Posted on 11/25/2005 8:34:07 AM PST by Exton1
Of course we do. You can verify it in most cases by inspection. Maximum parsimony is very similar to the traveling salesman problem. Understanding it isn't difficult. On a highly conserved protein, verifying it isn't difficult.
What I ask are fundamental questions regarding your technique. Again, running the algorithm is not conceptually difficult. There's nothing to understand, it's all shallow.
Indeed. It's transparent. A beautiful demonstration of molecular evolution, suitable for a freshman class.
Would appreciate clarification on just what all these skulls prove? Are you saying that these are "inter-species" examples as was mentioned in the earlier email?
Is this proof that you are presenting for evolution?
*eye roll*
Honestly, we try to beat that stuff out of them in calculus and you people just reinforce it all over again.
Maximum parsimony is very similar to the traveling salesman problem.
Interesting. Is there a fractional relaxation?
On a highly conserved protein, verifying it isn't difficult.
Again, this is the icky proof-by-example, I talked about. One of the reasons we hate this sort of thing is that it makes you reinvent the wheel everytime. Just show it works for all proteins. Or, better yet, for all strings on a fixed alphabet.
Indeed. It's transparent. A beautiful demonstration of molecular evolution, suitable for a freshman class.
Actually, it's a demonstration of a model which purports to...
But it seems to me that the results demonstrate that the Brownian-like motion is imprecise for determining the actual motion of particles. This does not contradict what I said. The math behind Brownian motion is solid.
You are posting under three or more identities.
"That's an expansion of harassment law"
Arrant drivel. It's not an "expansion" of anything. It's a rock bottom component of free exercise of religion--that is, the freedom to openly espouse a religion without fear of persecution.
"So a teacher can't even mock religion in his private life, because some fundie might dig it out and publicize it?"
On his blog, Scott Adams wrote a few paragraphs on Internet debate. This one applies to the statement above: 'Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.'
We're not talking about anyone's "private life" here. We're talking about what this moral leper in professor's garb did in his official capacity as a university employee. The only thing that was even arguably private was his admission of his misconduct. The offense itself shares no such claim.
"Fortunately, ou are as ignorant of the law as you are gutless about admitting to your posted threats."
It is truly disgusting to see such dishonesty here on FR. Accuse someone of saying something he didn't say, and from then on slur him for not "admitting" to your fabrication.
"An authoritarian attempt to gag those who disagree with you."
Buncombe. It is an explanation of why your attempts to gag those who disagree is wrongful.
"You're not a conservative, you're a fascist."
No conservative slings around the "F" word like that. You're a troll, posting under multiple identities.
"constructive criticism <> mockery
pointless vicious criticism = mockery"
I think one can also say that criticism at least tries to be reasonable, while mockery is just a form of persecution.
"faith, which is the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof. The second proposition (mother) is the kind of knowledge which follows from sensory evidence."
The problem with that, of course, is the assumption (Or should I say, 'adamantine prejudice?') that there is no equivalent or superior sensory evidence for the existence of God.
As so often turns out to be the case, that assumption is false.
constructive criticism <>
mockery pointless vicious criticism = mockery
I'd say that some of the most effective (even if vicious) criticism is mockery: for example, political cartoons. It cuts through pretense and hypocrisy. Satire can be extremely vicious, pointed, accurate, and constructive.
What stuff? Don't you get it? We're interested in generating trees. We care if the trees are unique. We care that the trees are correct. That is pretty much all we care about. In general, for the task of generating a tree for a 100 amino acid, highly conserved protein, over 20 organisms, you can generate a maximally parsimonious tree by brute force; heck, I can usually do it by inspection. But having a program certainly helps.
If I were doing bioinformatics research, I'd care about the scalability and computability of my algorithms. I'm not. I'm trying to show freshman students who often don't know what DNA is when the class starts, how the DNA of various species can be used to generate a tree of life.
Interesting. Is there a fractional relaxation?
I don't know, and care less.
Again, this is the icky proof-by-example, I talked about. One of the reasons we hate this sort of thing is that it makes you reinvent the wheel everytime. Just show it works for all proteins. Or, better yet, for all strings on a fixed alphabet.
Who's we? You and the small subset of other pure mathematicians with a chip on their shoulder about the real world?
As far as I'm concerned, mathematics is a tool for the sciences. We're happy to have mathematicians work out the gory details of algorithmic computability, on the admittedly over optimistic hope they might come up with something useful.
You're a troll, posting under multiple identities.
That's a ridiculously laughable assertion. I suggest you do you're homework.
Don't project your multiple personality disorder onto others. Your paranoia is showing.
It's a rock bottom component of free exercise of religion--that is, the freedom to openly espouse a religion without fear of persecution.
Aw, poor baby! Now mockery is persecution! Why, it could huwt yowa widdul feewings!
It is truly disgusting to see such dishonesty here on FR. Accuse someone of saying something he didn't say, and from then on slur him for not "admitting" to your fabrication.
You, in reference to academics, said the tree of liberty needed to be watered, and admitted that was a reference to Jefferson's saying about watering it with the blood of tyrants. You also called me a traitor, and said 'patriots' need to exercise their second amendment rights to protect their first amendment rights against traitors.
You're a troll, posting under multiple identities.
Liar. But hey, ask the mods to check.
Proof by inspection.
Who's we? You and the small subset of other pure mathematicians with a chip on their shoulder about the real world?
The real world is a special case.
As far as I'm concerned, mathematics is a tool for the sciences.
And that is why you fail, young padawan.
Mathematics is all things. It is all that we know. There are three forms of learning: Mathematics, experimentation, taxonomy.
Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge. Information in mathematics reverberates a thousand-fold across all sciences. Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it.
The next level is experimentation. While essential, it's intellectually lower on the scale.
Taxonomy just gives names to stuff and many economists have made a very good living at that.
We're happy to have mathematicians work out the gory details of algorithmic computability,
That is not mathematics. That is computer science. But they're good people.
It's funny, we never hear all these complaints about mockery when someone posts a Mark Steyn column (and Steyn mocks like Ted Williams hit a baseball). It seems it's, as usual, a question of whose ox is gored.
LOL!
Mathematics is all things. It is all that we know. There are three forms of learning: Mathematics, experimentation, taxonomy.
Nah. Math is what you do to check your conclusions when the real science is done.
Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge. Information in mathematics reverberates a thousand-fold across all sciences. Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it.
Oh, you know everything. I see (edging away).
The real world is a special case....
Mathematics is all things. It is all that we know....
Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge...
Trolling for attention now instead of just amusement?.
You guys remind me of a caveman. The mathematician is sitting around at his wheel store, and you walk by saying, "No thanks, I'll just invent it all over again. This hexagonal idea looks really promising."
Ah, so it's about me now. How scientific.
Ah, so it's about me now. How scientific.
Hmmm.. did I misunderstand that part where you said... "Mathematics is the highest form. It encompasses all high-order knowledge. Information in mathematics reverberates a thousand-fold across all sciences. Or to put it simply: I know everything, I just don't know what you choose to call it. ?
Sounded to me like you were talking about 'you'. I guess when you are trolling, it is all about YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.