Talk:Analysis of the Lenski Paper

Good stuff, Toffeeman. But would you agree the article might be better if you depersonalised it a bit? It's not ideal to write so much from a first-person perspective. DogP 13:27, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, we need this. I've been meaning to give it a shot myself, but just didn't get round to it. When Toffeeman has finished his first draft no doubt others will join in. I see that he's taken on your suggestion of removing the "I". --Bob^{bing up} 14:30, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

We need to add something on Potentiating mutations too.--Bob^{bing up} 15:00, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Sorry Toffeeman. I thought you'd taken a break on this so I was doing a bit of formatting linking and stuff. I see you're still on it though so I'll keep out of your way for a while.--Bob^{bing up} 15:19, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

I am winding down now (Sunday evening glass of red). Thanks for all the edits - it's beginning to look quite reasonable.--Toffeeman 15:46, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

You can lay back and dream of the possibility of a Dudu or Engelaar arrival.... DogP 15:50, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Whoosh! That's gone straight over my head. Who are they? --Toffeeman 16:02, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Heavens to Betsy Toffeeman! Only some of your rumoured summer striker transfers! DogP 13:29, 7 July 2008 (EDT)

They ain't coming. Nobody's coming. I don't study the rumours, it only depresses me. Don't know why - I'm usually convinced that we'll win the Premiership (at a canter) - but this pre-season I am down. So is everybody I know. Hey! Maybe we could used a logical fallacy here.

1. Every year I am convinced we'll win the premiership (C) 2. Every year we fail (not-W) 3. (Inductively) C then not-W 4. This year I am not convinced (not-C) 5. (Denying the antecedent) W! We will win it this year.

--Toffeeman 06:18, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Sidebar

Not that this has anything to do with the paper but something I thought of whilst perusing point 1 under the Wild conclusions (ours, not the team's!) and further questions section. This concerns the "no new information" canard, which should be dispelled by this puppy right here. You might want to add it as a ref or a footnote, but I'll leave it to the smrat people editing this page. CЯacke® 18:12, 6 July 2008 (EDT)

Bizarre section cut from page to here

Poker analogy The paper begins by characterising natural selection as a determining process that needs a random process, mutation, in order for novelty to arise. Evolution is a combination of deterministic natural selection acting on the raw materials of random mutation.

For the purposes of this layman's commentary, we shall make use of a Poker analogy - though of course the paper itself uses no such explanatory device. Poker is a game that is built on deterministic decisions (betting and folding) being made on purely random data. In the variant called “Texas hold 'em” each player receives two cards face down, from a shuffled pack, before decisions are taken. High pairs, two Aces or two Kings are particularly strong hands and a player, if exceptionally cautious, may decide to enter the betting only if he receives such a hand. We can crudely characterise the “Cummulative” position as mirroring this situation. Mutation corresponds to the shuffling of the deck and the deals, the decisions of the player corresponds to natural selection. Each shuffle and deal is completely independent of earlier shuffles and, if he sits there long enough, the player can expect to receive a high pair to play at some point. If we know the betting habits of the player we will be able to predict that, at some point, he’s going to play a high pair. The “high pair” will evolve, all you have to do is sit and wait.

The “Contingent” position is that future shuffles are, partly, determined by previous shuffles. Indeed the deck itself is partly determined by previous shuffles. If our player plays from Monday to Sunday then the chance things that happen on Monday affect the possibility of what type of thing can happen on Tuesday. As the range of possibilities (the deck) changes the player may be sitting in the game when there are neither Aces nor Kings in the deck (they may be “Baces” and “Dings” instead). In such a situation, even if we know that the player will bet if he has a high pair, we cannot predict that he will play a high pair.

Not only does most of this not make any sense, it's not even right. And added nothing of use to the article. ħuman 04:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)