat&quot; and moved, with middle age, progressively to the right. Magee reflected that the key insights given by Popper, the method of robustly critising our own views, &quot;can be adopted by anyone committed to democratic politics, from the extreme democratic left to the extreme democratic right&quot;&lt;ref&gt;B. Magee &quot;What Use is Popper to a Politician&quot; in A. O'Hear (ed.) ''Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. page 266.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Critical Rationalism==<br /> In &quot;The Open Society and its Enemies&quot; Popper put forward the concept of ''Critical Rationalism'' in opposition to the ''Authoritarian'' rationalism of previous philosophers. Previous philosphers had assumed a central role of justification in knowledge, whilst Popper denied the very possibility of justification arguing that any attempt to establish a foundation for knowledge led to a regress ending in &quot;faith&quot; (in the sense of a belief held without conclusive reasons that is held to be uncriticisable). Popper characterised rationality not as a methodology of formulating and verifying proposition but as a constant criticism of existing beliefs. <br /> <br /> In &quot;The Open Society and its Enemies&quot; Popper declared his &quot;faith&quot; in reason (as characterised by criticism). A faith that led him to reject any other epistemological authority. His student, W. W. Bartley III went further (&quot;The Retreat to Comittment&quot;) and rejected the need to have faith in reason. For Bartley ''all'' propositions where criticisable, even the propositions of basic logic themselves, a position he termed &quot;Comprehensively Critical Rationalism&quot;.<br /> <br /> Another pupil of Popper's, David W. Miller rejects not only dogma, which can be characterised as support for propositions that should not be questioned but the very concept of &quot;support&quot;.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> &quot;there exist no grounds whatever, conclusive or inconclusive, for anything that we know&quot;[http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The view is criticised by those who hold that knowledge must have foundations, basic beliefs that are both true and justified, from which other propositions are derived.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Popper, Karl}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophers]]<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> *{{Harvard reference<br /> | Surname = Stanford <br /> | Given = Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br /> | Year = 2006<br /> | Date = 2006-10-09<br /> | Title = Karl Popper<br /> | Publisher = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br /> | URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/<br /> }} Retrived on 2007-05-14<br /> <br /> ==Links==<br /> *[http://www.experiment-resources.com/falsifiability.html Falsifiability - Karl Popper's Basic Scientific Principle]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contradiction&diff=721611 2009-11-18T20:49:09Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''contradiction''' is the simultaneous acceptance and denial of a proposition or statement. &quot;It was the best of times and the worst of times&quot; is a, poetic, example: the contradiction being used to enhance the poetic nature of the piece.<br /> <br /> In a [[proof]], if two contradictory [[inference]]s can be drawn from the [[premise]], this indicates either that a premise is false or that the argument is invalid.<br /> <br /> It is often held that from a contradiction anything can be inferred. This can be demonstrated:<br /> <br /> # Take any contradiction, “A” and “Not A”, and take it to be true.<br /> # Take anything that you want to prove, “P”<br /> # Now because “A and Not A” is true, “A” is true, by virtue of the simplification rule.<br /> # “A or P” is true just so long as not both A and P are false.<br /> # So, As “A” is true, “A or P” must be true.<br /> # If “A or P” is true, then one of “A” or “P” must be true.<br /> # As “Not A” is true then “A” is false which means that the remaining term in “A or P” must be true.<br /> # “P”, absolutely anything you like, is true.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:logic]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Contradiction&diff=721610 2009-11-18T20:48:11Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>A '''contradiction''' is the simultaneous acceptance and denial of a proposition or statement. &quot;It was the best of times and the worst of times&quot; is a, poetic, example: the contradiction being used to enhance the poetic nature of the piece.<br /> <br /> In a [[proof]], if two contradictory [[inference]]s can be drawn from the [[premise]], this indicates either that a premise is false or that the argument is invalid.<br /> <br /> It is often held that from a contradiction anything can be inferred. This can be demonstrated:<br /> <br /> 1. Take any contradiction, “A” and “Not A”, and take it to be true.<br /> 2. Take anything that you want to prove, “P”<br /> 3. Now because “A and Not A” is true, “A” is true, by virtue of the simplification rule.<br /> 4. “A or P” is true just so long as not both A and P are false.<br /> 5. So, As “A” is true, “A or P” must be true.<br /> 6. If “A or P” is true, then one of “A” or “P” must be true.<br /> 7. As “Not A” is true then “A” is false which means that the remaining term in “A or P” must be true.<br /> 8. “P”, absolutely anything you like, is true.<br /> <br /> <br /> [[category:logic]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liverpool&diff=676182 2009-06-18T20:57:18Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Notable People */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Port_of_Liverpool_building.jpg|thumb|300px|Port of Liverpool building - One of the &quot;three Graces&quot;]]<br /> '''Liverpool''' is a city in north-west [[England]]. It was a minor port town of [[Lancashire]] awarded a borough charter by King [[John]] in 1208, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Liverpool developed into a major global city. This prominence was based largely on trade, including [[tobacco]], [[sugar]] and a major involvement in the [[Slave Trade]]. Although the slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1806, Liverpool continued to flourish as an industrial, trade and financial industries centre. Liverpool has the largest number of listed buildings outside of [[London]],and more notable Georgian buildings than [[Bath]]. The Liverpool waterfront is a [[UNESCO]] [[World Heritage Site]] and contains three important buildings known as the &quot;three Graces&quot; - the'' Royal Liver'' building, the ''Cunard'' building and the ''Port of Liverpool'' building.<br /> <br /> Liverpool is noted for its two cathedrals, [[Anglican]] and [[Roman Catholic]]. The former, a traditional design from the early 1900s, is built from local sandstone. The Catholic cathedral built in a modern style during the 1970s is affectionately known as Paddy's Wigwam or the Mersey Funnel - a pun on the pioneering Mersey Tunnel constructed under the river between Liverpool and [[Birkenhead]].<br /> <br /> Liverpool also has two famous [[football]] teams, [[Everton F.C.|Everton]] (&quot;the Toffees&quot;) and [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] (&quot;the Reds&quot;), which play in blue and red respectively. <br /> <br /> Liverpool was the European Capital Of Culture for 2008.<br /> <br /> The city currently has a population of approximately 450,000, known as Liverpudlians (and nicknamed 'Scousers' after a local dish), with the wider [[Merseyside]] region having a population of 1.5 million. The city itself contains suburbs such as Aigburth, West Derby, [[Aintree]] and [[Knotty Ash]]. The popular culture and of Liverpool has been portrayed by the author and dramatist Carla Lane in a number of highly-regarded television dramas including &quot;The Liver Birds&quot; and &quot;Bread&quot;. Willy Russell and Alan Bleasdale are noted playwrights from Liverpool. Bleasdale effectively portrayed the misery and deprivation of 1980s Liverpool in dramas such as ''The Black Stuff'', while Russell, probably the most well-known of current Liverpool writers has enjoyed huge success with offerings such as ''Educating Rita'', ''Blood Brothers'' and ''Shirley Valentine''.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Scouse ==<br /> The nickname for both the city and its distinctive accent, scouse, is derived from the eponymous stew. The origins of the name are lost but the similarity of the name to Scandinavian words for ship's stews points to a maritime derivation. Due to the large influx of Irish immigrants into the port in the 19th Century the accent is very distinct from that of the surrounding area. Those speaking Scouse will include a large number of typically Irish elements into their speech. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Notable People ==<br /> <br /> British [[Prime Minister]] [[Harold Wilson]] later Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was [[Member of Parliament]] for the Liverpool constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.<br /> <br /> Famous natives of Liverpool: <br /> * [[Arthur Askey]] (comedian and actor)<br /> * Cilla Black (singer, TV presenter)<br /> * Stan Boardman (comedian) <br /> * Cherie Blair (prominent lawyer)<br /> * Tony Booth (actor and father-in-law of [[Tony Blair]]) <br /> * Billy Butler (comedian) <br /> * Jamie Carragher (footballer)<br /> * Melanie Chisholm - Mel C (former ''Spice Girl'') <br /> * Edwina Currie (politician and author)<br /> * [[Knotty Ash|Ken Dodd]] (poet, comedian and singer)<br /> * Kenny Everett (disc jockey and comedian)<br /> * Steven Gerrard (footballer)<br /> * [[William Gladstone]] (Four times Prime Minister of the United Kingdom) <br /> * Derek Hatton (politician)<br /> * George Melly (jazz singer and author)<br /> * Derek Nimmo (comic actor)<br /> * Steven Norris (politician)<br /> * John Peel (disc jockey and radio personality)<br /> * Ted Ray (comedian)<br /> * Anne Robinson (TV presenter and journalist) <br /> * Norman Rossington (comedian and actor) <br /> * [[George Stubbs]] (artist) <br /> * Jimmy Tarbuck (comedian) <br /> * Ricky Tomlinson (trade unionist, actor, comedian and banjo player)<br /> * Siegfried Sassoon (poet)<br /> * John Lennon (Beatle)<br /> * Sir Paul McCartney (Beatle)<br /> * George Harrison (Beatle)<br /> * Ringo Starr (Beatle)<br /> <br /> ==Culture==<br /> * [[Merseybeat]]<br /> * [[The Beatles]]<br /> * [[Tate Liverpool]]<br /> * [[Echo and the Bunnymen]]<br /> * The [[Liverpool Poets]]<br /> * Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra<br /> <br /> ==Sports==<br /> * [[Everton F.C.]] Soccer<br /> * [[Liverpool F.C.]] Soccer<br /> * [[Liverpool St Helens]] RUFC<br /> * [[St Helens RLFC]]<br /> * [[Tranmere Rovers]] Soccer<br /> <br /> [[Category:United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liverpool&diff=676181 2009-06-18T20:56:42Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Notable People */ Added Gladstone, removed Terry McDermot and Steven Gerrard.</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Port_of_Liverpool_building.jpg|thumb|300px|Port of Liverpool building - One of the &quot;three Graces&quot;]]<br /> '''Liverpool''' is a city in north-west [[England]]. It was a minor port town of [[Lancashire]] awarded a borough charter by King [[John]] in 1208, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Liverpool developed into a major global city. This prominence was based largely on trade, including [[tobacco]], [[sugar]] and a major involvement in the [[Slave Trade]]. Although the slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1806, Liverpool continued to flourish as an industrial, trade and financial industries centre. Liverpool has the largest number of listed buildings outside of [[London]],and more notable Georgian buildings than [[Bath]]. The Liverpool waterfront is a [[UNESCO]] [[World Heritage Site]] and contains three important buildings known as the &quot;three Graces&quot; - the'' Royal Liver'' building, the ''Cunard'' building and the ''Port of Liverpool'' building.<br /> <br /> Liverpool is noted for its two cathedrals, [[Anglican]] and [[Roman Catholic]]. The former, a traditional design from the early 1900s, is built from local sandstone. The Catholic cathedral built in a modern style during the 1970s is affectionately known as Paddy's Wigwam or the Mersey Funnel - a pun on the pioneering Mersey Tunnel constructed under the river between Liverpool and [[Birkenhead]].<br /> <br /> Liverpool also has two famous [[football]] teams, [[Everton F.C.|Everton]] (&quot;the Toffees&quot;) and [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] (&quot;the Reds&quot;), which play in blue and red respectively. <br /> <br /> Liverpool was the European Capital Of Culture for 2008.<br /> <br /> The city currently has a population of approximately 450,000, known as Liverpudlians (and nicknamed 'Scousers' after a local dish), with the wider [[Merseyside]] region having a population of 1.5 million. The city itself contains suburbs such as Aigburth, West Derby, [[Aintree]] and [[Knotty Ash]]. The popular culture and of Liverpool has been portrayed by the author and dramatist Carla Lane in a number of highly-regarded television dramas including &quot;The Liver Birds&quot; and &quot;Bread&quot;. Willy Russell and Alan Bleasdale are noted playwrights from Liverpool. Bleasdale effectively portrayed the misery and deprivation of 1980s Liverpool in dramas such as ''The Black Stuff'', while Russell, probably the most well-known of current Liverpool writers has enjoyed huge success with offerings such as ''Educating Rita'', ''Blood Brothers'' and ''Shirley Valentine''.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Scouse ==<br /> The nickname for both the city and its distinctive accent, scouse, is derived from the eponymous stew. The origins of the name are lost but the similarity of the name to Scandinavian words for ship's stews points to a maritime derivation. Due to the large influx of Irish immigrants into the port in the 19th Century the accent is very distinct from that of the surrounding area. Those speaking Scouse will include a large number of typically Irish elements into their speech. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Notable People ==<br /> <br /> British [[Prime Minister]] [[Harold Wilson]] later Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was [[Member of Parliament]] for the Liverpool constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.<br /> <br /> Famous natives of Liverpool: <br /> * [[Arthur Askey]] (comedian and actor)<br /> * Cilla Black (singer, TV presenter)<br /> * Stan Boardman (comedian) <br /> * Cherie Blair (prominent lawyer)<br /> * Tony Booth (actor and father-in-law of [[Tony Blair]]) <br /> * Billy Butler (comedian) <br /> * Jamie Carragher (footballer)<br /> * Melanie Chisholm - Mel C (former ''Spice Girl'') <br /> * Edwina Currie (politician and author)<br /> * [[Knotty Ash|Ken Dodd]] (poet, comedian and singer)<br /> * Kenny Everett (disc jockey and comedian)<br /> * Steven Gerrard (footballer)<br /> * [[William Gladstone]] (Four times Primeminister of the United Kingdom) <br /> * Derek Hatton (politician)<br /> * George Melly (jazz singer and author)<br /> * Derek Nimmo (comic actor)<br /> * Steven Norris (politician)<br /> * John Peel (disc jockey and radio personality)<br /> * Ted Ray (comedian)<br /> * Anne Robinson (TV presenter and journalist) <br /> * Norman Rossington (comedian and actor) <br /> * [[George Stubbs]] (artist) <br /> * Jimmy Tarbuck (comedian) <br /> * Ricky Tomlinson (trade unionist, actor, comedian and banjo player)<br /> * Siegfried Sassoon (poet)<br /> * John Lennon (Beatle)<br /> * Sir Paul McCartney (Beatle)<br /> * George Harrison (Beatle)<br /> * Ringo Starr (Beatle)<br /> <br /> ==Culture==<br /> * [[Merseybeat]]<br /> * [[The Beatles]]<br /> * [[Tate Liverpool]]<br /> * [[Echo and the Bunnymen]]<br /> * The [[Liverpool Poets]]<br /> * Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra<br /> <br /> ==Sports==<br /> * [[Everton F.C.]] Soccer<br /> * [[Liverpool F.C.]] Soccer<br /> * [[Liverpool St Helens]] RUFC<br /> * [[St Helens RLFC]]<br /> * [[Tranmere Rovers]] Soccer<br /> <br /> [[Category:United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Liverpool&diff=676176 2009-06-18T20:52:22Z

<p>Toffeeman: Correct tense, now that it's 2009</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Port_of_Liverpool_building.jpg|thumb|300px|Port of Liverpool building - One of the &quot;three Graces&quot;]]<br /> '''Liverpool''' is a city in north-west [[England]]. It was a minor port town of [[Lancashire]] awarded a borough charter by King [[John]] in 1208, but in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Liverpool developed into a major global city. This prominence was based largely on trade, including [[tobacco]], [[sugar]] and a major involvement in the [[Slave Trade]]. Although the slave trade was abolished in the [[British Empire]] in 1806, Liverpool continued to flourish as an industrial, trade and financial industries centre. Liverpool has the largest number of listed buildings outside of [[London]],and more notable Georgian buildings than [[Bath]]. The Liverpool waterfront is a [[UNESCO]] [[World Heritage Site]] and contains three important buildings known as the &quot;three Graces&quot; - the'' Royal Liver'' building, the ''Cunard'' building and the ''Port of Liverpool'' building.<br /> <br /> Liverpool is noted for its two cathedrals, [[Anglican]] and [[Roman Catholic]]. The former, a traditional design from the early 1900s, is built from local sandstone. The Catholic cathedral built in a modern style during the 1970s is affectionately known as Paddy's Wigwam or the Mersey Funnel - a pun on the pioneering Mersey Tunnel constructed under the river between Liverpool and [[Birkenhead]].<br /> <br /> Liverpool also has two famous [[football]] teams, [[Everton F.C.|Everton]] (&quot;the Toffees&quot;) and [[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]] (&quot;the Reds&quot;), which play in blue and red respectively. <br /> <br /> Liverpool was the European Capital Of Culture for 2008.<br /> <br /> The city currently has a population of approximately 450,000, known as Liverpudlians (and nicknamed 'Scousers' after a local dish), with the wider [[Merseyside]] region having a population of 1.5 million. The city itself contains suburbs such as Aigburth, West Derby, [[Aintree]] and [[Knotty Ash]]. The popular culture and of Liverpool has been portrayed by the author and dramatist Carla Lane in a number of highly-regarded television dramas including &quot;The Liver Birds&quot; and &quot;Bread&quot;. Willy Russell and Alan Bleasdale are noted playwrights from Liverpool. Bleasdale effectively portrayed the misery and deprivation of 1980s Liverpool in dramas such as ''The Black Stuff'', while Russell, probably the most well-known of current Liverpool writers has enjoyed huge success with offerings such as ''Educating Rita'', ''Blood Brothers'' and ''Shirley Valentine''.<br /> <br /> <br /> == Scouse ==<br /> The nickname for both the city and its distinctive accent, scouse, is derived from the eponymous stew. The origins of the name are lost but the similarity of the name to Scandinavian words for ship's stews points to a maritime derivation. Due to the large influx of Irish immigrants into the port in the 19th Century the accent is very distinct from that of the surrounding area. Those speaking Scouse will include a large number of typically Irish elements into their speech. <br /> <br /> <br /> == Notable People ==<br /> <br /> British [[Prime Minister]] [[Harold Wilson]] later Lord Wilson of Rievaulx was [[Member of Parliament]] for the Liverpool constituency of Huyton from 1945 until 1979.<br /> <br /> Famous natives of Liverpool: <br /> * [[Arthur Askey]] (comedian and actor)<br /> * Cilla Black (singer, TV presenter)<br /> * Stan Boardman (comedian) <br /> * Cherie Blair (prominent lawyer)<br /> * Tony Booth (actor and father-in-law of [[Tony Blair]]) <br /> * Billy Butler (comedian) <br /> * Jamie Carragher (footballer)<br /> * Melanie Chisholm - Mel C (former ''Spice Girl'') <br /> * Edwina Currie (politician and author)<br /> * [[Knotty Ash|Ken Dodd]] (poet, comedian and singer)<br /> * Kenny Everett (disc jockey and comedian)<br /> * Robbie Fowler (footballer) <br /> * Steven Gerrard (footballer) <br /> * Derek Hatton (politician)<br /> * Terry McDermott (footballer)<br /> * George Melly (jazz singer and author)<br /> * Derek Nimmo (comic actor)<br /> * Steven Norris (politician)<br /> * John Peel (disc jockey and radio personality)<br /> * Ted Ray (comedian)<br /> * Anne Robinson (TV presenter and journalist) <br /> * Norman Rossington (comedian and actor) <br /> * [[George Stubbs]] (artist) <br /> * Jimmy Tarbuck (comedian) <br /> * Ricky Tomlinson (trade unionist, actor, comedian and banjo player)<br /> * Siegfried Sassoon (poet)<br /> * John Lennon (Beatle)<br /> * Sir Paul McCartney (Beatle)<br /> * George Harrison (Beatle)<br /> * Ringo Starr (Beatle)<br /> <br /> ==Culture==<br /> * [[Merseybeat]]<br /> * [[The Beatles]]<br /> * [[Tate Liverpool]]<br /> * [[Echo and the Bunnymen]]<br /> * The [[Liverpool Poets]]<br /> * Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra<br /> <br /> ==Sports==<br /> * [[Everton F.C.]] Soccer<br /> * [[Liverpool F.C.]] Soccer<br /> * [[Liverpool St Helens]] RUFC<br /> * [[St Helens RLFC]]<br /> * [[Tranmere Rovers]] Soccer<br /> <br /> [[Category:United Kingdom Cities and Towns]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Karl_Popper&diff=628170 2009-02-20T21:45:24Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Falsifiability */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Image014.jpg|right|frame]]<br /> Sir '''Karl Popper''' (1902-1994) was an [[Austrian]]-born [[philosopher]] of science widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century,&lt;ref&gt;{{hnb|Stanford|2006}}&lt;/ref&gt; who influenced the philosophy of science and politics. <br /> <br /> ==Philosophy of Science ==<br /> === Falsifiability ===<br /> <br /> In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it. A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory. For example, Newton's law of gravity is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the Law of Gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it.<br /> <br /> While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific. Whilst it is commonly stated that Popper did not believe Evolutionary Theory to be a scientific theory, since he argued that it was tautological in 'Unended Quest' (1976), he in fact withdrew his criticism in 'Dialectica' (32:344-346), stating; <br /> <br /> &quot;I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation&quot;<br /> <br /> === Universal Laws ===<br /> <br /> The falsifiability criterion arose as a result of Popper's analysis of the logic of universal laws. Universal laws have a logical structure which precludes certain existential statements : universal laws are a negation of an existential proposition. Popper's example was that of the color of swans. The universal statement &quot;all swans are white&quot; implies the negative existential statement &quot;no swans of a color other than white exist&quot;. To verify the negative existential we would need to trawl through the universe to ensure that no non-white swan existed anywhere in time or space. Conversely, if we saw just one black swan we could confirm the existential statement &quot;black swans exist&quot; and refute the universal &quot;all swans are white&quot;. <br /> <br /> Popper was uncompromising in his rejection of any attempt to take confirming instances as increasing the legitimacy, likelihood, reasonableness or probability of the universal statement. No matter how many white swans you see you are no more able to assume that all swans are white than if you had seen just the one white swan. The ease with which “verifying” instances can be found led Popper to the conclusion that an attempted verification of a universal law is worse than useless: to be science universal laws must be capable of being put to the test, to be falsifiable.<br /> <br /> ==Politics==<br /> A refugee from Austria after the rise of [[Nazism]], Popper dedicated the war years to the study of the roots of totalitarian thought. The “Open Society and its Enemies” analysed the contribution, as he saw it, of [[Plato]], [[Hegel]] and [[Marx]] to an anti-rational tribalistic “closed society”. The close society was, for Popper, marked by a lack of criticism of established ideas (established societal norms being treated not as societal norms but as “taboo” or “the natural order”) together with a collectivism that subjected the individual to the group goal. Popper also saw “historicist” views and underpinning much of the thought behind the “closed” society. “Historicism”, dealt with in “The Poverty of Historicism” and criticised throughout the “Open Society”, both sees historical laws of development and bases much of its morality on these supposed laws. <br /> <br /> In contrast the concept of the &quot;Open Society&quot; reflects Popper's concept of science. Just as there is no method for generating a true description of a Universal Law there is no method for generating perfect (Utopian) social laws, norms or governmental actions. Society will always be in a state of less than perfection and may only improve by changing what was previously thought to be the best course of action. As society can only improve by self-criticism it follows that criticism must not be restricted. <br /> <br /> The view is criticised by those who see positive value in tradition, ritual and shared belief ''per se''. (A small scale example is the family Christmas tradition that most families have. They are usually dogmatically held and are of value precisely because they are dogmatically held: the shared dogma helps bind the family together). The view is also criticised by those who suspect our ability to decide on the full facts when looking at a social institution. All actions have unintended, unknown, consequences. We may simply not be aware of some functions of the particular institution, tradition or social norm being criticised. Avoiding rejection of institutions with good, but unknown, consequences necessitates some level of dogma to protect them.&lt;ref&gt;See, for example, A. O'Hear &quot;The Open Society Revisted&quot; in P.Catton and G MacDonald (eds.) ''Karl Popper: Critical Appraisels''. Routledge. Abingdon. 2004 &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Popper's views on politics cannot be placed along the traditional left/right axis. Bryan Magee, a liberal politician (MP for the British Labour Party and the British Social Democratic Party) who knew Popper personally, reflected that Popper began adult life an &quot;emotionally committed social democrat&quot; and moved, with middle age, progressively to the right. Magee reflected that the key insights given by Popper, the method of robustly critising our own views, &quot;can be adopted by anyone committed to democratic politics, from the extreme democratic left to the extreme democratic right&quot;&lt;ref&gt;B. Magee &quot;What Use is Popper to a Politician&quot; in A. O'Hear (ed.) ''Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. page 266.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Critical Rationalism==<br /> In &quot;The Open Society and its Enemies&quot; Popper put forward the concept of ''Critical Rationalism'' in opposition to the ''Authoritarian'' rationalism of previous philosophers. Previous philosphers had assumed a central role of justification in knowledge, whilst Popper denied the very possibility of justification arguing that any attempt to establish a foundation for knowledge led to a regress ending in &quot;faith&quot; (in the sense of a belief held without conclusive reasons that is held to be uncriticisable). Popper characterised rationality not as a methodology of formulating and verifying proposition but as a constant criticism of existing beliefs. <br /> <br /> In &quot;The Open Society and its Enemies&quot; Popper declared his &quot;faith&quot; in reason (as characterised by criticism). A faith that led him to reject any other epistemological authority. His student, W. W. Bartley III went further (&quot;The Retreat to Comittment&quot;) and rejected the need to have faith in reason. For Bartley ''all'' propositions where criticisable, even the propositions of basic logic themselves, a position he termed &quot;Comprehensively Critical Rationalism&quot;.<br /> <br /> Another pupil of Popper's, David W. Miller rejects not only dogma, which can be characterised as support for propositions that should not be questioned but the very concept of &quot;support&quot;.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> &quot;there exist no grounds whatever, conclusive or inconclusive, for anything that we know&quot;[http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The view is criticised by those who hold that knowledge must have foundations, basic beliefs that are both true and justified, from which other propositions are derived.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Popper, Karl}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophers]]<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> *{{Harvard reference<br /> | Surname = Stanford <br /> | Given = Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br /> | Year = 2006<br /> | Date = 2006-10-09<br /> | Title = Karl Popper<br /> | Publisher = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br /> | URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/<br /> }} Retrived on 2007-05-14</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Karl_Popper&diff=628168 2009-02-20T21:39:19Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Universal Laws */</p> <hr /> <div>[[Image:Image014.jpg|right|frame]]<br /> Sir '''Karl Popper''' (1902-1994) was an [[Austrian]]-born [[philosopher]] of science widely regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of science of the 20th century,&lt;ref&gt;{{hnb|Stanford|2006}}&lt;/ref&gt; who influenced the philosophy of science and politics. <br /> <br /> ==Philosophy of Science ==<br /> === Falsifiability ===<br /> <br /> In his seminal work, ''The Logic of Scientific Discovery,'' Karl Popper repudiated induction, and proposed the bright line of [[Falsifiable|falsifiability]] as a demarcation between science and non-science. In order to be scientific, a theory must be testable, and the results of the testing must either corroborate the theory, or falsify it. A proposed theory is falsifiable, if it is conceivable to conduct an experiment that would disprove the theory. For example, Newton's law of gravity is a valid scientific theory because it is falsifiable; that is, the Law of Gravity is experimentally testable, and a measurement taken that violates Newton's law would falsify it, while a measurement that substantiates the theory would corroborate it.<br /> <br /> While chemistry, Newtonian physics, and many other fields belong to science, metaphysics and pseudoscience are not scientific. Whilst it is commonly stated that Popper believed Evolutionary Theory to be unscientific, since he argued that it was tautological in 'Unended Quest' (1976), he in fact withdrew his criticism in 'Dialectica' (32:344-346), stating; <br /> <br /> &quot;I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation&quot;<br /> <br /> === Universal Laws ===<br /> <br /> The falsifiability criterion arose as a result of Popper's analysis of the logic of universal laws. Universal laws have a logical structure which precludes certain existential statements : universal laws are a negation of an existential proposition. Popper's example was that of the color of swans. The universal statement &quot;all swans are white&quot; implies the negative existential statement &quot;no swans of a color other than white exist&quot;. To verify the negative existential we would need to trawl through the universe to ensure that no non-white swan existed anywhere in time or space. Conversely, if we saw just one black swan we could confirm the existential statement &quot;black swans exist&quot; and refute the universal &quot;all swans are white&quot;. <br /> <br /> Popper was uncompromising in his rejection of any attempt to take confirming instances as increasing the legitimacy, likelihood, reasonableness or probability of the universal statement. No matter how many white swans you see you are no more able to assume that all swans are white than if you had seen just the one white swan. The ease with which “verifying” instances can be found led Popper to the conclusion that an attempted verification of a universal law is worse than useless: to be science universal laws must be capable of being put to the test, to be falsifiable.<br /> <br /> ==Politics==<br /> A refugee from Austria after the rise of [[Nazism]], Popper dedicated the war years to the study of the roots of totalitarian thought. The “Open Society and its Enemies” analysed the contribution, as he saw it, of [[Plato]], [[Hegel]] and [[Marx]] to an anti-rational tribalistic “closed society”. The close society was, for Popper, marked by a lack of criticism of established ideas (established societal norms being treated not as societal norms but as “taboo” or “the natural order”) together with a collectivism that subjected the individual to the group goal. Popper also saw “historicist” views and underpinning much of the thought behind the “closed” society. “Historicism”, dealt with in “The Poverty of Historicism” and criticised throughout the “Open Society”, both sees historical laws of development and bases much of its morality on these supposed laws. <br /> <br /> In contrast the concept of the &quot;Open Society&quot; reflects Popper's concept of science. Just as there is no method for generating a true description of a Universal Law there is no method for generating perfect (Utopian) social laws, norms or governmental actions. Society will always be in a state of less than perfection and may only improve by changing what was previously thought to be the best course of action. As society can only improve by self-criticism it follows that criticism must not be restricted. <br /> <br /> The view is criticised by those who see positive value in tradition, ritual and shared belief ''per se''. (A small scale example is the family Christmas tradition that most families have. They are usually dogmatically held and are of value precisely because they are dogmatically held: the shared dogma helps bind the family together). The view is also criticised by those who suspect our ability to decide on the full facts when looking at a social institution. All actions have unintended, unknown, consequences. We may simply not be aware of some functions of the particular institution, tradition or social norm being criticised. Avoiding rejection of institutions with good, but unknown, consequences necessitates some level of dogma to protect them.&lt;ref&gt;See, for example, A. O'Hear &quot;The Open Society Revisted&quot; in P.Catton and G MacDonald (eds.) ''Karl Popper: Critical Appraisels''. Routledge. Abingdon. 2004 &lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Popper's views on politics cannot be placed along the traditional left/right axis. Bryan Magee, a liberal politician (MP for the British Labour Party and the British Social Democratic Party) who knew Popper personally, reflected that Popper began adult life an &quot;emotionally committed social democrat&quot; and moved, with middle age, progressively to the right. Magee reflected that the key insights given by Popper, the method of robustly critising our own views, &quot;can be adopted by anyone committed to democratic politics, from the extreme democratic left to the extreme democratic right&quot;&lt;ref&gt;B. Magee &quot;What Use is Popper to a Politician&quot; in A. O'Hear (ed.) ''Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. page 266.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> ==Critical Rationalism==<br /> In &quot;The Open Society and its Enemies&quot; Popper put forward the concept of ''Critical Rationalism'' in opposition to the ''Authoritarian'' rationalism of previous philosophers. Previous philosphers had assumed a central role of justification in knowledge, whilst Popper denied the very possibility of justification arguing that any attempt to establish a foundation for knowledge led to a regress ending in &quot;faith&quot; (in the sense of a belief held without conclusive reasons that is held to be uncriticisable). Popper characterised rationality not as a methodology of formulating and verifying proposition but as a constant criticism of existing beliefs. <br /> <br /> In &quot;The Open Society and its Enemies&quot; Popper declared his &quot;faith&quot; in reason (as characterised by criticism). A faith that led him to reject any other epistemological authority. His student, W. W. Bartley III went further (&quot;The Retreat to Comittment&quot;) and rejected the need to have faith in reason. For Bartley ''all'' propositions where criticisable, even the propositions of basic logic themselves, a position he termed &quot;Comprehensively Critical Rationalism&quot;.<br /> <br /> Another pupil of Popper's, David W. Miller rejects not only dogma, which can be characterised as support for propositions that should not be questioned but the very concept of &quot;support&quot;.<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> &quot;there exist no grounds whatever, conclusive or inconclusive, for anything that we know&quot;[http://intl.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5420/1625]<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> The view is criticised by those who hold that knowledge must have foundations, basic beliefs that are both true and justified, from which other propositions are derived.<br /> <br /> ==References==<br /> &lt;references/&gt;<br /> <br /> {{DEFAULTSORT:Popper, Karl}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophers]]<br /> <br /> == Sources ==<br /> <br /> *{{Harvard reference<br /> | Surname = Stanford <br /> | Given = Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br /> | Year = 2006<br /> | Date = 2006-10-09<br /> | Title = Karl Popper<br /> | Publisher = Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<br /> | URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/<br /> }} Retrived on 2007-05-14</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:Toffeeman&diff=529680 2008-10-05T06:09:17Z

<p>Toffeeman: Removing all content from page</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pronunciation&diff=526736 2008-09-30T16:56:23Z

<p>Toffeeman: I pronounce &quot;through&quot; and &quot;thorough&quot; differently (mind you, I pronoune &quot;rough&quot; and &quot;cough&quot; witht the same &quot;ough&quot; sound.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Pronunciation''' is the way in which [[word]]s or [[name]]s are spoken or '''pronounced'''.<br /> <br /> Some languages have fixed rules of pronunciation. For example, in [[French]], the same [[letter]]s and [[syllable]]s are almost invariably pronounced the same way whenever they occur. In [[English]], however, letters can be pronounced in many different ways. For example, there are approximately twenty-five different [[vowel]] sounds, which can be conveyed by only five vowels (or six if '''Y''' is counted), and the combination ''''ough'''' can be pronounced at least nine different ways.&lt;ref&gt;As in rough, through, thorough, bough, cough, dough, thought, though, and hiccough.&lt;/ref&gt;<br /> <br /> Dictionaries use various [[notation]] systems and sometimes esoteric [[symbol]]s to convey how a word is pronounced.<br /> <br /> Pronunciation of some words differs widely according to a person's [[accent]], [[dialect]], and [[cultural]] and [[religious]] background. This is conveyed in the famous song &quot;Let's Call The Whole Thing Off&quot;, from the musical ''[[Shall We Dance?]]'', which includes the line: &quot;you say toma[y]to, I say toma[h]to&quot;. The 'tomayto' pronunciation of '[[tomato]]' is most common in the [[America]], while the 'tomahto' pronunciation is more common in [[Britain]].<br /> <br /> == Notes ==<br /> {{Reflist}}<br /> <br /> [[Category:Languages]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Odyssey&diff=526103 2008-09-29T17:24:45Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>The '''Odyssey''' was an epic poem written by [[Homer]], a [[Greece|Greek]] poet, in the 8th century B.C. It recounts events that took place after the [[Trojan War]], part of which is described in Homer's other major work the [[Iliad]]. The main themes of the [[poem]] are [[Odysseus]]' journey home from [[Troy]] after winning the war and his trials along the way. During his journey he encounters many mythical beasts including a cyclops which he blinds. Unbeknown to Odysseus the cyclops is the son of the great sea god [[Poseidon]] who makes it his mission to stop Odysseus from ever reaching his home of [[Ithaca]]. He eventually does reach his home with the help of other gods, especially [[Athena]], and he reunites with his wife after dispatching her lecherous suitors.<br /> <br /> The poem is surprisingly &quot;modern&quot; in feel. The poem commences after most of the action has taken place and is told in &quot;flashback&quot;.<br /> <br /> It is to this epic that the Roman writer [[Virgil]] pays tribute in his creation of the masterpiece, the [[Aeneid]] (books I to XII), best known for its elegant use of hypermetric elision, multiple correspondence similes and [[litotes]].<br /> <br /> <br /> [[Image:Monsiau Return of Odysseus.jpg]]<br /> <br /> '''Return of Odysseus by Nicholas Monsiau, Early 1800's.'''<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> <br /> *[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0218 A Modern Translation]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Poetry]]<br /> [[Category:Books]]<br /> [[Category:Ancient Greece]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pigment&diff=526081 2008-09-29T16:55:46Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>A pigment is a colouring agent. Pigments are found in such products as paints and cosmetics, and, naturally, in skin and hair.<br /> <br /> A pigment is distinguished from a dye in that a dye is fully disolved in the medium whilst a pigment is distributed through the medium in suspension. A pigment is a finely ground solid &quot;floating&quot; in a liquid. Dyes may be turned into pigments by fixing the dye onto an intert base, colouring that base. The dyed base will then be finely ground and suspended in the relevant medium.<br /> <br /> Most pigments used throughout history have been naturally occuring substances. Technological developments have enabled these substances to be synthesised and new pigments to be developed. This has greatly increased the variety of pigments available and reduced their cost.</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Audit&diff=526075 2008-09-29T16:50:59Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Audit''' is an process to ascertain if results have been declared with an acceptable level of accuracy and presented in a way that will not mislead. Whilst an audit is usually associated with accounting (financial audit), it may also be a used to verify a person, product, company, agency or a process. The U.S. Census bureau conducts an audit every ten years to determine every member of the population.<br /> <br /> Audits may be &quot;external&quot; or &quot;internal&quot;. An external audit is carried out by personnel and organisations independent of the organisation being audited. Reports and accounts that are made public are, if audited at all, externally audited. An internal audit is carried out within an organisation to give that organisation confidence in its own procedures. Internal audits are often both wider in scope and more detailed than external audits. <br /> <br /> [[Category:business]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pigment&diff=526026 2008-09-29T14:28:59Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>A pigment is a colouring agent. Pigments are found in such products as paints and cosmetics, and, naturally, in skin and hair.<br /> <br /> A pigment is distinguished from a dye in that a dye is fully disolved in the medium whilst a pigment is distributed through the medium in suspension. A pigment is a fmely ground solid &quot;floating&quot; in a liquid. Dyes may be turned into pigments by fixing the dye onto an intert base, colouring that base. The dyed base will then be finely ground and suspended in the relevant medium.</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pigment&diff=526024 2008-09-29T14:27:46Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>A pigment is a colouring agent. Pigments are found in such products as paints and cosmetics, and, naturally, in skin and hair.<br /> <br /> A pigment is distinguished from a dye in that a dye is fully disolved in the medium whilst a pigment is distributed through the medium in suspension. Dyes may be turned into pigments by fixing the dye onto an intert base, colouring the base. The dyed base will then be finely ground and suspended in the relevant medium.</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Messerschmitt_Bf_109&diff=525598 2008-09-28T22:49:52Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>Maybe we should add a section describing the reason why it is sometimes called the Me-109 by Americans?<br /> <br /> :&quot;At the outbreak of the war it was easily the best purpose-built fighter in the world.&quot; Eh? Doesn't the Spitfire get a look in? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 18:49, 28 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Audit&diff=525062 2008-09-27T22:42:40Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Audit''' is an independent process to ascertain if results have been declared with an acceptable level of accuracy and presented in a way that will not mislead. Whilst an audit is usually associated with accounting (financial audit), it may also be a used to verify a person, product, company, agency or a process. The U.S. Census bureau conducts an audit every ten years to determine every member of the population.<br /> [[Category:business]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=523271 2008-09-24T13:36:58Z

<p>Toffeeman: Pointed out by certain gentlemen on a certain site</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Point 5 Confirmed ==<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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&lt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were &quot;extremely significant&quot;). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of &quot;whether or not&quot;&lt;ref&gt;&quot;We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P &lt; 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.&quot; (Lenski paper at 7902).&lt;/ref&gt; obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.<br /> <br /> : People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.<br /> <br /> : Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::'''''&quot;a falsehood is still a falsehood&quot;'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.<br /> <br /> ::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim. <br /> <br /> ::How do the words Lenski uses &quot;mislead&quot;. If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be &quot;misleading&quot;. <br /> <br /> ::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''&quot;Tu Quoque&quot;'' would be too great. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: The falsehood consists of pretending to apply the Whitlock Z-transform in a straightforward, logical and correct manner. I think the Lenski paper is intentionally misleading by using the &quot;whether or not&quot; wording, when both alternatives are nonsensical. Point 5 has been proven above to be correct in identify an error in the Lenski paper.<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Toffeeman&quot;, your blocking history suggests you have been less than straightforward yourself. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful. You're not fooling anyone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Lenski did apply the Z-transformation correctly, both weighted and unweighted. The data points extracted from each replay are the ''generation numbers of those replicates that gave rise to Cit+ mutants''. Thus Replay 1 produced four data points: 30,500 31,500 32,500 32,500. Replay 2 produced five data points: 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,500. Replay 3 produced eight data points: 20,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,000. Thus the N for replay 1 is 4; replay 2 is 5 and replay 3 is 8. The fact that replay 3 used 38 times as many replicates as replay 1 does not mean that it should be weighted 38 times as much; it only produced twice as much data, not 38 times as much. <br /> <br /> ::::Suppose I want to find out what the average age of a murderer is in three cities. In L.A. I interview 72 random people and find that 4 of them were convicted of murder; I record the ages of the four. In Seattle I interview 340 people and find that 5 of them are convicted murderers; likewise in Singapore I interview 2800 and find 8 murderers. In the end, I have 4,5, and 8 data points from the three cities; the number of people I had to interview to obtain those data points doesn't factor into the analysis of what the average age of the murderers is.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: In your first paragraph you simply repeat the error underlying Lenski's paper. You, like the paper, incorrectly apply Whitlock's Z-transform.<br /> <br /> ::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, &quot;Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the '''reciprocal of its squared standard error'''.&quot; It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to be insisting should be done.<br /> ::::::Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::ASchlafly, you state that I incorrectly apply &quot;Whitlock's Z-transform&quot; (actually the test belongs to Mosteller &amp; Bush&lt;ref&gt;Mosteller, F. &amp; Bush, R.R. 1954. Selected quantitative techniques. In: ''Handbook of Social Psychology,'' Vol. 1 (G. Lindzey, ed.)&lt;/ref&gt; and/or Liptak&lt;ref&gt;Liptak, T. 1958. On the combination of tests. ''Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Kozl.'' '''3''': 171-197&lt;/ref&gt;). Whitlock describes weighting by the reciprocal of the squared standard error. The standard error of the mean is proportional to 1/sqrt(N), so the reciprocal of the squared standard error is proportional to N. Thus larger studies ''are'' given more weight. I maintain that the sample sizes N of the three replays are 4, 5, and 8 respectively. Weighting based on those three N does not weight all three replays equally as you claim: it gives replay 2 25% more weight and replay 3 100% more weight than replay 1. Rather than simply repeating that I am wrong, will you please state what ''you'' think the sample sizes of the three replay experiments are, and, in your opinion, what the ''correct'' application of the Z-transformation would be?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> :::::::: The Lenski paper states how it weighted the experiments, and that weighting is incorrect. Admit it. Moreover, the incorrect weighting in the Lenski paper was not likely an inadvertent error, as it inflated the significance of the results. I found the wording used by the Lenski paper to describe its (incorrect) weighting to be artfully misleading.<br /> <br /> :::::::: Provide me with federal funding as Lenski received, and I'll write a paper for you. But I don't have to write an alternative paper to point out glaring errors in Lenski's paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to &quot;earn&quot; the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> (unindent)I'm not asking anyone to write a paper or replicate an experiment. I'm asking ASchlafly to support his statement &quot;The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, '''as you and Lenski have done'''&quot;(bolding mine). I have stated publicly, subject to challenge by others, that the sample sizes (n) of the three replays are four, five, and eight respectively. Furthermore, using n of 4, 5, and 8 in the weighted Z-method DOES NOT weight all the replay experiments equally - it weights replay 3 twice as much as replay 1 and 8/5 as much as replay 2. Tell you what: I'll drop all my questions about Monte Carlo and the Z-transform, and simply ask ASchlafly one question: '''what is the sample size, n, of the second replay experiment?''' He need not even do any calculations - a statement in words that will allow someone else to do the calculation will suffice. This is not a complicated question to answer; the paper states how many replicate cultures there were (340), how many cells there were in each replicate (3.9x10^8), how many replicates gave rise to Cit+ cells (5), and which generations those Cit+ replicates came from (4 from 32,000 and one from 32,500). I will even give ''my'' answer: '''five'''. Furthermore, I will say ''why'' I believe that, using the murderer/age analogy: performing the 340 replicates is the same as interviewing 340 people in order to find out if any of them are convicted murderers. Finding that five replicates gave rise to Cit+ mutants is the same as the survey finding that 5 of those 340 people were convicted murderers. Finding that the Cit+ mutants arose from 4 replicates from generation 32,000 and 1 from generation 32,500 is the same as finding the ages of the murderers. The five data points in the Lenski study allow one to calculate the 'mean generation of clones yielding Cit+': 32,100. This is the same as finding the mean age of the five murderers. If I want to compare this hypothetical murderer age study to some other study of the mean age of murderers, I would weight the studies based on how many murderers were in each study, not on how many non-murderers were included in the initial survey. <br /> <br /> Surely ASchlafly can say ''what'' he thinks the n of the second replay is, even if he won't say ''why'' he thinks it. Is it five? 340? The number of replicates times the number of cells per replicate? Something else? No analysis need be performed on the resulting number.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :OK - would you care to put in writing that after ASchlafly gives you his response, you won't start obfuscating the issue with Monte Carlo and Z-transform issues? You understand: it is typical of liberals to, after being proven wrong, to start pretending that they were talking about an entirely different issue altogether. '''After ASchlafly states the sample size of the second replay experiment you will consider yourself answered.''' Correct?<br /> <br /> :Brossa, your rant is misplaced. One cannot salvage an error in logic by questioning which of superior alternatives should be used instead. The sample size of an experiment is the number that comprises the underlying sample used in the experiment, not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment. Maybe you can debate yourself over what the correct underlying sample size is, but it is plainly not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So that's an &quot;I don't know&quot; then? Or did you mean something else?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 07:34, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Aschlafly, are we not getting back to the distinction I made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=520539&amp;oldid=520525 here]? A suggestion that you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=520611&amp;oldid=520539 rejected]?<br /> <br /> :::If we are agreed on what constitutes the sample then it is clear that Lenski did combine the sample in a logical manner with proper weighting. He followed accepted practice and used established statistical techniques. Your letter did not dispute the soundness of accepted practice and established techniques, it alleged that Lenski had diverted from them. If the sample is agreed then this allegation is untrue.<br /> <br /> :::If, contrary to your earlier statement, there is a dispute about the sample then it is Lenski who is correct on the sample size. Lenski is testing a hypothesis about Cit+ replicates. If you were testing (to use Brossa’a example) “most murders are committed by 20 to 35 year olds” you would include murderers, you would not run statistics on the age of fraudsters. You may get your data from a source that includes fraudsters, say prison records that include details of all types of criminals. However you would exclude non-murderers, and correctly exclude non-murderers, when reviewing the age of murderers. <br /> <br /> :::That is the situation we have here. Lenski’s null hypothesis is that Cit+ replicates arose randomly. This says no more about Cit- replicates than it does about what Lenski had for lunch the day he wrote the paper. The presence of Cit- replicates is a result of the method of generating the sample, a side product. To give another example, if you were doing an experiment breeding chickens you would generate a lot of manure: you wouldn’t include it in the analysis!<br /> <br /> :::Finally the argument has no end product: if we erroneously consider the Cit- replicates as part of the sample the null hypothesis is still refuted. Your objections to Lenski’s wording do not establish deceit on his part, yet they would were they to be established themselves. Your objections to Lenski’s calculations, however, would not establish the falsity of his conclusions even if the objections were correct. The calculations of the three differing weightings above are not intended:<br /> <br /> ::::1. to show that Lenski was honest (he was, but that is established by other evidence) <br /> ::::2. to show that Lenski correctly applied accepted statistical techniques (he did, but that is established by other evidence) or<br /> ::::3. to show that only Cit+ replicates are part of “the sample” (they are, but that is established elsewhere)<br /> <br /> :::The calculations of the three differing weightings above show that your objections are moot. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:37, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=523270 2008-09-24T13:35:16Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Point 5 Confirmed ==<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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&gt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were &quot;extremely significant&quot;). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of &quot;whether or not&quot;&lt;ref&gt;&quot;We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P &lt; 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.&quot; (Lenski paper at 7902).&lt;/ref&gt; obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.<br /> <br /> : People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.<br /> <br /> : Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::'''''&quot;a falsehood is still a falsehood&quot;'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.<br /> <br /> ::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim. <br /> <br /> ::How do the words Lenski uses &quot;mislead&quot;. If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be &quot;misleading&quot;. <br /> <br /> ::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''&quot;Tu Quoque&quot;'' would be too great. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: The falsehood consists of pretending to apply the Whitlock Z-transform in a straightforward, logical and correct manner. I think the Lenski paper is intentionally misleading by using the &quot;whether or not&quot; wording, when both alternatives are nonsensical. Point 5 has been proven above to be correct in identify an error in the Lenski paper.<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Toffeeman&quot;, your blocking history suggests you have been less than straightforward yourself. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful. You're not fooling anyone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Lenski did apply the Z-transformation correctly, both weighted and unweighted. The data points extracted from each replay are the ''generation numbers of those replicates that gave rise to Cit+ mutants''. Thus Replay 1 produced four data points: 30,500 31,500 32,500 32,500. Replay 2 produced five data points: 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,500. Replay 3 produced eight data points: 20,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,000. Thus the N for replay 1 is 4; replay 2 is 5 and replay 3 is 8. The fact that replay 3 used 38 times as many replicates as replay 1 does not mean that it should be weighted 38 times as much; it only produced twice as much data, not 38 times as much. <br /> <br /> ::::Suppose I want to find out what the average age of a murderer is in three cities. In L.A. I interview 72 random people and find that 4 of them were convicted of murder; I record the ages of the four. In Seattle I interview 340 people and find that 5 of them are convicted murderers; likewise in Singapore I interview 2800 and find 8 murderers. In the end, I have 4,5, and 8 data points from the three cities; the number of people I had to interview to obtain those data points doesn't factor into the analysis of what the average age of the murderers is.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: In your first paragraph you simply repeat the error underlying Lenski's paper. You, like the paper, incorrectly apply Whitlock's Z-transform.<br /> <br /> ::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, &quot;Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the '''reciprocal of its squared standard error'''.&quot; It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to be insisting should be done.<br /> ::::::Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::ASchlafly, you state that I incorrectly apply &quot;Whitlock's Z-transform&quot; (actually the test belongs to Mosteller &amp; Bush&lt;ref&gt;Mosteller, F. &amp; Bush, R.R. 1954. Selected quantitative techniques. In: ''Handbook of Social Psychology,'' Vol. 1 (G. Lindzey, ed.)&lt;/ref&gt; and/or Liptak&lt;ref&gt;Liptak, T. 1958. On the combination of tests. ''Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Kozl.'' '''3''': 171-197&lt;/ref&gt;). Whitlock describes weighting by the reciprocal of the squared standard error. The standard error of the mean is proportional to 1/sqrt(N), so the reciprocal of the squared standard error is proportional to N. Thus larger studies ''are'' given more weight. I maintain that the sample sizes N of the three replays are 4, 5, and 8 respectively. Weighting based on those three N does not weight all three replays equally as you claim: it gives replay 2 25% more weight and replay 3 100% more weight than replay 1. Rather than simply repeating that I am wrong, will you please state what ''you'' think the sample sizes of the three replay experiments are, and, in your opinion, what the ''correct'' application of the Z-transformation would be?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> :::::::: The Lenski paper states how it weighted the experiments, and that weighting is incorrect. Admit it. Moreover, the incorrect weighting in the Lenski paper was not likely an inadvertent error, as it inflated the significance of the results. I found the wording used by the Lenski paper to describe its (incorrect) weighting to be artfully misleading.<br /> <br /> :::::::: Provide me with federal funding as Lenski received, and I'll write a paper for you. But I don't have to write an alternative paper to point out glaring errors in Lenski's paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to &quot;earn&quot; the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> (unindent)I'm not asking anyone to write a paper or replicate an experiment. I'm asking ASchlafly to support his statement &quot;The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, '''as you and Lenski have done'''&quot;(bolding mine). I have stated publicly, subject to challenge by others, that the sample sizes (n) of the three replays are four, five, and eight respectively. Furthermore, using n of 4, 5, and 8 in the weighted Z-method DOES NOT weight all the replay experiments equally - it weights replay 3 twice as much as replay 1 and 8/5 as much as replay 2. Tell you what: I'll drop all my questions about Monte Carlo and the Z-transform, and simply ask ASchlafly one question: '''what is the sample size, n, of the second replay experiment?''' He need not even do any calculations - a statement in words that will allow someone else to do the calculation will suffice. This is not a complicated question to answer; the paper states how many replicate cultures there were (340), how many cells there were in each replicate (3.9x10^8), how many replicates gave rise to Cit+ cells (5), and which generations those Cit+ replicates came from (4 from 32,000 and one from 32,500). I will even give ''my'' answer: '''five'''. Furthermore, I will say ''why'' I believe that, using the murderer/age analogy: performing the 340 replicates is the same as interviewing 340 people in order to find out if any of them are convicted murderers. Finding that five replicates gave rise to Cit+ mutants is the same as the survey finding that 5 of those 340 people were convicted murderers. Finding that the Cit+ mutants arose from 4 replicates from generation 32,000 and 1 from generation 32,500 is the same as finding the ages of the murderers. The five data points in the Lenski study allow one to calculate the 'mean generation of clones yielding Cit+': 32,100. This is the same as finding the mean age of the five murderers. If I want to compare this hypothetical murderer age study to some other study of the mean age of murderers, I would weight the studies based on how many murderers were in each study, not on how many non-murderers were included in the initial survey. <br /> <br /> Surely ASchlafly can say ''what'' he thinks the n of the second replay is, even if he won't say ''why'' he thinks it. Is it five? 340? The number of replicates times the number of cells per replicate? Something else? No analysis need be performed on the resulting number.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :OK - would you care to put in writing that after ASchlafly gives you his response, you won't start obfuscating the issue with Monte Carlo and Z-transform issues? You understand: it is typical of liberals to, after being proven wrong, to start pretending that they were talking about an entirely different issue altogether. '''After ASchlafly states the sample size of the second replay experiment you will consider yourself answered.''' Correct?<br /> <br /> :Brossa, your rant is misplaced. One cannot salvage an error in logic by questioning which of superior alternatives should be used instead. The sample size of an experiment is the number that comprises the underlying sample used in the experiment, not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment. Maybe you can debate yourself over what the correct underlying sample size is, but it is plainly not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So that's an &quot;I don't know&quot; then? Or did you mean something else?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 07:34, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Aschlafly, are we not getting back to the distinction I made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=520539&amp;oldid=520525 here]? A suggestion that you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=520611&amp;oldid=520539 rejected]?<br /> <br /> :::If we are agreed on what constitutes the sample then it is clear that Lenski did combine the sample in a logical manner with proper weighting. He followed accepted practice and used established statistical techniques. Your letter did not dispute the soundness of accepted practice and established techniques, it alleged that Lenski had diverted from them. If the sample is agreed then this allegation is untrue.<br /> <br /> :::If, contrary to your earlier statement, there is a dispute about the sample then it is Lenski who is correct on the sample size. Lenski is testing a hypothesis about Cit+ replicates. If you were testing (to use Brossa’a example) “most murders are committed by 20 to 35 year olds” you would include murderers, you would not run statistics on the age of fraudsters. You may get your data from a source that includes fraudsters, say prison records that include details of all types of criminals. However you would exclude non-murderers, and correctly exclude non-murderers, when reviewing the age of murderers. <br /> <br /> :::That is the situation we have here. Lenski’s null hypothesis is that Cit+ replicates arose randomly. This says no more about Cit- replicates than it does about what Lenski had for lunch the day he wrote the paper. The presence of Cit- replicates is a result of the method of generating the sample, a side product. To give another example, if you were doing an experiment breeding chickens you would generate a lot of manure: you wouldn’t include it in the analysis!<br /> <br /> :::Finally the argument has no end product: if we erroneously consider the Cit- replicates as part of the sample the null hypothesis is still refuted. Your objections to Lenski’s wording do not establish deceit on his part, yet they would were they to be established themselves. Your objections to Lenski’s calculations, however, would not establish the falsity of his conclusions even if the objections were correct. The calculations of the three differing weightings above are not intended:<br /> <br /> ::::1. to show that Lenski was honest (he was, but that is established by other evidence) <br /> ::::2. to show that Lenski correctly applied accepted statistical techniques (he did, but that is established by other evidence) or<br /> ::::3. to show that only Cit+ replicates are part of “the sample” (they are, but that is established elsewhere)<br /> <br /> :::The calculations of the three differing weightings above show that your objections are moot. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:37, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=523218 2008-09-24T11:37:00Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Point 5 Confirmed ==<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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&gt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were &quot;extremely significant&quot;). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of &quot;whether or not&quot;&lt;ref&gt;&quot;We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P &lt; 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.&quot; (Lenski paper at 7902).&lt;/ref&gt; obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.<br /> <br /> : People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.<br /> <br /> : Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::'''''&quot;a falsehood is still a falsehood&quot;'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.<br /> <br /> ::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim. <br /> <br /> ::How do the words Lenski uses &quot;mislead&quot;. If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be &quot;misleading&quot;. <br /> <br /> ::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''&quot;Tu Quoque&quot;'' would be too great. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: The falsehood consists of pretending to apply the Whitlock Z-transform in a straightforward, logical and correct manner. I think the Lenski paper is intentionally misleading by using the &quot;whether or not&quot; wording, when both alternatives are nonsensical. Point 5 has been proven above to be correct in identify an error in the Lenski paper.<br /> <br /> ::: &quot;Toffeeman&quot;, your blocking history suggests you have been less than straightforward yourself. Go elsewhere if you seek to be deceitful. You're not fooling anyone here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:54, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Lenski did apply the Z-transformation correctly, both weighted and unweighted. The data points extracted from each replay are the ''generation numbers of those replicates that gave rise to Cit+ mutants''. Thus Replay 1 produced four data points: 30,500 31,500 32,500 32,500. Replay 2 produced five data points: 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,500. Replay 3 produced eight data points: 20,000 20,000 27,000 27,000 31,000 31,500 32,000 32,000. Thus the N for replay 1 is 4; replay 2 is 5 and replay 3 is 8. The fact that replay 3 used 38 times as many replicates as replay 1 does not mean that it should be weighted 38 times as much; it only produced twice as much data, not 38 times as much. <br /> <br /> ::::Suppose I want to find out what the average age of a murderer is in three cities. In L.A. I interview 72 random people and find that 4 of them were convicted of murder; I record the ages of the four. In Seattle I interview 340 people and find that 5 of them are convicted murderers; likewise in Singapore I interview 2800 and find 8 murderers. In the end, I have 4,5, and 8 data points from the three cities; the number of people I had to interview to obtain those data points doesn't factor into the analysis of what the average age of the murderers is.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 00:06, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::: In your first paragraph you simply repeat the error underlying Lenski's paper. You, like the paper, incorrectly apply Whitlock's Z-transform.<br /> <br /> ::::: The quality and reliability of data is proportional to sample size, and when different studies are combined they need to be weighted accordingly. The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, as you and Lenski have done. That's basic logic, though I'm not optimistic that you or Lenski will admit it. Open-minded people who respect logic have no difficulty elevating logic over personal whim.-[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:30, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::Andy if you read Whitlock's paper you would see it say, and I quote, &quot;Ideally each study is weighted proportional to the inverse of its error variance, that is, by the '''reciprocal of its squared standard error'''.&quot; It says nothing about weighting according to sample size, which is what you seem to be insisting should be done.<br /> ::::::Also Whitlock acknowledges in the paper that there is no preference for weighted versus equal weighting, so the fact that both equal weighting and weighting by the standard error give a statistically significant result shows that the 3 experiments combined support rejection of the null hypothesis. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 20:39, 21 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::ASchlafly, you state that I incorrectly apply &quot;Whitlock's Z-transform&quot; (actually the test belongs to Mosteller &amp; Bush&lt;ref&gt;Mosteller, F. &amp; Bush, R.R. 1954. Selected quantitative techniques. In: ''Handbook of Social Psychology,'' Vol. 1 (G. Lindzey, ed.)&lt;/ref&gt; and/or Liptak&lt;ref&gt;Liptak, T. 1958. On the combination of tests. ''Magyar Tud. Akad. Mat. Kutato Int. Kozl.'' '''3''': 171-197&lt;/ref&gt;). Whitlock describes weighting by the reciprocal of the squared standard error. The standard error of the mean is proportional to 1/sqrt(N), so the reciprocal of the squared standard error is proportional to N. Thus larger studies ''are'' given more weight. I maintain that the sample sizes N of the three replays are 4, 5, and 8 respectively. Weighting based on those three N does not weight all three replays equally as you claim: it gives replay 2 25% more weight and replay 3 100% more weight than replay 1. Rather than simply repeating that I am wrong, will you please state what ''you'' think the sample sizes of the three replay experiments are, and, in your opinion, what the ''correct'' application of the Z-transformation would be?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:00, 22 September 2008 (EDT) <br /> <br /> :::::::: The Lenski paper states how it weighted the experiments, and that weighting is incorrect. Admit it. Moreover, the incorrect weighting in the Lenski paper was not likely an inadvertent error, as it inflated the significance of the results. I found the wording used by the Lenski paper to describe its (incorrect) weighting to be artfully misleading.<br /> <br /> :::::::: Provide me with federal funding as Lenski received, and I'll write a paper for you. But I don't have to write an alternative paper to point out glaring errors in Lenski's paper.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 08:35, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::::::: I've been following this discussion for a while and I have to agree with ASchlafly. It hardly seems fair that he should have to, in his spare time, replicate an experiment done by a professional just to &quot;earn&quot; the right to criticize it. I am unfamiliar with statistics, but if some complicated transform goes against common sense, common sense should prevail. After all, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics... [[User:AndyM|AndyM]] 10:57, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> (unindent)I'm not asking anyone to write a paper or replicate an experiment. I'm asking ASchlafly to support his statement &quot;The results from a very large sample size would not be weighted equally with the results from a small sample size, '''as you and Lenski have done'''&quot;(bolding mine). I have stated publicly, subject to challenge by others, that the sample sizes (n) of the three replays are four, five, and eight respectively. Furthermore, using n of 4, 5, and 8 in the weighted Z-method DOES NOT weight all the replay experiments equally - it weights replay 3 twice as much as replay 1 and 8/5 as much as replay 2. Tell you what: I'll drop all my questions about Monte Carlo and the Z-transform, and simply ask ASchlafly one question: '''what is the sample size, n, of the second replay experiment?''' He need not even do any calculations - a statement in words that will allow someone else to do the calculation will suffice. This is not a complicated question to answer; the paper states how many replicate cultures there were (340), how many cells there were in each replicate (3.9x10^8), how many replicates gave rise to Cit+ cells (5), and which generations those Cit+ replicates came from (4 from 32,000 and one from 32,500). I will even give ''my'' answer: '''five'''. Furthermore, I will say ''why'' I believe that, using the murderer/age analogy: performing the 340 replicates is the same as interviewing 340 people in order to find out if any of them are convicted murderers. Finding that five replicates gave rise to Cit+ mutants is the same as the survey finding that 5 of those 340 people were convicted murderers. Finding that the Cit+ mutants arose from 4 replicates from generation 32,000 and 1 from generation 32,500 is the same as finding the ages of the murderers. The five data points in the Lenski study allow one to calculate the 'mean generation of clones yielding Cit+': 32,100. This is the same as finding the mean age of the five murderers. If I want to compare this hypothetical murderer age study to some other study of the mean age of murderers, I would weight the studies based on how many murderers were in each study, not on how many non-murderers were included in the initial survey. <br /> <br /> Surely ASchlafly can say ''what'' he thinks the n of the second replay is, even if he won't say ''why'' he thinks it. Is it five? 340? The number of replicates times the number of cells per replicate? Something else? No analysis need be performed on the resulting number.--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 15:54, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :OK - would you care to put in writing that after ASchlafly gives you his response, you won't start obfuscating the issue with Monte Carlo and Z-transform issues? You understand: it is typical of liberals to, after being proven wrong, to start pretending that they were talking about an entirely different issue altogether. '''After ASchlafly states the sample size of the second replay experiment you will consider yourself answered.''' Correct?<br /> <br /> :Brossa, your rant is misplaced. One cannot salvage an error in logic by questioning which of superior alternatives should be used instead. The sample size of an experiment is the number that comprises the underlying sample used in the experiment, not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment. Maybe you can debate yourself over what the correct underlying sample size is, but it is plainly not the number of a certain outcome from the experiment.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:28, 23 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::So that's an &quot;I don't know&quot; then? Or did you mean something else?--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 07:34, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Aschlafly, are we not getting back to the distinction I made [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=520539&amp;oldid=520525 here]? A suggestion that you [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3APNAS_Response_to_Letter&amp;diff=520611&amp;oldid=520539 rejected]?<br /> <br /> :::If we are agreed on what constitutes the sample then it is clear that Lenski did combine the sample in a logical manner with proper weighting. He followed accepted practice and used established statistical techniques. Your letter did not dispute the soundness of accepted practice and established techniques, it alleged that Lenski had diverted from them. If the sample is agreed then this allegation is untrue.<br /> <br /> :::If, contrary to your earlier statement, there is a dispute about the sample then it is Lenski who is correct on the sample. size. Lenski is testing a hypothesis about Cit+ replicates. If you were testing (to use Brossa’a example) “most murders are committed by 20 to 35 year olds” you would include murderers, you would not run statistics on the age of fraudsters. You may get your data from a source that includes fraudsters, say prison records that include details of all types of criminals. However you would exclude non-murderers, and correctly exclude non-murderers, when reviewing the age of murderers. <br /> <br /> :::That is the situation we have here. Lenski’s null hypothesis is that Cit+ replicates arose randomly. This say no more about Cit- replicates than it does about what Lenski had for lunch the day he wrote the paper. The presence of Cit- replicates is a result of the method of generating the sample, a side product. To give another example, if you were doing an experiment breeding chickens you would generate a lot of manure: you wouldn’t include it in the analysis!<br /> <br /> :::Finally the argument has no end product: if we erroneously consider the Cit- replicates as part of the sample the null hypothesis is still refuted. Your objections to Lenski’s wording do not establish deceit on his part, yet they would were they to be established themselves. Your objections to Lenski’s calculations, however, would not establish the falsity of his conclusions even if the objections were correct. The calculations of the three differing weightings above are not:<br /> <br /> ::::1. to show that Lenski was honest (he was, but that is established by other evidence) <br /> ::::2. to show that Lenski correctly applied accepted statistical techniques (he did, but that is established by other evidence) or<br /> ::::3. to show that only Cit+ replicates are part of “the sample” (they are, but that is established elsewhere)<br /> <br /> :::The calculations of the three differing weightings above show that your objections are moot. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:37, 24 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Maybe the Journal of Nature can be your next letter submission source. ''International Weekly Journal of Science'' -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:17, 22 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=521136 2008-09-20T21:14:57Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Point 5 Confirmed */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Point 5 Confirmed ==<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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&gt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were &quot;extremely significant&quot;). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of &quot;whether or not&quot;&lt;ref&gt;&quot;We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P &lt; 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.&quot; (Lenski paper at 7902).&lt;/ref&gt; obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.<br /> <br /> : People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.<br /> <br /> : Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::'''''&quot;a falsehood is still a falsehood&quot;'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.<br /> <br /> ::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim. <br /> <br /> ::How do the words Lenski uses &quot;mislead&quot;. If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be &quot;misleading&quot;. <br /> <br /> ::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to ''&quot;Tu Quoque&quot;'' would be too great. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=521131 2008-09-20T21:13:24Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Point 5 Confirmed */</p> <hr /> <div>Notice: misrepresentations are not going to be allowed on this page. Substantive comments only, please.<br /> <br /> Note: earlier posts are archived [[Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter/Archive1|here]]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 17:05, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Point 5 Confirmed ==<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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&gt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Sorry, Toffeeman, a falsehood is still a falsehood. Based on your own posting, if Lenski had applied the Whitlock Z-transform paper in a logical manner, the results would not have been nearly as striking as Lenski claimed (his paper said the results were &quot;extremely significant&quot;). Moreover, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of &quot;whether or not&quot;&lt;ref&gt;&quot;We also used the Z-transformation method (49) to combine the probabilities from our three experiments, and '''the result is extremely significant (P &lt; 0.0001) whether or not''' the experiments are weighted by the number of independent Cit+ mutants observed in each one.&quot; (Lenski paper at 7902).&lt;/ref&gt; obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.<br /> <br /> : People have free will to embrace and defend falsehoods. I don't expect them to change quickly or admit they were wrong. But you'll find me defending and promoting the truth.<br /> <br /> : Point 5 remains valid and the falsehood remains uncorrected by PNAS or Lenski. Four other points in higher priority remain uncorrected by them also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:47, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::'''''&quot;a falsehood is still a falsehood&quot;'''''. Precisely, the null hypothesis should be considered false and the conclusions of the paper stand.<br /> <br /> ::Oh? Do you mean ''Lenski's falsehood''? And what falsehood is that? Lenski said that he had calculated the P-value without weighting and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. Lenski said he had calculated the P-value weighting on the basis of the Cit+ replicates and that had come out at &lt;0.0001. That is true, not false. There is no falsehood. Lenski did not mention the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. He thus made no claim about weighting on the basis of replicate numbers. If he made no claim he cannot have made a false claim. <br /> <br /> ::How do the words Lenski uses &quot;mislead&quot;. If you read them as written what conclusion do you come to? You are lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. If Lenski had presented the data in a different manner (perhaps by including the results of weighting on the basis of replicate numbers) what conclusion do you come to? You are again lead to the conclusion that the mutation was not &quot;rare-but-equal&quot;, instead it was contingent. That is the right conclusion. To mislead you must be lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. By Lenski's paper you are not lead to a conclusion that is incorrect. Thus is cannot be said to be &quot;misleading&quot;. <br /> <br /> ::I shall not comment on your second paragraph, the temptation to Tu Quoque would be too great. <br /> <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:13, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == References ==<br /> <br /> &lt;references/&gt;</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=521032 2008-09-20T19:19:42Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* 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 /> <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 /> <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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (unindent)Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&gt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=521030 2008-09-20T19:18:32Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* 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 /> <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 /> <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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper and the text around the combination. Of course there is the question of on what basis Lenski weighted the results. Lenski weighted the results on the basis of the Cit+ numbers and we may think it would have been better to weight on the basis of the number of replicates. I have below the calculations (not mine) of combined P-values based on 1) no weighting, 2) weighting on the basis of Cit+ and 3) weighting on the basis of replicates. The weighted Z-transformed = SUM(Weight x Z-score for each run)/SQRT(SUM(Weight^2 for each run))<br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Expt# !! p-value !! z-score !! #Cit+ muts !! #replicates<br /> |-<br /> | 1 || 0.0085 || 2.387 || 4 || 72<br /> |-<br /> | 2 || 0.0007 || 3.195 || 5 || 340<br /> |-<br /> | 3 || 0.0823 || 1.390 || 8 || 2800<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> Applying the formula described above.. <br /> <br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> |-<br /> ! Weighting !! Z transformed !! p <br /> |-<br /> | Equal || 4.025 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total Cit+|| 3.576 || &lt;0.001<br /> |-<br /> |By total replicates|| 1.825 || 0.034<br /> |-<br /> |}<br /> <br /> So weighting on the basis of the number of replicates considerably increases the P-value. It remains, however, well within the range of statistical significance (0&gt;P&lt;0.05). If we hold that Lenski should have weighted on the basis of replicates then he should have rejected the null hypothesis and reached exactly the same conclusions that he did. The entire paper would have been exactly the same except the sentence “the result is extremely significant (P&lt;0.0001) whether or not….” Would read “the result is significant (P&lt;0.04) whether or not”. Point 5 establishes one number and an “extremely”. Point 5, therefore, has no weight (excuse the pun). <br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 15:18, 20 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=520994 2008-09-20T18:33:31Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* 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 /> <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 /> <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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::: No, we're talking about how Lenski combined a large study (which did not really support Lenski's hypothesis) with small studies (which Lenski claims does support his hypothesis). The studies were not combined in a logical manner with proper weighting given to the much bigger size of the large study.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:15, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::::Aschlafly, have you read the paper on z-transforms which explains the statistical technique used? You can download a .pdf copy of the paper for free [http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract here]. --[[User:BillA|BillA]] 06:30, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::: You say &quot;statistical technique used,&quot; but you should have said &quot;statistical technique ''cited''.&quot; In fact, a close reading of the Z-transform paper provides more support for Point 5: combined studies must be weighted based on sample size: <br /> <br /> ::::::: &quot;When there is variation in the sample size across studies, there can be a noticeable difference in the power of the two methods, with the weighted Z-approach being superior in all cases. As such, we should always prefer the weighted Z to the unweighted Z-approach when the independent studies test the same hypothesis.&quot;[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118663174/abstract see p. 1371].<br /> <br /> :::::: In other words, the cited paper actually ''supports'' Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:34, 20 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::::Lenski used the weighted method. See note 49 to the paper.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 14:33, 20 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=520539 2008-09-19T23:57:09Z

<p>Toffeeman: </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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''REPLY''': I have now reviewed the above analysis, and it supports Point 5 rather than the PNAS paper. Point 5 stated, &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; The analysis above does nothing more than reinforce Point 5 by combining experiments based on sample size.<br /> <br /> In Pavlovian manner, some Lenski types nod their head here in agreement at the above analysis, apparently unaware that it reinforces Point 5.<br /> <br /> When combining results from samples that are vastly different in sample size, it is necessary to factor in the different sample sizes. Apparently the PNAS paper failed to do that, which helps explain why it refuses to provide a meaningful response to Point 5.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> (rants below were deleted for being non-substantive in violation of this page's rules.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:24, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I understand point 5 now, or at least I think I do. What we have as a &quot;sample&quot; is either:<br /> <br /> ::::1. Individual cultures (Schlafly)<br /> ::::2. Cultures that developed cit+. (Lenski)<br /> <br /> :::Schlafly contends that the sample should be all the cultures and that Lenski has, improperly, filtered the sample by excluding the vast majority of it (i.e. all those cultures that did not become cit+). Am I right in thinking this is the argument? --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=520460 2008-09-19T21:08:48Z

<p>Toffeeman: Correct title</p> <hr /> <div>Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :What do you mean by &quot;protect better&quot; Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Joaquín, Thanks for Patrolling the articles and dealing with JimmyP. As I mentioned on the church talk page, he needs to explain in detail why he has a problem with that link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks, Bro! ==<br /> <br /> I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, &quot;sigh&quot;.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Welcome==<br /> <br /> Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]<br /> <br /> :Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Christian solidarity==<br /> <br /> Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks and a request or two. ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase &quot;seducing a child&quot; - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pre-screening of News stories==<br /> <br /> Just curious - why the &quot;No article prescreening&quot; policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.<br /> <br /> :I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.<br /> <br /> ::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of &quot;liberal&quot; and &quot;conservative&quot; are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - &quot;Unitarian/Universalist&quot; is probably closer than &quot;Agnostic&quot;, but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself. <br /> <br /> ::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the &quot;feel&quot; of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors. <br /> <br /> ::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Dinsdale, You said, &quot;I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen&quot;. What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=502069 &quot;... I'd be glad to participate in article screening...&quot;]<br /> <br /> :::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.<br /> <br /> :::I find very little of the &quot;respectful disagreement&quot; from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.<br /> <br /> :::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was &quot;I'd be glad to participate in article screening &lt;b&gt;but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project.&lt;/b&gt;&quot; Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ==Didn't mean to step on toes==<br /> I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his &quot;line in the sand&quot; in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can &quot;let the majority vote&quot; (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I guess I don't understand what &quot;liberal bias&quot; is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Wikinews==<br /> DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;curid=66589&amp;diff=502572&amp;oldid=502384 corrected].<br /> <br /> :The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;curid=66589&amp;diff=502578&amp;oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Thank you!==<br /> For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.<br /> <br /> :Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful &lt;nowiki&gt;[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]&lt;/nowiki&gt; [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Thank You for the Unblock==<br /> <br /> I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wikinews Project ==<br /> <br /> Mr. DeanS,<br /> <br /> Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.<br /> <br /> --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Joseph, I don't think you're a liberal. I thought I explained the reason clearly in the email. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 00:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I see you have had great success with wanted pages via Wikinews. Since you have run out of new topics, I thought to suggest adding some words from [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Just to keep the pac motivated.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Jp, even though that is an interesting suggestion, I prefer to link to items on the news section; since this is a news project. If you want to suggest items, look at the news articles and see where the wikilinks are missing. Sometimes it's because the poster didn't bother to use existing wikilinks; other times it's because the article hasn't been created yet. It's quite challenging to go through the news articles and find these wikilinks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:14, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: No problem. Before I submit a news item, I wikilink almost every word then use the preview to see which is or isn't listed. If you like, I can immediately add words that don't appear to the wanted section. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::That would be great! If you could add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions, that would be even better. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Jp, I have reconsidered your idea to use the Conservapedia wanted articles. Just using the news wikilinks was okay, but including the general wanted articles is even better. Plus these articles also add to their count. If you want to add articles, add them to the bottom of the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Conservapedia_wanted_articles|Conservapedia wanted articles]] section. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Response to 'add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions', I would but do not have access to mainpage:right. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::What I mean is that you can add the missing wikilinks ''before'' the suggestion is posted. <br /> :::Thanks for continuing to add new wanted articles.<br /> :::What do you think about the section on revising the news postings? --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I am fine with adding wikilinks before postings, even if they do not get posted.<br /> ::::My pleasure to help CP<br /> ::::Sounds interesting but I am not sure I understand. Do you mean, create a short essay/summary, then link back? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Once you add the revised headline summary, I will replace my headline with your revised headline on the Main Page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Outdated news item ==<br /> <br /> The main page has a news item that says: &quot;According to RealClearPolitics, for the first time in the 2008 Presidential race, John McCain overtakes Barack Obama in the Electoral College poll 274 to 264.&quot; You may want to remove that from the main page since it is no longer accurate, and the link provided leads to a page showing Obama leading McCain 273 to 265 (that is what is how right now, anyway). [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 13:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == IP's ban ==<br /> <br /> (Not sure if this is proper procedure, but I'm still fairly new).<br /> <br /> I disagree with your ban of Impm; there was no 'edit war' that could be perceived based on his recent (see five minutes ago) edits of the Barack Obama article. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Jirby, MYOB or ''you'' will be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 14:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wow, they're really obsessed with me ==<br /> <br /> How many people have created accounts referencing me? Quite a few, it seems. At least 3, to my recollection, including today's &quot;Lowjinx.&quot; [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :They're obsessed alright; with you, all of the Conservapedia sysops and Conservapedia itself. They are also obsessed with vandalism, parody, deceit, and every other element of the [[Liberal Style]].<br /> <br /> :I prefer to call them &quot;possessed&quot;. They are possessed of a lying and evil spirit. They're sowing wickedness, and will reap wickedness at the judgment day.<br /> --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::A little less [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks|talk]], please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Good, steady work==<br /> <br /> Dean, thank you for your longstanding, careful attention to the main page. No one keeps up with current events as well as you do.<br /> <br /> I also like your &quot;wiki gnome&quot; work, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indian-American&amp;curid=72030&amp;diff=506590&amp;oldid=506571 this minor copy edit]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome Ed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==False quotes in News story on Obama speech==<br /> <br /> I wasn't sure if you saw my comments about the false statements in the headline about the Obama speech. Do you consider the headline correct in it's current form? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Yes, I read your comments. I would like Chippeterson to respond to you and provide a link for reference. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Understandable, but here's a [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html link] to the transcript of the speech, which clearly shows the headline is false and misleading. Chippeterson should respond, but only a sysop has the ability to edit news postings on the main page, and as the link shows, it's wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Bear in mind that ''The New York Times'' is the leading liberal news source, so their &quot;factual&quot; claims must often be given close scrutiny. They have even misreported science news, e.g., publishing the assertion about open water at the North Pole (which was later shown to be historically inaccurate) just in time to influence public policy on [[global warming]]. <br /> <br /> :::Although liberals refer to the NY Times as the &quot;newspaper of record&quot;, conservatives don't give it as much credence. (They have the legal write to print opinion as fact, you know; see [[First Amendment]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :It's not '''&quot;the&quot;''' transcript (as in the only one possible); you left out &quot;as recorded by CQ Transcriptions&quot;. Part of the strategy of liberal news media is to pick their sources carefully to give the impression they want. If you do a little research, you can find where a Boston Globe editor declared this quite openly. Would you like that as a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Republican Convention Headline ==<br /> <br /> Last phrase should read &quot;Democratic Vice Presidential nominee&quot;, not &quot;Democrat Vice Presidential nominee.&quot; Thanks --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Fixed. Thanks for the correction. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == RIP Bill Melendez ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for that news, sad as it is. An unsung hero and icon of American culture whose legacy will live forever in our hearts. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks Jinx. The article was submitted by Benp and I just posted it. Can you start an article for [[Bill Melendez]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 00:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'll have to see how soon I can get to it. Going to bed now. Have some yard work to do in the morning and work work from the afternoon through tomorrow morning. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::No problem Jinx. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Sysop Q==<br /> How does one become a sysop? I've only been here a few days. [[User:JY23|JY23]]<br /> <br /> :See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators Conservapedia:Administrators/Promotion]. Sysops are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 18:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Re: New article request process ==<br /> <br /> Didn't know about the process ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikiproject%3ANews%2FWanted_page&amp;diff=511110&amp;oldid=511109]) Sorry, [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:19, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's fine. I usually just do it myself, and after you tried to do it, I realized I needed to write a process. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Cool. [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pictures==<br /> DeanS, could you upload these photo's for me for the [[John McCain]] and [[Joe Biden]] articles, thanks.<br /> <br /> http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/89ddfcef-3a43-49a6-99c4-b7f41986b56c_mn.jpeg<br /> <br /> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/john-mccain-4.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 8 September 2008<br /> <br /> :Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Biden_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg Biden on Meet the Press] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg McCain on Meet the Press]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]9 September 2008<br /> ===Other Pictures===<br /> Also DeanS, there are some articles with no pictures at all and could really use them. I was hoping you could upload these.<br /> <br /> http://www.moderate-america.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/colin_powell-277x300.jpg<br /> <br /> http://www.gcva.us/dpts/vote/TimKainePic.jpg<br /> <br /> http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/ray_nagin_cp_8482804.jpg<br /> <br /> http://www.fantasycongress.com/public/img/senators/graham_lindsey_SC.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 9 September 2008<br /> <br /> :Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Colin_Powell.jpg Colin Powell], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:TimKaine.jpg Tim Kaine], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin.jpg Ray Nagin] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Lindsey_Graham.jpg Lindsey Graham]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Chippeterson, I deleted the Ray Nagin photo from Conservapedia and reverted the article because it could have been an AP photo and we're not allowed to use AP photos. The cbc.ca site uses a lot of AP photos and I wasn't able to determine if this was an AP photo. I don't mind uploading pics for you, I just need you to double-check the source and ensure they're non-AP photos before I can upload in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I'll be more careful from now on DeanS. How about this one of Nagin from answers.com. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/225px-Nagin2June2006.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 10 September 2008<br /> <br /> :Chippeterson, thanks for understanding. Here's the pic for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin2.jpg Ray Nagin]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Betty Ford==<br /> I just wrote an article on [[Betty Ford]] and it could use her picture. Could you upload this. Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/7/q/A/betty_ford.jpg<br /> <br /> :Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Betty_Ford.JPG Betty Ford]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Night Edits==<br /> DeanS, i think somebody left the spicket on. Can you close new user signup til daylight hours? Thanks -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I noticed that too and already took care of it. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yesterday it was turned off around 2. I thought it was just later now than it used to be. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::It varies. I'm not going to go into details, but you can email Andy if you have further questions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Naw, I understand. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This makes absolutely no sense. Somebody suggests a news item on [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]], but comments about these ''suggestions'' have to be posted on [[Talk:Main Page]] ''before the suggestions are posted on the main page''? Talk about convoluted! Nobody would know what I'm objecting against, so I would have to preface it with &quot;Somebody suggested a news item on this and that page, and I'll now comment on it here&quot;. But I can see that my objection had zero impact either way, so posting it again in the &quot;proper&quot; place won't do a thing, will it? McCain is excused for not knowing how to send a mail because he can't use a keyboard (sorta kinda). Right. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :DirkB, although it doesn't make sense to you, there is a reason for this rule. I want that page to contain suggestions only. I don't want liberals debating about the suggestions. From what I've seen on the Talk:Main Page, liberals like to discuss some of the articles, other editors reply, and this goes back and forth. I don't care whether you or other liberals agree with the suggested article. You can have these endless discussions on the Talk:Main Page after it's posted, not on the suggestions page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I don't think he liked your reply... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Too bad. I'm not here to please the liberals. <br /> :::Good block, btw. You better get ready to defend the permablock from Philip, etc. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::&lt;sigh&gt; [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == {{User|DRamon}} ==<br /> <br /> Do you think he should be unblocked? Perhaps I was a little harsh, seeing as he has been creating content. I took a look at his edits after he edited another user's userpage, though the user has now reverted back to Ramon's version. Earlier this issue was brought up in Schlafly's talkpage. I mainly blocked him for this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=517564]. The parodists have been having fun with that list. Also he had been warned before. Take a look at his edits, is he a parodist? Do you think unblock? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I do think DRamon should be unblocked and I don't see him as a parodist. If you want to warn him for editing someones user page that would be appropriate. Thanks for asking. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::User is unblocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Thanks Henry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate user name ==<br /> A new user has joined with the user name : Tony Blair. could you please look into it?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :He's a vandal and has already been blocked. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Satan... Carrot Top... ==<br /> <br /> You have to at least admit that was pretty funny. It's rare that the vandals and parodists are actually funny instead of stupid. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's why I changed the block comment. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 15:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Wiki support==<br /> DeanS, as a member of Wikiproject: News, I feel you have spoiled me with attentiveness and clear direction. As a member of Wikiproject: Religion, I have no such contact, no direction, no replies. It is frustrating but I can live with that. I wanted to pick your brains about site structure that I have unable to find in the help section. Category's seem to have boundaries. A rule of thumb, no more than three, correct? Multiple category's on similar topics not looked upon as correct? e.g. Catholic Church and Christianity. Sub-categories have more precedent than category tagging? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks for the compliment, Jp. I don't have the same passion for categories and I defer an answer to those who have more interest. I would suggest you start a Wikiproject:Categories and go from there. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 15:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Fred1776==<br /> <br /> Was it really necessary to revert that last edit by Fred1776? It was on a talk page, and was not rude in anyway. Robust, certainly, but neither rude nor insulting. &quot;Liberalist version whatever&quot;'s edits were vandalism: this was an opinion. It's one I happen to share and I am sure that many on this site share. Surely Aschlafly is not such a tender soul that he needs protecting from this. It might make unpleasant reading, but it's surely nicer and more decently put than a &quot;mild&quot; rebuke from Bugler --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DeanS&diff=520438 2008-09-19T20:55:22Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Wiki support */</p> <hr /> <div>Just tell me how could we protect better the Mormon articles? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :What do you mean by &quot;protect better&quot; Joaquín? This is a wiki and we try to avoid protecting the articles. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:23, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : OK, I will do my best to patroll them. At present I am out of home. Just keep doing your wonderfull work. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 13:31, 1 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Joaquín, Thanks for Patrolling the articles and dealing with JimmyP. As I mentioned on the church talk page, he needs to explain in detail why he has a problem with that link. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:27, 23 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: I am out of town. I will be back untill August 6th. Thanks for your help. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 14:16, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::: Good to hear from you Joaquín. I hope you have a great vacation! --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 17:26, 30 July 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> Hi DeanS, what a great article 'Breaking Speaker Pelosi's News Blackout'. I love the strategy, proud of my GOP 'ers, it is so patriotic!--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 00:50, 5 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks Jpatt! Now if only President Bush would make Congress come back in session to deal with this issue. They don't deserve a five-week vacation. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:11, 5 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks, Bro! ==<br /> <br /> I thought your guys are gonna ignore me again, but Nah, I got wrong ideas. Thank you, May the Lord bless you! [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;oldid=497248] I wish I was brave enough to do that! But only I'm could is to support them to do so, &quot;sigh&quot;.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:36, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Your welcome Tago. I think the pic is a nice addition as well. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:39, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I must say, that picture is much better view then the source had.--[[User:TagoPagdaluhong|TagoPagdaluhong]] 11:50, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::I agree. I followed the pic to its source and was rewarded with this version. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 11:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Welcome==<br /> <br /> Thanks for the welcome! This website is actually a god-send, a perfect oppurtunity to actually make use of my summer holidays. Hey by the way, I was wondering what CP's policy on science articles are, as this will probably be the aspect I'll be contributing to quite a lot. Thanks again- [[User:Jl2000|Jl2000]]<br /> <br /> :Just start editing and you'll find out soon enough ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 15:21, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I researched this person's edits and found much of the material to be false. There was also information on that other site which made it very clear that he was just another of their parodists. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:58, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Interesting. They're supposed to be on a boycott of CP right now. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:29, 8 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Christian solidarity==<br /> <br /> Hi, Dean. I like your [[:Image:Beijing arrests.jpg]] but I couldn't edit the caption. Can you crop the image and put the caption in the image link? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:30, 9 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Hi Ed. How about this cropped image? The caption is in the image info. [[:Image:Beijing arrests2.jpg]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:24, 9 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Thanks and a request or two. ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for pointing me at that list of admins. Two things - [[Conservapedia:User rights]] is full of broken links but is locked - can you or someone else fix these? Also can you unlock [[Rape]] for me as well - the current wording includes the phrase &quot;seducing a child&quot; - as seduction as a concept can suggest an element of consent I'd like to rephrase the article. Thanks in advance. [[User:DefenderofTrue|DefenderofTrue]] 21:39, 14 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pre-screening of News stories==<br /> <br /> Just curious - why the &quot;No article prescreening&quot; policy, and why delete what I thought were constructive comments, instead of responding to them on the page? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 20:44, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :The reason there will be no article pre-screening by you (or other liberals) is because myself or another admin will be prescreening the articles.<br /> <br /> :I deleted your comments because those project pages are only for project members, and I'm not going to have nonmembers influencing the project. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 20:58, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Okay, all that makes sense, but if you read my post, I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen, because I know non-conservatives like me aren't welcome on the sub-project. I had the sense that there was no pre-screening by anyone, and your edit-comment seemed to bear that out. Thanks for clarifying.<br /> <br /> ::Also, can I ask a blunt but serious question? Do you ever find that the labels of &quot;liberal&quot; and &quot;conservative&quot; are taken wayyy too seriously here, resulting in an all-or-none, black-and-white division between the two perspectives? I never post here to make trouble, only to offer a viewpoint that's usually more nuanced than the black-hat/white-hat exchanges that often take place. I hate labels myself, because in my case I'm libertarian on most social issues, conservative on fiscal ones, and still trying to figure out the spiritual - &quot;Unitarian/Universalist&quot; is probably closer than &quot;Agnostic&quot;, but neither one is a strong enough fit to apply to myself. <br /> <br /> ::So if you want to create sub-projects for the true-believers only, go for it. I've just observed that while this is Conservapedia and not Neutralapedia, the &quot;feel&quot; of the place has become more polarized and combative, with less tolerance for dissent or even respectful disagreement, and a corresponding drop in the number and quality of contributors. <br /> <br /> ::As I said though, good luck with the news project, and I'll post my comments on the Main:Talk page. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 21:17, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Dinsdale, You said, &quot;I wasn't suggesting that I pre-screen&quot;. What is this? [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Wikiproject:News&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=502069 &quot;... I'd be glad to participate in article screening...&quot;]<br /> <br /> :::No, I don't find the labels are taken ''too'' seriously here. I have a problem with liberals and their way of thinking. Liberal viewpoints are wrong.<br /> <br /> :::I find very little of the &quot;respectful disagreement&quot; from liberals; mostly I see great examples of [[Liberal Style]], vandalism, parody, troublemaking, obscenity, etc.<br /> <br /> :::Your comments here are respectful; therefore I have responded in kind. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 21:39, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Thanks for the courteous response. As for my statement on volunteering, the ''complete'' statement was &quot;I'd be glad to participate in article screening &lt;b&gt;but I don't qualify to be on this sub-project.&lt;/b&gt;&quot; Hey, I'd love night-editing rights, too, but I'm about as qualified to get that, too ;-) --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 22:05, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::LOL --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:21, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> ==Didn't mean to step on toes==<br /> I'm just a huge fan of Cherone's and his ability to not alienate people when discussing Christianity and why abortion is wrong. So, I'd rather stick his &quot;line in the sand&quot; in there, if you don't mind. He has stated that anyone who really wants to be taken seriously in this debate at least needs to recognize that a woman has a right to live, if / when a baby directly threatens that. It's a position, being a woman wanting children, I happen to share. :-) If you really think it's liberal bias, let me know or a third party know, and we can &quot;let the majority vote&quot; (as it were).--[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 22:43, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> : Btw, I DO mind. There is NO majority vote when an administrator removes liberal bias. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:59, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I guess I don't understand what &quot;liberal bias&quot; is in this case, then. Are you asserting that Cherone is a liberal? I really have no idea his political preference, just what he has said about abortion. --[[User:MHayes|MHayes]] 23:01, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::No, I'm not saying that Cherone is a liberal. See my comments at [[Talk:Extreme]] --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:16, 20 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Wikinews==<br /> DeanS, Wikinews, my spelling error on the Ayers story. Unrepentent should be unrepentant.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 10:31, 21 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Could you add int link for Stephanie Tubbs Jones? Tanks in advance!--[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:43, 21 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks Jp. This mistake has been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;curid=66589&amp;diff=502572&amp;oldid=502384 corrected].<br /> <br /> :The wikilink was added [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Template:Mainpageright&amp;curid=66589&amp;diff=502578&amp;oldid=502572 here]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:53, 21 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Thank you!==<br /> For stepping in. Whoever that person was, he was doing bad things to my blood pressure :) --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 10:07, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome Jessica. He was an imposter and was dealt with accordingly. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:10, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I got really annoyed... --[[User:DiEb|DiEb]] 10:32, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :No wonder you were annoyed. I'm sorry this happened to you. We have enemies of this site, and they don't care who gets hurt or how much damage/disruption they cause. This incident reminds me of homicide bombers. All they care about is themselves and how much damage they can cause.<br /> <br /> :Be on the alert for imposters. You can check their contributions like [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/JasonH this]. JasonH's contribs started today. Also JasonH created his account [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&amp;user=JasonH today]. Since we know [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Jinxmchue the real Jinxmchue] has been editing for a while, that would also be a clue that JasonH was an imposter. Finally, he used this obvious deceitful &lt;nowiki&gt;[[User:JasonH|Jinxmchue]]&lt;/nowiki&gt; [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:DiEb&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=503259 signature.] --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:59, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Thank You for the Unblock==<br /> <br /> I appreciate being restored given that my comments aren't mainstream here, and I appreciate the benefit of the doubt. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 19:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Phillip explained why I was wrong, and I wanted to fix my mistake. Even though I don't agree with your views, I won't block you for expressing them. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 19:58, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wikinews Project ==<br /> <br /> Mr. DeanS,<br /> <br /> Why exactly do you think I'm a liberal? I've tried to make it clear that I am anything but.<br /> <br /> --[[User:JosephG|JosephG]] 23:52, 22 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Joseph, I don't think you're a liberal. I thought I explained the reason clearly in the email. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 00:36, 23 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> I see you have had great success with wanted pages via Wikinews. Since you have run out of new topics, I thought to suggest adding some words from [[Special:Wantedpages]]. Just to keep the pac motivated.-- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:43, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Jp, even though that is an interesting suggestion, I prefer to link to items on the news section; since this is a news project. If you want to suggest items, look at the news articles and see where the wikilinks are missing. Sometimes it's because the poster didn't bother to use existing wikilinks; other times it's because the article hasn't been created yet. It's quite challenging to go through the news articles and find these wikilinks. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:14, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: No problem. Before I submit a news item, I wikilink almost every word then use the preview to see which is or isn't listed. If you like, I can immediately add words that don't appear to the wanted section. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 16:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::That would be great! If you could add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions, that would be even better. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:51, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Jp, I have reconsidered your idea to use the Conservapedia wanted articles. Just using the news wikilinks was okay, but including the general wanted articles is even better. Plus these articles also add to their count. If you want to add articles, add them to the bottom of the [[Wikiproject:News/Wanted_page#Conservapedia_wanted_articles|Conservapedia wanted articles]] section. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:53, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :: Response to 'add missing wikilinks for the other suggestions', I would but do not have access to mainpage:right. -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::What I mean is that you can add the missing wikilinks ''before'' the suggestion is posted. <br /> :::Thanks for continuing to add new wanted articles.<br /> :::What do you think about the section on revising the news postings? --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:32, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::I am fine with adding wikilinks before postings, even if they do not get posted.<br /> ::::My pleasure to help CP<br /> ::::Sounds interesting but I am not sure I understand. Do you mean, create a short essay/summary, then link back? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:39, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::::Once you add the revised headline summary, I will replace my headline with your revised headline on the Main Page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 12:46, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Outdated news item ==<br /> <br /> The main page has a news item that says: &quot;According to RealClearPolitics, for the first time in the 2008 Presidential race, John McCain overtakes Barack Obama in the Electoral College poll 274 to 264.&quot; You may want to remove that from the main page since it is no longer accurate, and the link provided leads to a page showing Obama leading McCain 273 to 265 (that is what is how right now, anyway). [[User:KimEide|KimEide]] 13:54, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Done. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 14:22, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == IP's ban ==<br /> <br /> (Not sure if this is proper procedure, but I'm still fairly new).<br /> <br /> I disagree with your ban of Impm; there was no 'edit war' that could be perceived based on his recent (see five minutes ago) edits of the Barack Obama article. [[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 14:45, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Jirby, MYOB or ''you'' will be blocked. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 14:50, 25 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Wow, they're really obsessed with me ==<br /> <br /> How many people have created accounts referencing me? Quite a few, it seems. At least 3, to my recollection, including today's &quot;Lowjinx.&quot; [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:02, 27 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :They're obsessed alright; with you, all of the Conservapedia sysops and Conservapedia itself. They are also obsessed with vandalism, parody, deceit, and every other element of the [[Liberal Style]].<br /> <br /> :I prefer to call them &quot;possessed&quot;. They are possessed of a lying and evil spirit. They're sowing wickedness, and will reap wickedness at the judgment day.<br /> --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:01, 27 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::A little less [[Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks|talk]], please. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Good, steady work==<br /> <br /> Dean, thank you for your longstanding, careful attention to the main page. No one keeps up with current events as well as you do.<br /> <br /> I also like your &quot;wiki gnome&quot; work, like [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Indian-American&amp;curid=72030&amp;diff=506590&amp;oldid=506571 this minor copy edit]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 07:29, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :You're welcome Ed. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 10:53, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==False quotes in News story on Obama speech==<br /> <br /> I wasn't sure if you saw my comments about the false statements in the headline about the Obama speech. Do you consider the headline correct in it's current form? --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 13:24, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Yes, I read your comments. I would like Chippeterson to respond to you and provide a link for reference. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:59, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Understandable, but here's a [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/28/us/politics/28text-obama.html link] to the transcript of the speech, which clearly shows the headline is false and misleading. Chippeterson should respond, but only a sysop has the ability to edit news postings on the main page, and as the link shows, it's wrong. --[[User:DinsdaleP|DinsdaleP]] 14:10, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Bear in mind that ''The New York Times'' is the leading liberal news source, so their &quot;factual&quot; claims must often be given close scrutiny. They have even misreported science news, e.g., publishing the assertion about open water at the North Pole (which was later shown to be historically inaccurate) just in time to influence public policy on [[global warming]]. <br /> <br /> :::Although liberals refer to the NY Times as the &quot;newspaper of record&quot;, conservatives don't give it as much credence. (They have the legal write to print opinion as fact, you know; see [[First Amendment]].) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:36, 30 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> :It's not '''&quot;the&quot;''' transcript (as in the only one possible); you left out &quot;as recorded by CQ Transcriptions&quot;. Part of the strategy of liberal news media is to pick their sources carefully to give the impression they want. If you do a little research, you can find where a Boston Globe editor declared this quite openly. Would you like that as a [[writing assignment]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] &lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:40, 30 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Republican Convention Headline ==<br /> <br /> Last phrase should read &quot;Democratic Vice Presidential nominee&quot;, not &quot;Democrat Vice Presidential nominee.&quot; Thanks --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 12:40, 3 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Fixed. Thanks for the correction. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:21, 3 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == RIP Bill Melendez ==<br /> <br /> Thanks for that news, sad as it is. An unsung hero and icon of American culture whose legacy will live forever in our hearts. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 00:24, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks Jinx. The article was submitted by Benp and I just posted it. Can you start an article for [[Bill Melendez]]? --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 00:29, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I'll have to see how soon I can get to it. Going to bed now. Have some yard work to do in the morning and work work from the afternoon through tomorrow morning. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 01:21, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::No problem Jinx. Thanks for your contributions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:31, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Sysop Q==<br /> How does one become a sysop? I've only been here a few days. [[User:JY23|JY23]]<br /> <br /> :See [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Administrators Conservapedia:Administrators/Promotion]. Sysops are selected as needed from the best of the best contributors, there is no popularity contest to determine promotion. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 18:17, 4 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Re: New article request process ==<br /> <br /> Didn't know about the process ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wikiproject%3ANews%2FWanted_page&amp;diff=511110&amp;oldid=511109]) Sorry, [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:19, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's fine. I usually just do it myself, and after you tried to do it, I realized I needed to write a process. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:32, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Cool. [[User:Nerd|Nerd]] 16:37, 5 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pictures==<br /> DeanS, could you upload these photo's for me for the [[John McCain]] and [[Joe Biden]] articles, thanks.<br /> <br /> http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/89ddfcef-3a43-49a6-99c4-b7f41986b56c_mn.jpeg<br /> <br /> http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/john-mccain-4.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 8 September 2008<br /> <br /> :Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Biden_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg Biden on Meet the Press] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:McCain_on_Meet_the_Press.jpg McCain on Meet the Press]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 23:32, 8 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I appreciate it. [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]]9 September 2008<br /> ===Other Pictures===<br /> Also DeanS, there are some articles with no pictures at all and could really use them. I was hoping you could upload these.<br /> <br /> http://www.moderate-america.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/colin_powell-277x300.jpg<br /> <br /> http://www.gcva.us/dpts/vote/TimKainePic.jpg<br /> <br /> http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/pix/ray_nagin_cp_8482804.jpg<br /> <br /> http://www.fantasycongress.com/public/img/senators/graham_lindsey_SC.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 9 September 2008<br /> <br /> :Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Colin_Powell.jpg Colin Powell], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:TimKaine.jpg Tim Kaine], [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin.jpg Ray Nagin] and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Lindsey_Graham.jpg Lindsey Graham]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:52, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Chippeterson, I deleted the Ray Nagin photo from Conservapedia and reverted the article because it could have been an AP photo and we're not allowed to use AP photos. The cbc.ca site uses a lot of AP photos and I wasn't able to determine if this was an AP photo. I don't mind uploading pics for you, I just need you to double-check the source and ensure they're non-AP photos before I can upload in the future. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 13:42, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> I'll be more careful from now on DeanS. How about this one of Nagin from answers.com. http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/7/74/225px-Nagin2June2006.jpg [[User:Chippeterson|Chippeterson]] 10 September 2008<br /> <br /> :Chippeterson, thanks for understanding. Here's the pic for [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Ray_Nagin2.jpg Ray Nagin]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 18:28, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Betty Ford==<br /> I just wrote an article on [[Betty Ford]] and it could use her picture. Could you upload this. Thanks. http://z.about.com/d/womenshistory/1/7/q/A/betty_ford.jpg<br /> <br /> :Here you go: [http://www.conservapedia.com/Image:Betty_Ford.JPG Betty Ford]. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 22:07, 10 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Night Edits==<br /> DeanS, i think somebody left the spicket on. Can you close new user signup til daylight hours? Thanks -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 01:16, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I noticed that too and already took care of it. Thanks for the reminder. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:25, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Yesterday it was turned off around 2. I thought it was just later now than it used to be. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:33, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::It varies. I'm not going to go into details, but you can email Andy if you have further questions. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:36, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Naw, I understand. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 01:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == &quot;Debate about news articles is not allowed on this project.&quot; ==<br /> <br /> This makes absolutely no sense. Somebody suggests a news item on [[Wikiproject:News/Suggestions]], but comments about these ''suggestions'' have to be posted on [[Talk:Main Page]] ''before the suggestions are posted on the main page''? Talk about convoluted! Nobody would know what I'm objecting against, so I would have to preface it with &quot;Somebody suggested a news item on this and that page, and I'll now comment on it here&quot;. But I can see that my objection had zero impact either way, so posting it again in the &quot;proper&quot; place won't do a thing, will it? McCain is excused for not knowing how to send a mail because he can't use a keyboard (sorta kinda). Right. --[[User:DirkB|DirkB]] 16:28, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :DirkB, although it doesn't make sense to you, there is a reason for this rule. I want that page to contain suggestions only. I don't want liberals debating about the suggestions. From what I've seen on the Talk:Main Page, liberals like to discuss some of the articles, other editors reply, and this goes back and forth. I don't care whether you or other liberals agree with the suggested article. You can have these endless discussions on the Talk:Main Page after it's posted, not on the suggestions page. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:45, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::I don't think he liked your reply... [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:52, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Too bad. I'm not here to please the liberals. <br /> :::Good block, btw. You better get ready to defend the permablock from Philip, etc. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 16:57, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::&lt;sigh&gt; [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:59, 13 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == {{User|DRamon}} ==<br /> <br /> Do you think he should be unblocked? Perhaps I was a little harsh, seeing as he has been creating content. I took a look at his edits after he edited another user's userpage, though the user has now reverted back to Ramon's version. Earlier this issue was brought up in Schlafly's talkpage. I mainly blocked him for this [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Islam&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=517564]. The parodists have been having fun with that list. Also he had been warned before. Take a look at his edits, is he a parodist? Do you think unblock? [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:37, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :I do think DRamon should be unblocked and I don't see him as a parodist. If you want to warn him for editing someones user page that would be appropriate. Thanks for asking. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 01:46, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::User is unblocked. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 01:54, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Thanks Henry. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 02:04, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Inappropriate user name ==<br /> A new user has joined with the user name : Tony Blair. could you please look into it?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:05, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :He's a vandal and has already been blocked. Thanks for the alert. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 09:07, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Satan... Carrot Top... ==<br /> <br /> You have to at least admit that was pretty funny. It's rare that the vandals and parodists are actually funny instead of stupid. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 15:09, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :That's why I changed the block comment. ;-) --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 15:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Wiki support==<br /> DeanS, as a member of Wikiproject: News, I feel you have spoiled me with attentiveness and clear direction. As a member of Wikiproject: Religion, I have no such contact, no direction, no replies. It is frustrating but I can live with that. I wanted to pick your brains about site structure that I have unable to find in the help section. Category's seem to have boundaries. A rule of thumb, no more than three, correct? Multiple category's on similar topics not looked upon as correct? e.g. Catholic Church and Christianity. Sub-categories have more precedent than category tagging? -- [[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 15:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :Thanks for the compliment, Jp. I don't have the same passion for categories and I defer an answer to those who have more interest. I would suggest you start a Wikiproject:Categories and go from there. --[[User:DeanS|DeanS&lt;sup&gt;talk&lt;/sup&gt;]] 15:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Wiki support==<br /> <br /> Was it really necessary to revert that last edit by Fred1776? It was on a talk page, and was not rude in anyway. Robust, certainly, but neither rude nor insulting. &quot;Liberalist version whatever&quot;'s edits were vandalism: this was an opinion. It's one I happen to share and I am sure that many on this site share. Surely Aschlafly is not such a tender soul that he needs protecting from this. It might make unpleasant reading, but it's surely nicer and more decently put than a &quot;mild&quot; rebuke from Bugler --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 16:55, 19 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=520292 2008-09-19T14:32:59Z

<p>Toffeeman: </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)<br /> <br /> :I'll take a look at this Friday. It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:46, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::&quot;''The general point is that it is valid to combine the results of different experiments if it is scientifically meaningful to do so&quot;''--[[User:KingOfNothing|KingOfNothing]] 00:57, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::This makes no sense as an argument. It may be true in this simple case that you can do one large or several small samples and get similar results - which is quite obvious and wouldn't need such a detailed rant. However, you provide no mathematical proof, just one example. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 01:08, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :''&quot;It's not immediately obvious what the point is to your analysis above&quot;''. No surprise, Aschlafly, really. Maybe you should take your own advice: ''&quot;I suggest you try harder with an open mind&quot;''. --[[User:CrossC|CrossC]] 02:46, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> It is with great sadness that I note that the author of this - the only significant statistical explanation and discussion in this entire fiasco- has [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&amp;type=block&amp;user=DeanS&amp;page=User%3AKennyMac just been blocked] for five years. Even his email is blocked, so he can't even appeal the action. I don't see such manouvers as having contributed to the much vaunted &quot;open mind&quot; of which various people here speak. [[User:BenHur|BenHur]] 10:27, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :It seems to me this talk page is basically a trap. The bait has been set: &quot;substantive comments welcome!&quot; but anyone who enters is pegged as vandal and banned. Well, it's been nice editing here. [[User:TomG|TomG]] 10:30, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Dear Aschlafly, ==<br /> <br /> After reading your letter, the response from the PNAS, and the entire Lenski affair you dragged yourself into, I have some information you might want to read. Simply put, the PNAS was on the right track, see below for why<br /> <br /> 1.Figure 3 depicts an &quot;historical contingency&quot; hypothesis around the 31,000th generation, but the abstract states that mutations &quot;arose by 20,000 generations.&quot; The paper fails to admit that the Third Experiment disproved the contingency hypothesis depicted in Figure 3.<br /> <br /> Reading over the paper, I didn’t find anything about a “historical contigency” around the 31,000th generation. What I believe I am seeing is a misunderstanding, Lenski was looking for two scenerios, First he indicates that if the ability for the E. Coli to consume citrate was due to a mutation, than the rate of the mutation would remain constant, but if it was population that made the mutation more likely, there would be a point where the mutation rate would increase. The graph simply showed both options, so I believe there was a misunderstanding of the graph.<br /> <br /> 2.Both hypotheses propose fixed mutation rates, but the failure of mutations to increase with sample size disproves this. 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.<br /> <br /> I am not sure what you are trying to point out here. As the PNAS pointed out, mutations are random. Another note is that Lenski adressed this in his paper, and highlighted it in the article, even pointing out changes in the third experiment. Just a question, what do you mean by treating “them similarly statistically.”?<br /> <br /> 3. The paper incorrectly applied a Monte Carlo resampling test to exclude the null hypothesis for rarely occurring events. The Third Experiment results are consistent with the null hypothesis, contrary to the paper's claim. <br /> <br /> Erm… why was the Monte Carlo resampling incorrect? I cannot make heads nor tail of what you were thinking when you wrote this. Also, the result was inconsistant with the null hypothesis by a margin of 92 percent.<br /> <br /> 4. It was error to include generations of the E. coli already known to contain trace Cit+ variants. The highly improbable occurrence of four Cit+ variants from the 32,000th generation in the Second Experiment suggests an origin from undetected, pre-existing Cit+ variants. <br /> <br /> First off, modern technology grants quite a decent abaility to detect the amount of bacteria in the sample, and there were NO Cit+ variants in it, nor were they mentioned in the paper. Honestly, do you believe that Lenski and his assistants were playing “toss the bacteria around”? Your assumption that there *had* to be Cit+ bacteria in the sample is incorrect, and seems to be based off your misunderstanding of the field.<br /> <br /> 5. 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.<br /> <br /> Again… what? There is simply nothing “wrong” or “incorrect” about combining different sized samples to test the results. There are correct techniques for testing this kind of things (“Z-transformation” method, to be specific!) and it was used to make the test.<br /> <br /> Finially, your claim about the paper not being publically available is false, as you can easily find it by going to Lenski’s site. [https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/] has it all right there, and 3 clicks away from a Google search.<br /> <br /> Might I ask you to clairify the questions and insight I have provided above?<br /> <br /> Waiting for your response, [[User:AlexaJ|AlexaJ]]<br /> <br /> : Your posting is filled with gross misspellings, &quot;I don't get it&quot; type of statements, and a general link that shows nothing. I suggest you try harder with an open mind. Thanks and Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:47, 18 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::... 7 slightly misspelled words doesn't give an apt enough excuse not to respond, Andy.[[User:Jirby|Jirby]] 01:03, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::Can we assume from your lack of response to these points (and others above) that you don't have the expertise to answer these questions? It's okay if you don't, you should just be humble and admit it. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 09:37, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> :::Are you not making an assumption here, JohnDee? If you were in his position, would you have answered a letter with all these mistakes and a condescending tone?--[[User:Carolyn|Carolyn]] 09:54, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::Read over this talk page. Andy has never directly answered any criticism of his PNAS letter. He either removes the comment from the talk page, bans the user, or just refuses to answer the question. Sometimes all three. Given this and the criticism I've seen on this page from people who seem to know what they are talking about, the only conclusion I can come to is Andy doesn't actually understand why z-transformations are applied, what a Monte Carlo re-sampling test is, etc. If he understood any of this, I would assume he would actually answer their questions. [[User:JohnDee|JohnDee]] 10:20, 19 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ::::'''''&quot;Are you not making an assumption here&quot;'''''. Spelling mistakes signify little beyond spelling. If you were to consider swimming to the bottom of the Pacific and I said &quot;you won't be able to, you can't breathe underwater&quot; then I would be right. If I were to write &quot;U wont bee able to, yu can't breev undewatta&quot; I would '''''still''''' be right about your ability to swim to the bottom of the Pacific. Woefully wrong about spelling, but spot on about the status of your gills. On the &quot;tone&quot; of the edit I might remind you that PNAS took exception to the &quot;tone&quot; of the letter. ''&quot;Mr. Schlafly's final comment about release of data is uncalled for&quot;. '' Professor Lenski certainly took exception to the tone of ''both'' emails to him: ''&quot;(g)iven the '''continued''' rudeness of your second email&quot;'' (my emphasis). And, naturally, it makes little difference to the validity of the criticisms: if I were to say &quot;you *******************, you can't breathe underwater&quot; I would ''still'' be right. So &quot;your spelling is bad&quot; or &quot;you are being rude&quot; simply fail to negate the statement &quot;the letter was wrong&quot;. In the abscence of a negation coupled with plenty of corroboration, we a forced to the conclusion that the letter had little merit. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 10:32, 19 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:KennyMac&diff=519523 2008-09-18T13:13:23Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>{{welcome}}<br /> I'm out of here. See my comments on the [[Talk:Roman Catholicism]] page to understand why. It's simply a waste of time writing anything at all with which Andy and his chums even slightly disagree. [[User:KennyMac|KennyMac]] 09:49, 12 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Kenny, I loved your thing on combining experiments on the PNAS rely talk page. But you may be accused of &quot;unsubstantiated claims of expertise&quot;. It might be an idea to put some substantiation on your user page. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:13, 18 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Evolution_syndrome&diff=518728 2008-09-17T13:06:14Z

<p>Toffeeman: A pedant writes</p> <hr /> <div>Evolutionists have a compulsion to censor opposing or alternative views. This can be seen, among other places, on wikis. So, hypothetically, if there was a wiki whose pro-evolution was locked to prevent editing by anyone except for a single sysop, and where anyone who attempted to add alternative views was reverted or blocked, would that be an example of the type of censorship you have in mind? [[User:Eoinc|Eoinc]] 08:52, 17 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :&quot;insist that their belief in evolution must somehow be true&quot; Isn't &quot;their belief&quot; superfluous? &quot;Believing&quot; something is &quot;holding it to be true&quot;, so someone must believe it's true to believe it at all. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:06, 17 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518178 2008-09-16T20:09:50Z

<p>Toffeeman: </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 /> == 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)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=518142 2008-09-16T19:45:47Z

<p>Toffeeman: </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 /> == 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)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Toffeeman&diff=517890 2008-09-16T13:43:00Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* You and I, Kimosabe */</p> <hr /> <div>== Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Be sure to check my note for Jcane's block, too, for added amusement. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Liverpool vs Everton ==<br /> <br /> Normally I'd report such an edit to the Administrators ;-) but... the edit was factual! :-D Good luck with Standard Liege in UEFA Cup: this is the moment to show you don't need Extra Time as your red cousins did. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 17:12, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Thanks - I did add something more substantive afterwards! The temptation to change the nickname of Liverpool to &quot;Liverpool (&quot;the red koppite ****s&quot;) ''almost'' proved too much.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Socks==<br /> Your previous socks Feyerabend, Billd, YoungA were removed; if you want to edit here it's one user name per account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> That's fine Karajou. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pardon?==<br /> I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Yes, my English is good (I teach it and have an honours in the subject), plus if you look at the history, I was not the only contributor to that sentence. Dinsdale is English as far as I know. Please explain your comment. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :You're not English? I was so sure that I had found a fellow English person. The &quot;winning isn't important, taking part is&quot; is just so stereotypically English that if you can come up with it then you should be able to teach English perfectly. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It is a long story, but I have lived outside Japan for the last 10 years, until recently, so was fortunate to become quite fluent (although do not ask me to say too many words containing the letter 'l' grin). As for the motto, I quoted the unofficial motto of the Olympics as best I could remember it. Hope that helps to clear things. Friends? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Friends? More - admiration! You have better than a masters - you have genuinely made me believe that English was your first language. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:44, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Thank you! I suppose it almost is in a way, as outside of home it is all I have really spoken for a long time - and it shows too. Very embarrassing now, when I have my Japanese corrected, or I just cannot think of a word, but I will get there. That is one of the reasons I wanted to teach - having English taught by Japanese people with bad English pronunciation just perpetuates the problem. I am probably not going to end up with a class of Eliza Doolittles, but hopefully they will be above the norm. As we say ''ganbaru'', or &quot;try my best.&quot; --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Warning of blocking ==<br /> <br /> Don't rant on my user talk page, and either limit your comments elsewhere to intelligent, substantive insights, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''''This''''' is a rant (deleted by me from your talk page):<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Seriously, just get stuffed. We Wikipedians do not want you here on account of your foul slimy mouth polluting the minds of other people. You keep stating that you are concerned about the quality of modern historical and scientific research, yet you do not seem interested in upholding values essential to legitimate research in any field. You have said enough that your further rants are easily recognised. Therefore, get stuffed. <br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This, deleted by you, is '''''not''''':<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> When you ask for “(s)ubstantive comments” and you mean “substantive comment(s) ''''about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them” (my emphasis)'''', why not just say so in the first place? <br /> <br /> If <br /> :1. “substantive” excludes anything that considers the PNAS response to be acceptable,<br /> :2. anything that disagrees with “(t)he math is wrong in the PNAS paper” is “nonsensical” and<br /> :3. “learn” excludes the discovery of any errors on your part,<br /> then you should appreciate that other people use the terms “substantive”, “nonsensical” and “learn” in very different ways. Without clear, up front, guidance people are going to interpret these terms how they normally interpret them. They may well be wrong in doing so, but it seems only fair to let them know the correct , yet obscure, interpretation before castigating them for their mis-interpretation.<br /> <br /> However, I would advise sticking to the conventional meanings of the words. '''''“The issues raised by Mr. Schlafly are neither obscure nor subtle, but are part of everyday statistical analysis at a level too elementary to need rehearsal in the pages of PNAS.” ''''' That must have hurt, I winced when I read it. Yet it was hurt that could have been avoided by paying attention to the nonsensical and in-substantive comments by those who did not want to learn. I am particularly reminded of Stitch75 who bent over backwards to try and make the letter to PNAS the best possible. In a private email he revealed his motive for getting involved: '''“I want him to fix hix (sic) arguments a far as it is possible and present them in the best way possible.”''' He would have helped and could have helped, something those agreeing with you neither could nor did.<br /> <br /> Remember Caesar, thou art mortal<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==You and I, Kimosabe==<br /> It would appear as if it is you and I against the masses. Want to keep score? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 09:35, 16 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :I think I'm giving up for the moment - a sysop must come on soon and block them!--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:42, 16 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Toffeeman&diff=517872 2008-09-16T13:25:15Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Warning of blocking */</p> <hr /> <div>== Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Be sure to check my note for Jcane's block, too, for added amusement. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Liverpool vs Everton ==<br /> <br /> Normally I'd report such an edit to the Administrators ;-) but... the edit was factual! :-D Good luck with Standard Liege in UEFA Cup: this is the moment to show you don't need Extra Time as your red cousins did. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 17:12, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Thanks - I did add something more substantive afterwards! The temptation to change the nickname of Liverpool to &quot;Liverpool (&quot;the red koppite ****s&quot;) ''almost'' proved too much.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Socks==<br /> Your previous socks Feyerabend, Billd, YoungA were removed; if you want to edit here it's one user name per account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> That's fine Karajou. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pardon?==<br /> I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Yes, my English is good (I teach it and have an honours in the subject), plus if you look at the history, I was not the only contributor to that sentence. Dinsdale is English as far as I know. Please explain your comment. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :You're not English? I was so sure that I had found a fellow English person. The &quot;winning isn't important, taking part is&quot; is just so stereotypically English that if you can come up with it then you should be able to teach English perfectly. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It is a long story, but I have lived outside Japan for the last 10 years, until recently, so was fortunate to become quite fluent (although do not ask me to say too many words containing the letter 'l' grin). As for the motto, I quoted the unofficial motto of the Olympics as best I could remember it. Hope that helps to clear things. Friends? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Friends? More - admiration! You have better than a masters - you have genuinely made me believe that English was your first language. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:44, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Thank you! I suppose it almost is in a way, as outside of home it is all I have really spoken for a long time - and it shows too. Very embarrassing now, when I have my Japanese corrected, or I just cannot think of a word, but I will get there. That is one of the reasons I wanted to teach - having English taught by Japanese people with bad English pronunciation just perpetuates the problem. I am probably not going to end up with a class of Eliza Doolittles, but hopefully they will be above the norm. As we say ''ganbaru'', or &quot;try my best.&quot; --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Warning of blocking ==<br /> <br /> Don't rant on my user talk page, and either limit your comments elsewhere to intelligent, substantive insights, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''''This''''' is a rant (deleted by me from your talk page):<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Seriously, just get stuffed. We Wikipedians do not want you here on account of your foul slimy mouth polluting the minds of other people. You keep stating that you are concerned about the quality of modern historical and scientific research, yet you do not seem interested in upholding values essential to legitimate research in any field. You have said enough that your further rants are easily recognised. Therefore, get stuffed. <br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This, deleted by you, is '''''not''''':<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> When you ask for “(s)ubstantive comments” and you mean “substantive comment(s) ''''about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them” (my emphasis)'''', why not just say so in the first place? <br /> <br /> If <br /> :1. “substantive” excludes anything that considers the PNAS response to be acceptable,<br /> :2. anything that disagrees with “(t)he math is wrong in the PNAS paper” is “nonsensical” and<br /> :3. “learn” excludes the discovery of any errors on your part,<br /> then you should appreciate that other people use the terms “substantive”, “nonsensical” and “learn” in very different ways. Without clear, up front, guidance people are going to interpret these terms how they normally interpret them. They may well be wrong in doing so, but it seems only fair to let them know the correct , yet obscure, interpretation before castigating them for their mis-interpretation.<br /> <br /> However, I would advise sticking to the conventional meanings of the words. '''''“The issues raised by Mr. Schlafly are neither obscure nor subtle, but are part of everyday statistical analysis at a level too elementary to need rehearsal in the pages of PNAS.” ''''' That must have hurt, I winced when I read it. Yet it was hurt that could have been avoided by paying attention to the nonsensical and in-substantive comments by those who did not want to learn. I am particularly reminded of Stitch75 who bent over backwards to try and make the letter to PNAS the best possible. In a private email he revealed his motive for getting involved: '''“I want him to fix hix (sic) arguments a far as it is possible and present them in the best way possible.”''' He would have helped and could have helped, something those agreeing with you neither could nor did.<br /> <br /> Remember Caesar, thou art mortal<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 09:25, 16 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Toffeeman&diff=517871 2008-09-16T13:24:47Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>== Thanks ==<br /> <br /> Be sure to check my note for Jcane's block, too, for added amusement. [[User:Jinxmchue|Jinxmchue]] 12:46, 1 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Liverpool vs Everton ==<br /> <br /> Normally I'd report such an edit to the Administrators ;-) but... the edit was factual! :-D Good luck with Standard Liege in UEFA Cup: this is the moment to show you don't need Extra Time as your red cousins did. [[User:SilvioB|SilvioB]] 17:12, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> Thanks - I did add something more substantive afterwards! The temptation to change the nickname of Liverpool to &quot;Liverpool (&quot;the red koppite ****s&quot;) ''almost'' proved too much.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 17:22, 29 August 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Socks==<br /> Your previous socks Feyerabend, Billd, YoungA were removed; if you want to edit here it's one user name per account. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 08:55, 1 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> That's fine Karajou. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 08:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> ==Pardon?==<br /> I am sorry, but I am not sure what you mean. Yes, my English is good (I teach it and have an honours in the subject), plus if you look at the history, I was not the only contributor to that sentence. Dinsdale is English as far as I know. Please explain your comment. --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 18:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :You're not English? I was so sure that I had found a fellow English person. The &quot;winning isn't important, taking part is&quot; is just so stereotypically English that if you can come up with it then you should be able to teach English perfectly. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:33, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::It is a long story, but I have lived outside Japan for the last 10 years, until recently, so was fortunate to become quite fluent (although do not ask me to say too many words containing the letter 'l' grin). As for the motto, I quoted the unofficial motto of the Olympics as best I could remember it. Hope that helps to clear things. Friends? --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> :::Friends? More - admiration! You have better than a masters - you have genuinely made me believe that English was your first language. --[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 19:44, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> ::::Thank you! I suppose it almost is in a way, as outside of home it is all I have really spoken for a long time - and it shows too. Very embarrassing now, when I have my Japanese corrected, or I just cannot think of a word, but I will get there. That is one of the reasons I wanted to teach - having English taught by Japanese people with bad English pronunciation just perpetuates the problem. I am probably not going to end up with a class of Eliza Doolittles, but hopefully they will be above the norm. As we say ''ganbaru'', or &quot;try my best.&quot; --[[User:JessicaT|KotomiT]]&lt;sup&gt;[[User talk:JessicaT|''Hajimemashite!'']]&lt;/sup&gt; 19:56, 6 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> == Warning of blocking ==<br /> <br /> Don't rant on my user talk page, and either limit your comments elsewhere to intelligent, substantive insights, or please leave. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 10:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)<br /> <br /> '''''This''''' is a rant (deleted by me from your talk page):<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> Seriously, just get stuffed. We Wikipedians do not want you here on account of your foul slimy mouth polluting the minds of other people. You keep stating that you are concerned about the quality of modern historical and scientific research, yet you do not seem interested in upholding values essential to legitimate research in any field. You have said enough that your further rants are easily recognised. Therefore, get stuffed. <br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This, deleted by you, is '''''not''''':<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> When you ask for “(s)ubstantive comments” and you mean “substantive comment(s) ''''about the identified errors and the PNAS's failure to address them” (my emphasis)'''', why not just say so in the first place? <br /> <br /> If <br /> :1. “substantive” excludes anything that considers the PNAS response to be acceptable,<br /> :2. anything that disagrees with “(t)he math is wrong in the PNAS paper” is “nonsensical” and<br /> :3. “learn” excludes the discovery of any errors on your part,<br /> then you should appreciate that other people use the terms “substantive”, “nonsensical” and “learn” in very different ways. Without clear, up front, guidance people are going to interpret these terms how they normally interpret them. They may well be wrong in doing so, but it seems only fair to let them know the correct , yet obscure, interpretation before castigating them for their mis-interpretation.<br /> <br /> However, I would advise sticking to the conventional meanings of the words. '''''“The issues raised by Mr. Schlafly are neither obscure nor subtle, but are part of everyday statistical analysis at a level too elementary to need rehearsal in the pages of PNAS.” ''''' That must have hurt, I winced when I read it. Yet it was hurt that could have been avoided by paying attention to the nonsensical and in-substantive comments by those who did not want to learn. I am particularly reminded of Stitch75 who bent over backwards to try and make the letter to PNAS the best possible. In a private email he revealed his motive for getting involved: '''“I want him to fix hix (sic) arguments a far as it is possible and present them in the best way possible.”''' He would have helped and could have helped, something those agreeing with you neither could nor did.<br /> <br /> Remember Caesar, thou art mortal<br /> <br /> <br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Trinity_Graduate_School_of_Apologetics_and_Theology&diff=517823 2008-09-16T11:42:59Z

<p>Toffeeman: I think it reads better. Feel free to revert.</p> <hr /> <div>'''Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology''' is a [[conservative]] [[Christian]] School based in Kerala, [[India]] and is traditionally Reformed in doctrine. The majority of degrees obtained through Trinity are done so through distance learning over the internet. Trinity has students enrolled in over 140 countries around the world. <br /> <br /> == History ==<br /> Trinity Graduate School was founded by the Calvin Research Group based in Kerala, India, which is geared toward educating Christians in strong Apologetics, Polemics, and [[Theology]]. It offers both Masters and Doctoral Programs in many fields of Christian learning. <br /> <br /> Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology is located besides the campus of [http://www.cusat.edu/home.htm Cochin University of Science and Technology] in Kochi, Kerala, India. Many researchers are able to take advantage of this proximity.<br /> <br /> == Accreditation ==<br /> Trinity is fully accredited by the [http://www.icaats.org.in International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies (ICAATS)] based in Kerala, India. ICAATS is an [[evangelical]]ly conservative accreditation agency that is registered with the government of India. ICAATS is not recognized by the United Stated Department of Education because the School and the Accrediting agency are not based in the [[United States]]. ICAATS is a [[government]] approved NGO because it is geared toward theological and religious education, which is private and therefore does not require direct government approval. Just as the USDE has nothing to do with theological accrediting agencies in the U.S., the Education Department in India has nothing to do with theological accrediting agencies in India.<br /> <br /> == Philip School ==<br /> [http://www.philipschool.info Philip School] is an offshoot of Trinity and offers undergraduate degrees in apologetics and theology. Like Trinity, Philip School is accredited by ICAATS and is based on the same principles of education. <br /> <br /> == External Links ==<br /> Official Website of [http://www.trinitytheology.org Trinity Graduate School of Apologetics and Theology].<br /> <br /> [[category:universities]]<br /> [[category:India]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pea&diff=517821 2008-09-16T11:32:46Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>A pea is the edible fruit of the [[legume|leguminous]] plant pisum sativum. Peas are small, green and roughly spherical in shape; they grow in a green 'pod' which is inedible except when very young (young peas cooked in their pod are known as mange-tout - [[French]] for 'eat it all').<br /> <br /> Peas are sold fresh in their pods, frozen, canned, or dried - the last of these need to be rehydrated before eating, and are sometimes sold rehydrated and canned, as 'processed peas'. In northern [[England]] 'mushy peas' - a lumpy puree of processed peas - is a popular accompaniment to [[fish and chips]], [[pie]]s and other dished.<br /> <br /> [[Category:Food and drink]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=515783 2008-09-13T11:54:26Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>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 /> ::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 /> :::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth? <br /> <br /> :::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities. Solely from the dismissive nature of the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound. We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.<br /> <br /> :::How can we distinguish? Can we distinguish? Well, yes. Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues. The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”. These are reasons to reject the criticisms.<br /> <br /> :::Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter. Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc. The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS. However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALetter_to_PNAS&amp;diff=492868&amp;oldid=492769]. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to the paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking. Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=490485]! <br /> <br /> :::On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study? We have little that goes beyond assertion.<br /> <br /> :::It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit. It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=515781 2008-09-13T11:50:36Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>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 /> ::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 /> :::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth? <br /> <br /> :::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities. Solely from the dismissive nature of the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound. We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.<br /> <br /> :::How can we distinguish? Can we distinguish? Well, yes. Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues. The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”. These are reasons to reject the criticisms.<br /> <br /> :::Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter. Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc. The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS. However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALetter_to_PNAS&amp;diff=492868&amp;oldid=492769]. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking. Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=490485]! <br /> <br /> :::On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study? We have little that goes beyond assertion.<br /> <br /> :::It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit. It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=515780 2008-09-13T11:49:27Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>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 /> ::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 /> :::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth? <br /> <br /> :::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities. Solely from the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound. We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.<br /> <br /> :::How can we distinguish? Can we distinguish? Well, yes. Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues. The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”. These are reasons to reject the criticisms.<br /> <br /> :::Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter. Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc. The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS. However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALetter_to_PNAS&amp;diff=492868&amp;oldid=492769]. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking. Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=490485]! <br /> <br /> :::On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study? We have little that goes beyond assertion.<br /> <br /> :::It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit. It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:PNAS_Response_to_Letter&diff=515779 2008-09-13T11:48:46Z

<p>Toffeeman: Reply to Jpatt</p> <hr /> <div>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 /> ::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 /> ::To JPatt I would ask, how do we distinguish between a reply from an expert correcting an error and a reply from “Big Science” covering up the truth? <br /> <br /> ::If you send a good criticism to “Big Science” which they do not like and are willing to cover up you would expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. However, if you sent a bad criticism to “Big Science” you would also expect a dismissive reply, as has been received. That a dismissive reply has been received does not distinguish between the two possibilities. Solely from the reply, therefore, we cannot conclude evidence of a conspiracy on the part of “Big Science” nor can we conclude that the letter was unsound. We would expect “he is wrong” whether or not Mr. Schlafly was wrong.<br /> <br /> ::How can we distinguish? Can we distinguish? Well, yes. Firstly the detail of the reply will give clues. The reply was not “un-responsive”, it gave clear reasons why the letter was not to be published: the objections ignore elementary statistics and the final comment is “uncalled for”. These are reasons to reject the criticisms.<br /> <br /> ::Secondly these are reasons that are independently corroborated by the discussion of the various drafts of the letter. Objections were raised against all the substantive points by editors, many with expertise in the relevant areas; Stitch75, Brossa, Kallium, Argon, Wisdom89, Murray, Gerlach etc. The majority of the discussion centred around the statistics, as with the majority of the reply from PNAS. However the author was also specifically warned that the inclusion of accusations of withholding data was inappropriate[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk%3ALetter_to_PNAS&amp;diff=492868&amp;oldid=492769]. Most of these objections were addressed not by reformulating the criticisms to paper but by dismissal, deletion and blocking. Those few editors writing in support of the criticisms declared no expertise, showed little and, in at least one case, was a parodist [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Flaws_in_Richard_Lenski_Study&amp;diff=prev&amp;oldid=490485]! <br /> <br /> ::On the other hand what do we have to support the contention that the letter has good criticisms of the Lenski study? We have little that goes beyond assertion.<br /> <br /> ::It was pretty much known before sending the letter that, although the author had been given every help in formulating the best letter possible, the letter had little merit. It should not come as a surprise that it was dismissed and, certainly, not taken as evidence that “Big Science” is corrupt.--[[User:Toffeeman|Toffeeman]] 07:48, 13 September 2008 (EDT)</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_The_Galaxy&diff=514740 2008-09-11T21:04:26Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Plot */</p> <hr /> <div>'''''The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy''''' is a science fiction comedy series, a series of books, CDs, computer games and stage shows, a TV series and a feature film, created by the author [[Douglas Adams]]. It was originally broadcast as six-part radio series on BBC Radio 4 in 1978. Since that time, it has existed in a number of different formats, and has become an international phenomenon. Its title is often abbreviated by fans as ''HHGTTG'', or ''H2G2''.<br /> <br /> ==Plot==<br /> The story follows the adventures of Arthur Dent, who wakes up one morning to find that his house is about to be demolished to make way for a bypass. His friend, Ford Prefect (who turns out to be from a small planet in the vicinity of [[Betelgeuse]]), takes him to the pub and informs him that it is not just his house, but the whole Earth which is about to be destroyed. Before Arthur has time to take this in, he finds that the Earth has been destroyed by a fleet of Vogon spacecraft to make way for a new hyperspace bypass, and that he and Ford Prefect are on board the Vogon spaceship, having &quot;hitched&quot; a lift.<br /> <br /> ==Adaptations to other media==<br /> The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy has spawned many derivative works, from radio plays to a feature film.<br /> <br /> <br /> ==Links==<br /> *[http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/hitchhikers/ BBC Website for HHGTTG]<br /> *[http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/ H2G2 Website ]<br /> [[Category:Novels|Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514699 2008-09-11T20:04:32Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Difficulties */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts! Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts.<br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> What is meant by &quot;the facts&quot;? Often the term &quot;fact&quot; is thought to mean &quot;something that is true&quot;. If truth is then defined as correspondence to the facts the whole descends into cirularity. This gives rise to the &quot;paradoxes of truth&quot; such as:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Liar paradox:''' This sentence is false<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true. On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.<br /> <br /> [[Alfred Tarski]], in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from &quot;the facts&quot; it was to represent. His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a meta-language, a language that talks about basic languages. The basic languages, known as &quot;object languages&quot; describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world. The meta-language then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different natural languages. &lt;ref&gt;Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and It's Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396&lt;/ref&gt;. Take, for example, French as the basic language and the statement:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Object language statement''': La niege est blanc<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This makes a statement about the world. A good many statements may be made about this statement (meta statements), one of which would be whether it is true or not. Reverting to English we may say:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Meta-language statement:''' &quot;La niege est blanc&quot; is true if, and only if, the snow is white<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> It can be readily seen that the English statement above is not a statement about the world, but a statement about the French phrase and its ''relation'' to the world. It is a meta-statement and is true or false depending on the meaning of the French phrase rather than the actual state of the world. The English phrase would be true even if snow where turquoise.<br /> <br /> If the liar paradox is recast in this way the paradox disappears. &quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; purports to accurately describe the world, but does it? What conditions can we attach to it, in the meta-language, to determine when it is true and false? &quot;&quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; is true if and only if it describes a state of the world which is not the case&quot; or, alterntively, &quot;&quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; is false if and only if it describes a state of the world which is the case&quot;. As the statement &quot;cet enonce est faux&quot; fails to describe a state of the world it can be neither true nor false: it is simply a meaningless string of words.<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514696 2008-09-11T20:03:01Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Difficulties */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts!. Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts.<br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> What is meant by &quot;the facts&quot;? Often the term &quot;fact&quot; is thought to mean &quot;something that is true&quot;. If truth is then defined as correspondence to the facts the whole descends into cirularity. This gives rise to the &quot;paradoxes of truth&quot; such as:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Liar paradox:''' This sentence is false<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true. On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.<br /> <br /> [[Alfred Tarski]], in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from &quot;the facts&quot; it was to represent. His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a meta-language, a language that talks about basic languages. The basic languages, known as &quot;object languages&quot; describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world. The meta-language then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different natural languages. &lt;ref&gt;Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and It's Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396&lt;/ref&gt;. Take, for example, French as the basic language and the statement:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Object language statement''': La niege est blanc<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This makes a statement about the world. A good many statements may be made about this statement (meta statements), one of which would be whether it is true or not. Reverting to English we may say:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Meta-language statement:''' &quot;La niege est blanc&quot; is true if, and only if, the snow is white<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> It can be readily seen that the English statement above is not a statement about the world, but a statement about the French phrase and its ''relation'' to the world. It is a meta-statement and is true or false depending on the meaning of the French phrase rather than the actual state of the world. The English phrase would be true even if snow where turquoise.<br /> <br /> If the liar paradox is recast in this way the paradox disappears. &quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; purports to accuratey describe the world, but does it? What conditions can we attach to it, in the meta-language, to determine when it is true and false? &quot;&quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; is true if and only if it describes a state of the world which is not the case&quot; or, alterntively, &quot;&quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; is false if and only if it describes a state of the world which is the case&quot;. As the statement &quot;cet enonce est faux&quot; fails to describe a state of the world it can be neither true nor false: it is simply a meaningless string of words.<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514694 2008-09-11T20:01:52Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Difficulties */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts!. Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts.<br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> What is meant by &quot;the facts&quot;? Often the term &quot;fact&quot; is thought to mean &quot;something that is true&quot;. If truth is then defined as correspondence to the facts the whole descends into cirularity. This gives rise to the &quot;paradoxes of truth&quot; such as:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Liar paradox:''' This sentence is false<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true. On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.<br /> <br /> Alfred Tarski, in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from &quot;the facts&quot; it was to represent. His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a meta-language, a language that talks about basic languages. The basic languages, known as &quot;object languages&quot; describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world. The meta-language then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different natural languages. &lt;ref&gt;Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and It's Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396&lt;/ref&gt;. Take, for example, French as the basic language and the statement:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Object language statement''': La niege est blanc<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This makes a statement about the world. A good many statements may be made about this statement (meta statements), one of which would be whether it is true or not. Reverting to English we may say:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Meta-language statement:''' &quot;La niege est blanc&quot; is true if, and only if, the snow is white<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> It can be readily seen that the English statement above is not a statement about the world, but a statement about the French phrase and its ''relation'' to the world. It is a meta-statement and is true or false depending on the meaning of the French phrase rather than the actual state of the world. The English phrase would be true even if snow where turquoise.<br /> <br /> If the liar paradox is recast in this way the paradox disappears. &quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; purports to accuratey describe the world, but does it? What conditions can we attach to it, in the meta-language, to determine when it is true and false? &quot;&quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; is true if and only if it describes a state of the world which is not the case&quot; or, alterntively, &quot;&quot;Cet enonce est faux&quot; is false if and only if it describes a state of the world which is the case&quot;. As the statement &quot;cet enonce est faux&quot; fails to describe a state of the world it can be neither true nor false: it is simply a meaningless string of words.<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514689 2008-09-11T19:50:32Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Difficulties */</p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts!. Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts.<br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> What is meant by &quot;the facts&quot;? Often the term &quot;fact&quot; is thought to mean &quot;something that is true&quot;. If truth is then defined as correspondence to the facts the whole descends into cirularity. This gives rise to the &quot;paradoxes of truth&quot; such as:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> This sentence is false<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> If the sentence is false then it correctly describes itself and is, therefore, true. On the other hand if it is true it mis-describes itself and is, therefore, false.<br /> <br /> Alfred Tarski, in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from &quot;the facts&quot; it was to represent. His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a meta-language, a language that talks about basic languages. The basic languages, known as &quot;object languages&quot; describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world. The meta-language then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different natural languages. &lt;ref&gt;Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and It's Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396&lt;/ref&gt;. Take, for example, French as the basic language and the statement:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Object language statement''': La niege est blanc<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This makes a statement about the world. A good many statements may be made about this statement (meta statements), one of which would be whether it is true or not. Reverting to English we may say:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Meta-language statement:''' &quot;La niege est blanc&quot; is true if, and only if, the snow is white<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> It can be readily seen that the English statement above is not a statement about the world, but a statement about the French phrase. It is a meta-statement and is true or false depending on the meaning of the French phrase rather than the state of the world. The English phrase would be true even if snow where turquoise.<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514688 2008-09-11T19:48:53Z

<p>Toffeeman: /* Difficulties */ Tarski's theory of truth</p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts!. Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts.<br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> What is meant by &quot;the facts&quot;? Often the term &quot;fact&quot; is thought to mean &quot;something that is true&quot;. If truth is then defined as correspondence to the facts the whole descends into cirularity. This gives rise to the &quot;paradoxes of truth&quot; such as:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> This sentence is false<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> Alfred Tarski, in attempting to formulate a conception of truth that avoided these paradoxes, formulated a way of seperating the concept of truth from &quot;the facts&quot; it was to represent. His ''Semantic Theory of Truth'' held that truth was part of a meta-language, a language that talks about basic languages. The basic languages, known as &quot;object languages&quot; describe, or purport to decribe, the state of the world. The meta-language then descibes whether or not the basic language has succeeded. [[Karl Popper]] recommended thinking of the languages in terms of two different natural languages. &lt;ref&gt;Popper, K.R. ''The Open Society and It's Enemies, Vol 2.'' Routledge. London. 1966. p 369-396&lt;/ref&gt;. Take, for example, French as the basic language and the statement:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Object language statement''': La niege est blanc<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> This makes a statement about the world. A good many statements may be made about this statement (meta statements), one of which would be whether it is true or not. Reverting to English we may say:<br /> <br /> &lt;blockquote&gt;<br /> '''Meta-language statement:''' &quot;La niege est blanc&quot; is true if, and only if, the snow is white<br /> &lt;/blockquote&gt;<br /> <br /> It can be readily seen that the English statement above is not a statement about the world, but a statement about the French phrase. It is a meta-statement and is true or false depending on the meaning of the French phrase rather than the state of the world. The English phrase would be true even if snow where turquoise.<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514681 2008-09-11T19:16:19Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts!. Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. This Conservapedia entry focuses on the concept of truth as correspondence with the facts.<br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> When considering truth, certain difficulties arise. For example, one person might consider certain facts and values to be the truth, based on what they see and hear, but these same facts might be considered or indeed known to be [[false]] by others. Other problems include the concept of &quot;Absolute Truth&quot;, insofar as people will naturally disagree as to what truths are absolute. [http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm]<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Truth&diff=514680 2008-09-11T19:14:53Z

<p>Toffeeman: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Truth''' is a term used to stand for very different concepts. Commonly it is used to mean &quot;correspondence with facts&quot;, but often to signify &quot;good&quot; or &quot;just&quot;. Jesus Christ, in saying &quot;...I am the way, and the &lt;u&gt;truth&lt;/u&gt;, and the life...&quot; is clearly not claiming that he corresponds to facts!. Alternatively &quot;truth&quot; and &quot;true&quot; are often used rhetorically to distinguish between a common held concept and the arguers preferred alternative. Repressive regimes will thus counter pleas for freedom by claiming that they allow &quot;true&quot; freedom, dictatorships will claim to be &quot;true&quot; democracies. <br /> <br /> == Difficulties ==<br /> When considering truth, certain difficulties arise. For example, one person might consider certain facts and values to be the truth, based on what they see and hear, but these same facts might be considered or indeed known to be [[false]] by others. Other problems include the concept of &quot;Absolute Truth&quot;, insofar as people will naturally disagree as to what truths are absolute. [http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm]<br /> <br /> == Truth as a Value ==<br /> Truth can be considered to be a morally desirable trait in a person, since it the antithesis of &quot;undesirable&quot; traits such as deceit or corruption. Christians in particular uphold Truth as a desirable value, since it is something taught by the Bible, and Jesus himself.<br /> <br /> ==Opponents==<br /> Several opponents of truth exist, such as [[communist]] [[China]] and [[Adolph Hitler]]s [[Nazi Germany]], both of which advocates the wide use of [[censorship]]. Incidentaly, many [[liberals]] also advocate the use of [[censorship]] in the form of [[political correctness]]. Former [[Vice President]] and notorious [[liberal]] [[Al Gore]] made several untruthful claims in his documentary [[An Inconvenient Truth]]. Many liberals mock Truth by coining terms like &quot;truthiness&quot; (Stephen Colbert) to deride the real nature of truth.<br /> <br /> ==See also==<br /> *[[God]]<br /> *[[Jesus Christ]]<br /> *[[Holy Spirit]]<br /> *[[Postmodernism]]<br /> *[[Relativism]]<br /> <br /> ==External links==<br /> *http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm<br /> *http://www.christianity.co.nz/truth1.htm<br /> *[http://www.aim.org/wls/category/truth/ What Liberals Say - Category: Truth], [[Accuracy In Media]]<br /> <br /> [[Category:Philosophy]]<br /> [[Category:Attributes of God]]</div>

Toffeeman