"I do not intend to learn biology in this thread. "--juvenissun
The only thing you are testing is our patience.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
(Sorry, I am actually testing your ability of teaching. If you can not teach me, then there is probably few you can teach)
1. By the reduced diversity, relative to the amount expected based on the mutation rate.I do not understand the specifics. So I can not evaluate if it practical or not. I am trying to find out:
May I learn the the following:
1. How to identify the positive selection in humans (by the mutation rate)?
2. What is the positive selection in that particular study?
Sorry, but the student doesn't get to announce that he's not going to do the assigned reading and then blame the teacher. If you don't do the reading, you fail.In order to see if the study has any practical value, I need to know the practical implication. I am not going to read the papers. If you could not (or would not) make an simple explanation which I can understand, then you can simply stop. But the question in my OP is not answered either.
It's a somewhat subtle analysis. The best description of it is in the paper itself, which you can read here. We worked quite hard on making the paper clear, going through more than 100 drafts. I'll be happy to answer questions about it.
Many people have read and understood the paper.
I don't aim to go anywhere for a spell.
It is immoral to have me read your paper. I do not even have genetics 101.
But, for sake of learning something new, I will try. It is going to be slow.
Immoral?It is immoral to have me read your paper. I do not even have genetics 101.
But, for sake of learning something new, I will try. It is going to be slow.
It is immoral to have me read your paper. I do not even have genetics 101.
But, for sake of learning something new, I will try. It is going to be slow.
It is immoral to have me read your paper. I do not even have genetics 101.
But, for sake of learning something new, I will try. It is going to be slow.
I've never had Genetics 101 either; in fact, I haven't taken a class in biology since 9th grade. I learned a great deal of genetics working on the paper in question.It is immoral to have me read your paper. I do not even have genetics 101.
But, for sake of learning something new, I will try. It is going to be slow.
I've never had Genetics 101 either; in fact, I haven't taken a class in biology since 9th grade. I learned a great deal of genetics working on the paper in question.
It sounds about right. You can formally compare two models, but you can't formally show that your model is better than all possible models. But, as the authors note, the evidence for common descent remains overwhelming and the alternative model they were able to dream up is almost certainly ruled out by other data. So we're left where we've always been: common descent is by far the best model available, and will continue to be the consensus until someone comes up with a better one, which is highly unlikely to happen.
Here a non-biology creationist talks again.
The biological classification used the idea of Clade. (link) It bears the meaning of ancestral history, and thus is a system support the idea of evolution.
Is this system only ideologic and has no practical use (except labeling)? I really like to learn even a single case that this ancestry-focused classification system is useful to solve a practical question. What I meant is that if we do not involve the use of ancestry, then this classification system won't work in a practical sense.
Please.
I really like to learn even a single case that this ancestry-focused classification system is useful to solve a practical question.
What I meant is that if we do not involve the use of ancestry, then this classification system won't work in a practical sense.
where did the pesky evolutionist Euclides assumed a common ancestor when he came up with his famous distance formula:
A^2 = B^2 + C^2
If none of all this silliness is your assumptions (and I guess it is not if you are at least half as sane I suspect you are) then I challenge you to come up with a clustering algorithm that when apply on the distance matrix will not produce a nested hierarchy. If you cannot do that, then you must accept the fact that shared common ancestor is an observational fact - or continue deny the facts (which I suspect you will do).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?