|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
This is an interesting find. Hundreds of Natural-Selection Studies Could be Wrong, Study Demonstrates
(PhysOrg.com) -- 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 3 April 2009 and also in the journal's print edition at a later date. To demonstrate the faultiness of the statistical methods, Nei's team compiled data collected by their Emory University colleague, Shozo Yokoyama, on the genes that control the abilities of fish to see light at different water depths and on the genes that control color vision in a variety of animals. The team used these data to compare statistically predicted sites of natural selection with experimentally determined sites. They found that the statistical methods rarely predicted the actual sites of natural selection, which had been identified by Yokoyama through experiments. "In some cases, statistical method completely failed to identify the true sites where natural selection occurred," said Nei. "This particular exercise demonstrated the difficulty with which statistical methods are able to detect natural selection." Nei said that to obtain a more realistic picture of natural selection, biologists should pair experimental data with their statistical data whenever possible. Scientists usually do not use experimental data because such experiments can be difficult to conduct and because they are very time-consuming. Credit goes to an OEC on another forum for spotting this one. I think their analysis understates the problem. They're focusing narrowly on a couple of statistical issues they know they can demonstrate lead to bad results; but they ignore the root cause of error here: the assumptions that beneficial mutations actually occur, and "selection" occurs. And the folks involved are career-conscious, it seems. (Adding bold) These words are not consistent with the words of someone who believes "overturning evolution would win you a Nobel Prize". "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. Even so, we can expect opposition to any step in the direction of truth. Or even more likely, it'll just be ignored and "business as usual" will continue.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 644
Elite Member
|
I think their analysis understates the problem. They're focusing narrowly on a couple of statistical issues they know they can demonstrate lead to bad results; but they ignore the root cause of error here: the assumptions that beneficial mutations actually occur, and "selection" occurs. If "selection" doesn't occur then how could they have done their experiment? They couldn't possibly have... ...used these data to compare statistically predicted sites of natural selection with experimentally determined sites. Or ...found that the statistical methods rarely predicted the actual sites of natural selection, which had been identified by Yokoyama through experiments. As stated in the article. In order to do the comparison, beneficial mutations must have been identified and selection must have occurred. Since you have declared that neither beneficial mutation nor "selection" occur, the experiments done by Yokoyama must be bogus according to you. Even so, we can expect opposition to any step in the direction of truth. Or even more likely, it'll just be ignored and "business as usual" will continue. I don't see how you can determine that these experiments are a threat to the theory of evolution. Obviously, their dependence upon the false(according to you) assumption of the existence of beneficial mutations and "selection" show them to be just as likely to lie (or just as stupid) as the biologists who used the statistical methods that were found to be erroneous. By your own set of assumptions, the findings of Yokoyama and company must be declared invalid.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
You focus on interpretation rather than actual evidence.
Death occurs. Nobody has discovered a demonstrable way to predict any pattern. The observed pattern of death does not match the predicted pattern of death. It is always so, when predictions are made in advance. Unless of course, someone interferes to ensure a desired pattern.
Equivocation is such a weak strategy...
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 644
Elite Member
|
You focus on interpretation rather than actual evidence. Yes. I am focusing on your interpretation of the implications of the research and experiments they did. Their take on it is that the statistical analysis done by mainstream biology does not accurately predict the sites of natural selection. Since their experiments do accurately identify the sites of natural selection, I don't see how you can say this research is an invalidation of the theory of evolution. What is it in the article that leads you to that conclusion? Death occurs. Nobody has discovered a demonstrable way to predict any pattern. The observed pattern of death does not match the predicted pattern of death. It is always so, when predictions are made in advance. Unless of course, someone interferes to ensure a desired pattern. ??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? In this case, natural selection will allow the group of predators that can get food better to have more offspring. More offspring means a higher percentage of the predator population will be the faster predator (in this case). Perhaps I don't fully understand your version of "natural selection" and why it cannot occur in your reality.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
I already explained the mistake: assuming "Natural Selection".
They predict A, based upon NS. They observe B. Since NS must always be assumed, they cannot confess that this is a strike against NS. Their religion forbids, and career consciousness plays a role as well.
So, rather than "NS is falsified", they say "NS occurred, but our predictions are wrong". NS is thus not subject to testing. Therefore NS must not be science, but literary device.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
Death occurs. Nobody has discovered a demonstrable way to predict any pattern. The observed pattern of death does not match the predicted pattern of death. It is always so, when predictions are made in advance. Unless of course, someone interferes to ensure a desired pattern. ??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? I am predicting no such thing. To do so would be silly. It would be self-defeating. Your trap is wasted on me. In this case, natural selection will allow the group of predators that can get food better to have more offspring. More offspring means a higher percentage of the predator population will be the faster predator (in this case).
Perhaps I don't fully understand your version of "natural selection" and why it cannot occur in your reality. I pretty much understand all versions of the selection goddess. I also understand that you and most evolutionists feel compelled to switch versions quite frequently. One minute she's omniscient, eliminating any "defect" no matter how minute, no matter that it's an unexpressed recessive trait. Next time you turn around, she's on vacation, allowing all sorts of things to pile up. She can choose a single gene in a single fly out of all the flies in the world, and preserve it. Yet she "only sees populations" every other Tuesday.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 644
Elite Member
|
Death occurs. Nobody has discovered a demonstrable way to predict any pattern. The observed pattern of death does not match the predicted pattern of death. It is always so, when predictions are made in advance. Unless of course, someone interferes to ensure a desired pattern. ??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? I am predicting no such thing. To do so would be silly. It would be self-defeating. Your trap is wasted on me. Then what are you saying? Try being less cryptic. Perhaps I don't fully understand your version of "natural selection" and why it cannot occur in your reality. I pretty much understand all versions of the selection goddess. I also understand that you and most evolutionists feel compelled to switch versions quite frequently. I asked you what version you were arguing against. Does this mean you are arguing against any form of natural selection at all? One minute she's omniscient, eliminating any "defect" no matter how minute, no matter that it's an unexpressed recessive trait. Next time you turn around, she's on vacation, allowing all sorts of things to pile up. She can choose a single gene in a single fly out of all the flies in the world, and preserve it. Yet she "only sees populations" every other Tuesday. Perhaps the real explanation is a bit more complex than you think and the appearance of conflict is a characteristic of that complexity. Sorry if it is difficult for you to understand, but reality is often that way.
A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,315
Master Elite Member
|
??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? I am predicting no such thing. To do so would be silly. It would be self-defeating. Your trap is wasted on me. Then what are you saying? Try being less cryptic. I wasn't saying anything more than I've already said. You posted some nonsense and asked me to stumble into taking credit for it. I declined. What's cryptic about that? I said it is an error to assume "Natural Selection". What's cryptic about that? Want to know what CTD has said? You can start your homework project with these. http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1655http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=44690#Post44690This is also relevant: http://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=47156#Post47156Linear's trying to profit from the fact that "natural selection", as an element of evolutionism, is too unscientific a concept for anyone to bother writing down in the form of a testable hypothesis. That it should be testable is implied. It's not hard to think up tests, in fact. The very thing we're discussing works just fine. They tested it, and it failed. The spin is that since it cannot fail, the test itself is a failure. Even the arch evopusher T.H. Huxley argued against Darwin and said it needed to be tested, rather than accepted as an assumption. Yet all we seem to get is tests of tests themselves in order to test for the feasibility of perhaps being able to devise a test which could test it under circumstances which will guarantee success (of NS, not the test itself; because that would be impossible). I pretty much understand all versions of the selection goddess. I also understand that you and most evolutionists feel compelled to switch versions quite frequently. I asked you what version you were arguing against. Does this mean you are arguing against any form of natural selection at all? Does this mean you support them all? Do you claim to understand them all? Does being an evolutionist help win favours with a fickle goddess? What favours does she grant? Maybe killing rivals? Death is all she has to offer, after all. One minute she's omniscient, eliminating any "defect" no matter how minute, no matter that it's an unexpressed recessive trait. Next time you turn around, she's on vacation, allowing all sorts of things to pile up. She can choose a single gene in a single fly out of all the flies in the world, and preserve it. Yet she "only sees populations" every other Tuesday. Perhaps the real explanation is a bit more complex than you think and the appearance of conflict is a characteristic of that complexity. Sorry if it is difficult for you to understand, but reality is often that way. [/quote]When you assert that appearances are only illusions, the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate the illusion. Until illusion is demonstrated, observation stands firm.
Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson "And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
