Skip to comments.Natural Selection Studies Based on Bad Statistics (Can the Darwin Party get anything right?)
Posted on 03/31/2009 5:23:48 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Natural Selection Studies Based on Bad Statistics
March 30, 2009 Hundreds of studies claiming to show natural selection may be wrong, say scientists from Penn State and Japan. PhysOrg reported today that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results. Many studies of human evolution have relied on these flawed methods. If the methods were wrong, the conclusions are unreliable. Of course, we would never say that natural selection is not happening, but we are saying that these statistical methods can lead scientists to make erroneous inferences, said Masatoshi Nei (Penn State), the leader of the analysis.
Associating natural selection with genetic changes that result in a different amino acid being substituted in a protein is a dubious assumption. Actually, the majority of amino acid substitutions do not lead to functional changes, and the adaptive change of a protein often occurs by a rare amino acid substitution, Nei said. For this reason, statistical methods may give erroneous conclusions.
The authors re-examined a 2007 paper by Yokoyama (see 09/05/2008) that Austin Hughes (U of South Carolina) had boasted last year represented the right way to infer positive selection. Hughes had himself ruled out the validity of statistics used to show natural selection, saying, Thousands of papers are published every year claiming evidence of adaptive evolution on the basis of computational analyses alone, with no evidence whatsoever regarding the phenotypic effects of allegedly adaptive mutations. He had pointed to the Yokoyama paper as an exception a study solidly grounded in biology. Now, these scientists have apparently shown that even that case was flawed. There was no correlation between predicted sites of selection and those determined by experiment Yokoyama had found false positives, they claim.
What would be required to test for natural selection more accurately? Neis team said that scientists should pair statistical data with experimental data whenever possible. This, however, is difficult and costly. The article ended, Scientists usually do not use experimental data because such experiments can be difficult to conduct and because they are very time-consuming.
The title of the Penn State press release is visible at the Penn State Live news website, but the link did not work when this entry was posted. PhysOrgs report says Neis paper will appear online on PNAS this Friday.
Tell this to Texas high school students. Remember the pile of papers the Darwin Party stacked at the Dover trial showing evidence for evolution? It was all fluff by lazy scientists unwilling to pay the price to get valid scientific evidence for Charlies grand myth. Cut away the bad statistics, the storytelling and the assumption of evolution offered as evidence for evolution, and the stack would disappear. Notice that to protect their safety, these Penn State folks had to declare that Of course, we would never say that natural selection is an overhyped, vapid process. Its time to call the Darwinists bluff. Show us the studies that really establish Charlies Stuff Happens Law can create wings out of slime. Creationists have a bigger pile of evidence for their view. The universe.
Thanks for posting! Evolution is a religion that relies on the old tree of knowledge of good and evil. They will eat that apple and keep passing it on. Meanwhile, in their search for knowledge and power, they sacrifice even the most innocent in their insatiable quest for knowledge, power and the fountain of youth. Pox on Darwin and his brethren for not helping people to understand they are valuable,irreplaceable and deeply loved by God.
==Evolution is a religion that relies on the old tree of knowledge of good and evil. They will eat that apple and keep passing it on.
Excellent reply. I have never thought about it that way. Thanks so much for your truly brilliant insight, FRiend!
Your current - increasing - level of obsession can’t be healthy.
Or perhaps your negative reaction to God’s creation isn’t healthy. Did you ever think of that?
All the best—GGG
I don’t ignore the reality of Creation simply because it doesn’t fit my narrow worldview.
I also don’t insult others or call in the reinforcements every time I have a point to make.
In case you missed it, Mr. Lawyer, who dive-bombed me out of the clear blue sky, accused me of being a paid shill for the muzzies in Turkey. He then put together a special hit-piece against me, twisting my words and accusing me of the same, and began posting it in my threads. If that didn’t deserve alarm-bells going off, I don’t know what does. Tell me DevNet, do you agree with Mr. Lawyer’s below the belt tactics?
What are you talking about?
Obviously, I thought you were talking about something else. As for my ping list, I ping them to most all my posts on a daily basis.
==I also dont insult others...
“I also dont insult others or call in the reinforcements every time I have a point to make.”
I’m not sure that his comment was an insult as much as it was an observation that you are going to hell for not following his brand of religious fundamentalism.
You either follow their “one true path” which includes creationism and a curious version of science in which scientists are all wrong about just about everything, or you are against them, and are destined for the nether regions, absent repentance and falling into lock-step.
“What would be required to test for natural selection more accurately? Neis team said that scientists should pair statistical data with experimental data whenever possible. This, however, is difficult and costly. “
Please. That is so old school. We have moved beyond that old standard. Now we can say something has been proved without any observation in the labor, we just need some good speculative ideas layered on top of each other and we are there.
Then provide some examples of me insulting others when you get time.
How about when you constantly go around telling everyone that I believe that Since the Darwinists are defectors from righteousness, they are dangerous and need to be punished. I have pointed out to you over and over that A) I never said that or think that, and B) that the person who said it was talking about judging social Darwinists by their own standards with tongue firmly planted in cheek. And yet you keep repeating the same mischaracterization over and over after it has long since been cleared up. Is that not insulting? Don’t you think that goes beyond the bounds of kidding around and fair play?
You posted an article that contained that phrase - and since you blame Darwin and Science for the actions of everyone who has ever even seen a science book I thought that apply your way of thinking to yourself would be more than fair.
It isn’t so much fun when the shoe is on the other foot.
OK, so you agree that you comments were inaccurate and deliberately offensive, but you excuse the same because you don’t agree with my take on social Darwinism. Got it.
That isn’t what I said. Perhaps you should review your Bible paying close attention to the portions that cover false witness, lying and rumor mongering.
What else am I supposed to conclude from such a statement. According to you, you wanted to give me a taste of the shoe being on the other foot. Right?