Same thing as an evoloser, i.e. somebody who uses too much evolotion...
Posted on 07/22/2009 7:26:42 PM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Scientists at Penn State and the National Institute of Genetics in Japan have demonstrated that several statistical methods commonly used by biologists to detect natural selection at the molecular level tend to produce incorrect results.
"Our finding means that hundreds of published studies on natural selection may have drawn incorrect conclusions," said Masatoshi Nei, Penn State Evan Pugh Professor of Biology and the team's leader. The team's results will be published in the Online Early Edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences during the week ending Friday, April 3, 2009 and also in the journal's print edition at a later date.
Nei said that many scientists who examine human evolution have used faulty statistical methods in their studies and, as a result, their conclusions could be wrong. For example, in one published study the scientists used a statistical method to demonstrate pervasive natural selection during human evolution.
"This group documented adaptive evolution in many genes expressed in the brain, thyroid and placenta, which are assumed to be important for human evolution," said Masafumi Nozawa, a postdoctoral fellow at Penn State and one of the paper's authors. "But if the statistical method that they used is not reliable, then their results also might not be reliable," added Nei. "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," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at live.psu.edu ...
Guess somebody forgot to tell the evolutionists that simulation does not equal science.
Ping!
Uhoh.
What’s an ‘evolutionist’? Was Albert Einstein a ‘relativist’?
ruhroh.
Ouch.
Scientific Assumption: The not-so-new religion.
A person who holds to the philosophy of evolutionism.
Does this mean that I am nor required to be absolutely certain that the emperor and I are brothers under the skin?
What’s evolutionism?
It is an attempt to put scientists who believe that the theory of evolution is a useful theory on the same level as people who believe in creationism.
Science is not philosophy. There is no way to equate a scientific theory with a philosophy.
Creationism is neither a scientific theory nor a philosophy; it is a religious belief.
Creationism may in fact be true, but there is no way to prove it scientifically, and there is no way to argue for it philosophically.
Philosophers can argue for the existence of God, and that God created the universe, but there is no way to argue philosophically that God created the world as we know it about ~6000 years ago.
Likewise there is no way to prove scientifically that the Earth was created ~6000 years ago.
The paper you site is an excellent contribution to the scientific discourse. It will either be found to be incorrect, or it will help to improve the methods that scientists use to show if/when natural selection occurs.
The scientists' reluctance to question natural selection outright is an understandably conservative conclusion from their results. What they discovered did not disprove natural selection, in merely brought into doubt conclusions made by other scientists.
This is the way that science should be done.
Another "Straw Man" post, scientist say!!! Put a name to the scientist and the study. And then another straw word, could, maybe might, meaningless conjectures. A fog maybe could fly if he had wings. LOL
Same thing as an evoloser, i.e. somebody who uses too much evolotion...
Wait a minute, scientists were wrong?
In The Temple of Darwinism you may discuss the color and fabric of the Emperor's clothes, not their existence.
Show me where this ,about to flunk out, doctoral student says scientists were wrong. He actually says they might also be correct and he wrong
An 'evolutionist' is someone who buys personally, and/or prosthelytizes to others, the faith-based belief in the disproven teachings of Charles Darwin, and who inevitably use this error-filled set of assumptions based on junk-science as evidence against the truth of the Biblical account of Creation, and often against even the existence of God Himself.
;-/
LOL! Now that’s the evolution of a lie - they go to college to learn that, ha.
==Gotta love it. The methods we've used to "prove" evolution turned out to be fallacious, but we're still going assume evolution happens anywise.
Isn't that why all the unfulfilled atheists were so happy when Darwin came along? They believed in godless creation already, but they had no real joie de vivre...that is, until the Bearded Buddha of Naturalism came along and told them that they are the product of the random collocations of mindless chemicals. But now that we know that our cells are following an intelligible code, all that is rapidly going out the window. I predict there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth once the Temple of Darwin realizes that teleology not only didn't go "quietly into the night", but is on its way back with a landslide of support from the very public who pays their salaries.
You and your creationist spam sites, you ignurint creationist.
Oh wait a minute.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.