Oops! Scientific retraction a major blow to evolution theory. Experts admit they were 'totally blind

[rangerrebew]

Oops! Scientific retraction a major blow to evolution theory
Experts admit they were 'totally blinded by our belief'
Published: 2 days ago
 

It was heralded as decisive proof of the theory of evolution. But Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize laureate Jack Szostak now has retracted a major paper that claimed to explain one of the most important questions about the origin of human life.

In 2016, Szostak published a paper claiming he had found a way for ribonucleic acid (RNA) to replicate itself.

Many proponents of evolutionary theory believe RNA was one of the first molecules to develop. However, RNA requires its own enzymes to replicate.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/oops-scientific-retraction-a-major-blow-to-evolution-theory/#PL00g7S1lFLuuSDP.99

[IsailedawayfromFR]

This is an example of why the Nobel prize nowadays is nothing but garbage to prop up an agenda.

[the_doc]

This is an example of why the Nobel prize nowadays is nothing but garbage to prop up an agenda.

The evolution stuff is a lot like the Global Warming stuff.  For example, no mainstream, scientific journal will even publish any evidence against evolution--and there is a lot of such evidence.

[Oceander]

[Suppressed]

Note that it was his own lab that found the problem and reported it.

Many studies are run at p > 0.05, which means that 1 in 20 studies will have spurious results.

[the_doc]

Note that it was his own lab that found the problem and reported it.

Many studies are run at p > 0.05, which means that 1 in 20 studies will have spurious results.

I believe you meant p < 0.05. 

Anyway, the notion that 1 in 20 studies with p = 0.05 will be wrong is spooky enough;  however, I recently watched an even spookier video about the misleading use of the p-statistic.  I'll look it up and post the link when I get a chance.

[the_doc]

@Suppressed

... however, I recently watched an even spookier video about the misleading use of the p-statistic.  I'll look it up and post the link when I get a chance.

Here it is: 
https://youtu.be/42QuXLucH3Q 

[seax]

Oops! Scientific retraction a major blow to evolution theory
Experts admit they were 'totally blinded by our belief'
Published: 2 days ago
 

It was heralded as decisive proof of the theory of evolution. But Harvard biologist and Nobel Prize laureate Jack Szostak now has retracted a major paper that claimed to explain one of the most important questions about the origin of human life.

In 2016, Szostak published a paper claiming he had found a way for ribonucleic acid (RNA) to replicate itself.

Many proponents of evolutionary theory believe RNA was one of the first molecules to develop. However, RNA requires its own enzymes to replicate.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2018/01/oops-scientific-retraction-a-major-blow-to-evolution-theory/#PL00g7S1lFLuuSDP.99

lol...well...believe it on not, I got in trouble on another Forum this week concerning evolution.  I'm not getting into it again, but one of my remarks against it was that like the global warming data ....sometimes it gets skewed or 'mistaken.' One thing to remember....figures don't lie ..... but liars figure..

Great post....I am awarding you post of the day.....

best regards,
seax

[Suppressed]

I believe you meant p < 0.05. 

Thanks, @the_doc.  I should check for typos before posting, but often forget!

Anyway, the notion that 1 in 20 studies with p = 0.05 will be wrong is spooky enough;  however, I recently watched an even spookier video about the misleading use of the p-statistic.  I'll look it up and post the link when I get a chance.

I appreciate you posting that video.  I'd seen it but had forgotten it.  It makes excellent points, and in reality, there are other biases that come into play, with studies being done but not published if the data don't come up with a sexy conclusion.

I was on the Statistics technical network for a Fortune 100 corporation, and I still feel incompetent at judging stats without experts reviewing my work.  A week from Tuesday, I'm going to a meeting regarding issuance of a state document based on statistical evaluation that I think requires more professional input.  The fact is, too often, stats are misunderstood and misused.  The point about statistical power is very important!

Thanks again for making these points.  It's a good sign that this was retracted, indicating the self-policing was successful.  It doesn't put any hole in evolutionary theory.