Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 23, 2010, 22:01 (5174 days ago)

David (and all)-In cruising for some statistical treatments I came across this gem that obliterates a statistical argument that made a claim I'm quite familiar with you making: "...indicating a (one-tailed) probability of P = 0.00015¶ that the organization of the canonical code could result from chance (3)"-http://www.pnas.org/content/97/25/13690.full-For the uninitiated, "Coevolution theory claims that the conserved pathways of amino acid biosynthesis in modern organisms (i.e., those found in all three domains of life) can be used to infer the historical precursor-product relationships between amino acids."-This paper demolishes this line of questioning, showing that chance can account for 23-64% of the amino acid combinations we see today. Of course, as the previous argument I made states that all we do for such statistical arguments is toss out the now offending component--we do not then substitute "chance" as the cause as many of us would like to do. But this paper is a perfect intro for a biochem person to show you how simply by changing assumptions, you can wildly vary a statistical argument. (And, they give you the method to calculate their values!) -You lost an important weapon, David!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"