RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 554
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 26 2011,10:31   

Quote (CeilingCat @ May 26 2011,04:45)
niwrad is at it again:      
Quote
In a previous post I provided a statistical test to compare chimpanzee and human genomes. As you can read there, the post generated a very interesting discussion among the readers, and it seemed to me that the general feeling at the end was that my statistical method for performing genome-wide comparisons might have some merit, after all.

That's because you only read the heavily censored responses that were allowed on UD.  In Real Life™, you got clobbered for one of the most clueless methods of comparing two genomes ever thought up.

ETA: I've had a chance to read the original post and it's worse than I remembered.  niwrad's "method" was to chop two strings of DNA into 30 base pair pieces and compare the pieces.  He measures about a 2/3 similarity instead of the expected 99%.  Clearly (and I am using the word in the ID sense of "stupidly"), the evilutionist scientists are wrong, wrong, wrong.  

In the third reply in that thread, AMW asks him if two strings that match in 29 places and differ in one place counts as a match.  niwrad answers that it doesn't.

In the rest of the thread, niwrad never quite figures out that if two strings of DNA are 99% identical, then they have, on the average, one mismatch per every 100 base pairs or, in other words, approximately one of each three 30 bp segments will have one mismatched pair of bases in it, thus giving you approximately a 2/3rds match.

And now he's back to do a victory lap.  I love UD!


ETAM (Edited to add more)  In the original post, read replies 19 from charlesj and niwrad's response at 24, then charlesj at 26 & 27 and niwrad's response at 29.  This is better than "Who's on first!"  I particularily like:    
Quote
Since 1.63 is lesser than 2.3 I wouldn’t say that the 30BMP test agrees well with a 1% difference, rather with a larger difference.

You can't write stuff that good!  I will give a bright shiny nickle to anybody who can come up with anything better (using "better" in the ID sense of "mentally thicker").

It's also great fun to watch AMW going around and around with batsass77.

Why chop them into pieces?  Why not compare a whole strand of chimp DNA with a whole strand of human DNA and decide that if they differ in any way, you have a 0% match.  Therefore jesus.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]