Refutation of a Statistical Argument Supporting Coevolution (Origins)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, February 24, 2010, 00:26 (5176 days ago) @ David Turell

David,-Specifically the article is refuting the p of .00015 (ish) that I know you've referenced before. THAT is the weapon it takes away from you. You can no longer use it. -I'm fully aware that the rest of the paper goes on to say that it doesn't disprove co-evolution (and neither did I). And yes, it makes assumptions, but the assumptions it makes are -1. Based on better evidence than was available when Co-evolution was accepted as theory, and -2. They explicitly state their assumptions. IN statistical arguments, you always have assumptions, you have to or you can't simplify the question to a statistical result. -In either case, my overall point is that we can't trust statistical arguments for systems we don't completely understand.

--
\"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.\"