Originally Posted by CTD
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...
Quote
...used these data to compare statistically predicted sites of natural selection with experimentally determined sites.

Or
Quote
...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.

Quote
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