Imitating biology

[shunyadragon]

I think I got the description right, though.

No you did not.

No, that was just a way of giving an analogy to their model.

Analogies are only useful for layman examples that do not understand the science, and you habitually misrepresent the analogies . You need to step up and address the science involved. You will not see these analogies in peer reviewed scientific articles.

I found something pretty close. And are you saying MIT is wrong?

Blessings,
Lee

Your use of the reference is what is wrong.

[TheLurch]

I think I got the description right, though.

You did not, when asked to describe details of what you quoted.

No, that was just a way of giving an analogy to their model.

You're so close to getting the point. Nothing there was a model; everything there was an analogy. It's all just a way of helping people to understand genetic drift.

I found something pretty close. And are you saying MIT is wrong?

No, i'm saying you don't know how to understand what MIT is saying.

[lee_merrill]

You did not, when asked to describe details of what you quoted.

I did, too! You said "adsorbing boundaries" was a technical term, that is no refutation for describing that term.

You're so close to getting the point. Nothing there was a model; everything there was an analogy. It's all just a way of helping people to understand genetic drift.

No, it's a way of modeling genetic drift:

"Though the math is more complicated than we’d like to go into here, the formalism of a random walk with adsorbing boundaries can be used to predict the average amount of time it takes for a population with an initial fraction exhibiting a trait to reach fixation or loss. We can also analyze the probability of fixation or loss occurring given the initial fraction of the population with the given trait." (MIT)

Blessings,
Lee

[shunyadragon]

I did, too! You said "adsorbing boundaries" was a technical term, that is no refutation for describing that term.


No, it's a way of modeling genetic drift:

"Though the math is more complicated than we’d like to go into here, the formalism of a random walk with adsorbing boundaries can be used to predict the average amount of time it takes for a population with an initial fraction exhibiting a trait to reach fixation or loss. We can also analyze the probability of fixation or loss occurring given the initial fraction of the population with the given trait." (MIT)

Blessings,
Lee

No. Your repeating yourself and The Lurch already corrected you.

[TheLurch]

I did, too! You said "adsorbing boundaries" was a technical term, that is no refutation for describing that term.

I actually wrote a complete sentence, which includes more than the phrase "technical term". Please read the whole thing and try again.

No, it's a way of modeling genetic drift:

Let's back out to the big picture, shall we?

I've checked, and every link you've provided in this argument is nothing more than something from the first page of a google search for "random walk genetic drift". You're basically not understanding anything more than how to do an internet search.

You've not been able to come up with a single academic paper that uses a random walk to model genetic drift.

You've had it shown that, mathematically, the results of a random walk are zero only for the average of a population.

You've had it described how, because of the properties of mutation (a direct reversal of a mutation being extremely rare), DNA sequences will always diverge from their original state over time.

You've had it described how we've actually seen in genomic sequences that genetic drift causes sequences to diverge over time.

You've had all the aspects of biology that aren't captured by a random walk - founder effects, population bottlenecks, etc. - all make a random walk a bad model for real world populations.

Any single one of these should be enough to indicate you're wrong. Collectively, they are overwhelming evidence you're wrong. Yet here you are, still arguing you're right.

Is there anything that could possibly convince you you're wrong?