Many evolutionary biologists have relied on certain statistical data which supposedly detects natural-selection. As it turns out, hundreds of these papers with all that statistical data are now considered wrong according to a new study which will be published in PNAS this coming Friday!
Does this mean proponents now believe evolution is wrong? Not really, and they tried to make this clear in their studies about the story of evolution “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.”
Evolutionary biologist Huges pointed this same problem out awhile back about the evidence concerning “positive selection.”
“Contrary to a widespread impression, natural selection does not leave any unambiguous “signature” on the genome, certainly not one that is still detectable after tens or hundreds of millions of years.”
Thousands of papers Hughes writes are “poorly conceived statistical methods that fail to show how the genetic changes relate to adaptive benefits to the organism…” So why not use experimental data with statistical data? Well, they claim it’s a difficult task to accomplish, and it’s also very time consuming. Yes, I would imagine it would be, but what a lazy response using hard work when it comes to experimental data!
“Nei said that for many years he has suspected that the statistical methods were faulty.”
As Ed Brayton pointed out in defiance of the weaknesses rule in Texas Science Standards said…“The theory of evolution makes all sorts of risky predictions, patterns and observations that must be true if common descent is true.” Yes I agree, this is one of the reasons why it’s the only so-called theory which has an enormous amount of holes in it while it’s answers created even more holes. It’s also another reason why some scientists use “the progress of science” response.
There is no doubt, these statistical methods used by most evolutionary biologists for many years now who don’t want to use experimental data because it requires hard work, and it’s time consuming, is evolutionary fraud!
This is not true science, rather it’s a very complex hypothesis with a lot of story telling going on with their enourmous amount of flawed paper work assuming the very core of it’s meaning is true while making good money at it by conducting various statistical studies of evolution which one does as little as possible.