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?
Thanks for the ping!
"We would never....." is such a great starting place, the very foundation of serious scientific thinking, right?
Or perhaps these are scientists deeply worried about losing funding (DO NOT ask the big questions!!)
"We are not ID!! I swear we're not! Oh, I beg you to believe us! .....We would never, NEVER, EVER......, oh puh-leeze, think of our reputations and livelihoods.... "
Sorry to hear that your wife walked out on you :o(
Better luck next time.
Post 8: I also dont insult others
Got a good chuckle out of that one. I’m heading to bed to read the Bible and make a little headway in my latest biblically-based cosmology book. Good night :o)
“Sorry to hear that your wife walked out on you :o(”
What are you talking about?
“Posting to Dev Nut is a waste of time. Its like playing Wack-a-Mole with a mentally retarded mole.”
Whack-a-mole is an excellent analogy for what creationists on this board do. You’re using the Bible as a mallet to try to smack down any attempt at reasoned debate - self-declaring victory at every smack, but reason keeps popping back up. In the end all you accomplish is losing a quarter.
“biblically-based cosmology book.”
a good fiction read helps calm the mind and enhance one’s sleep.
That's exactly what I was wondering after reading your bizzare post, so I made a guess.
“That’s exactly what I was wondering after reading your bizzare post, so I made a guess.”
Ah, just like your “creation science”. You don’t know, so you “guess” instead of actually finding out!
Bizarre is as bizarre does.
Of course evolution isn't even close to science, yet even real science does suffer those blows too, and have to start from square one and rebuild, since it is a product of human fallibility.
That is why it always gives me a chuckle when evolutionists and their groupies invoke "creation science." What do we need with the 'science' moniker; we have something that will never fail.
“Creation is far above ‘science.’ It is the infallible word of God, thus we needn’t hold our breath waiting for the next discovery to nuke one more of the foundational blocks of our belief like evolutionists do.”
You have faith. The vast majority of evolution believers have faith and they separately have science.
What you fail to understand about science is that nobody that understands it is worried in the least about new discoveries that are proven out through the established process.
You creationists think that we in the science understanding class of folks cling to a static collection of scientific theories - hence your willingness to denigrate and demonize science.
We don’t and never have - and science has never advocated such.
So it’s far less dramatic for you creationists because you constantly need the drama of “us vs them” when really it’s “you versus yourselves”.
Science doesn’t care where the data comes from, only that it be proven correct as possible through the established process. When new data comes out and changes scientific understanding then we science-types accept it without emotional attachment to the old concepts that have been overturned.
What pisses you militant creation types off is that nobody listens to your crackpot theories because they fail to stand up to any reasonable scientific scrutiny. It’s nothing personal, but if you don’t know what the hell you are doing, you don’t get to play. You militant creationists then immediately see a conspiracy and instead of admitting the obvious - that science isn’t your strong suit, you just say everyone else is a heretic.
See, it’s not that hard. Faith is faith, and science is science. You can have both in the same world. Most evolution believing folks do, and plenty of creation believing folks do as well - but again the idiocy of militant creationism just can’t admit it.
I’ll bet your wife would agree with me.
But nobody said anything about science being worried - just the anti-science evolutionists that cling to their disproven propaganda icons, way past the point that they are demolished.
"You creationists think that we in the science understanding class of folks cling to a static collection of scientific theories - hence your willingness to denigrate and demonize science"
Most creationists (and frankly that includes the top tier of scientists world wide) understand science far better than the evolution groupies. Creationists, by and large, are heavy users of technology, and certainly do not in any way denigrate science. Your big problem is your attempt to include the fantasy religion of evolution as science.
So its far less dramatic for you creationists because you constantly need the drama of us vs them when really its you versus yourselves.
Was that for laughs? Rejecting the ruse and house of soggy cards of evolution is just standing for science and honesty, against only a handful of influential deceivers.
Final Lunatic Knee Slapper:
"What pisses you militant creation types off is that nobody listens to your crackpot theories because they fail to stand up to any reasonable scientific scrutiny"
Creation fits well! - That is what bothers you isn't it? Is that the reason for your irrational emotional rant that I replied to? Are you as 'pissed' as you come off? Or did you just have a bad day?
“Creation fits well! - That is what bothers you isn’t it? “
Creation fits well into the Old Testament - that doesn’t bother me in the least.
“But nobody said anything about science being worried “
Creation is far above science. It is the infallible word of God, thus we neednt hold our breath waiting for the next discovery to nuke one more of the foundational blocks of our belief like evolutionists do.
I equated “nuking foundational blocks of belief” with some sort of implied worry. Silly me for presuming you meant science was worried.
I keep forgetting that you militant creationists take EVERYTHING literally - to the point where normal communication is impossible.
“Most creationists (and frankly that includes the top tier of scientists world wide) understand science far better than the evolution groupies.”
So, the top tier of scientists world-wide are creationists? Let me guess, you’ve got your own creationist “tiers” ranking “top scientists”, right?
“against only a handful of influential deceivers.”
Do you really think evolution is espoused by only a “handful” of “influential deceivers”, which I presume don’t include the “top tier scientists” on your previous list...
“Creation fits well! - That is what bothers you isn’t it?”
Revisiting this comment.....do you mean creation fits into science well? Was this your own “lunatic knee-slapper” or were you seriously implying creation fits science?
Just once, I’d like for a creationist to be honest about their beliefs. One guy on an earlier thread didn’t like my definition of creationist, then wouldn’t give me his definition, then said maybe my definition was ok.....
For a bunch of folks who claim literalist belief in the Old Testament, you sure are hard to pin down on exactly what you do believe. Why is that? Is it really that confusing?
Read my posts and you’ll know exactly what I believe.
Creation facts and the physical sciences fit well. Its the twisting of the fakkirs of evolution that doesn’t fit. Busted by the fossil evidence; busted by the mathematical evidence, so they want more age, and then more age on top of that, to take their probability from one in ten to the sixty trillionth to one in ten to the forty trillionth. Wow! Impossible is still impossible.
No, using the physical evidence to show the impossibility of evolution, and exposing the deceit of its promoters. - That's what all these threads are about, and fighting that is what brings the shills here to disrupt the flow of facts. - What is your salary for your contribution here?
They SAY they don't believe in evolution. But think that all species descended from a few primordial “kinds” that Noah could fit on a boat. A rate of evolution many thousands of times more powerful than can be supported by observation.
Thus they DO believe in evolution, just a really really fast and powerful kind that can get every species of ursine from a single pair of badgers, but could never ever ever turn an ursine into something else.
What most creationists actually object to is the common descent of species (which they call “macro” evolution), and anything that details the physical characteristics that could have brought about the first life form.
Detailing the minutiae of how planets and stars form no more removes God from being the creator of the heavens and the Earth than detailing how life changes in response to environmental selection removes God from being the creator of all living things.
I was created by God.
The method God used to create me was through sexual reproduction, randomly shuffling genes along the chromosome, and cellular division directed by molecular signals while a placenta grew to nourish me.