Data Mining

[raross]

No, it is simple. Data mining has nothing to do with databases because you can practice it without using a database.

>That's true (I read that data mining was designed to find patterns in data across enterprises of databases most structured some unstructured); however, you still need data.

You guys are being very superficial when you talk about data mining. You have to look at what you're actually doing, it does not matter where you get your data.

>Good point. Again you need data.

However, when you practice data mining, you could also use a database, but they are seperate. As data mining really has nothing to do with a database.

>Data mining needs data to produce information.

As for the DNA business, the genetic code at this point has no structure. So I would say you're assuming too much about the evolutionary business.

> Sure it does. That's why species replicate into species of the same species for example.

You could assume there is a set of guys on the alphabet {A,C,G,T} that forms a language. But there is currently no substantial proof to support your assumptions. By looking at the superficial stuff such as evolution and species etc, you can come to conclusions, but I could take a superfical ideal and come up with counter examples as well.

I agree, there is a statistical structure known in genes, hence gene finders which use HMM's, but these are very specific to organims. Thus, it really is not a genetic code structure at all, if you could even call statistical distributions a structure. But because of these statistics in genes, there may be a language L over N genes on the alphabet.

The major differences in the genetic structure between the two genomes of humans and chimps are substantial. So I agree with you there. But I said, 99.99% of the genes are identical. I believe when you give a figure like 85% you might be talking about the "junk" DNA, that seems to happen randomly. In any case, one could easily analyze these two genomes, simply by using a resource like NCBI or EMBL or even Data mining .

 

[Aspirin]

No offense friend whatsoever, and I appreciate your comments, but how you can just skip over what I'm saying is beyond me. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

 

[raross]

No offense friend whatsoever, and I appreciate your comments, but how you can just skip over what I'm saying is beyond me. I mean what I say and I say what I mean.

I do not have enough time to reply to everything you said, sorry about that. But it seemed like you just took a topic and started waving your hands with no substantial evidence. Even though, what you said is what most people understand and believe, so I understand, and some of it I agree with at this point in time.

Another relation to this problem is the skelton example, where there are many nonactive genes in the human genome caused by evolution. I agree with you about microevolution, but that is what we are dealing with, no.

 

[Aspirin]

Apparently the models that you've been exposed to and adopted as your belief system, forming your worldview, have been limited to classical models (the Multi-Regional model, Out of Africa model, etc..). That's too bad for there certainly are other, even better, testable origin of humanity and origin of life models emerging quite different than those. Just for the sake of opening you out of your shell a bit; one of them doesn't rely upon pure naturalism. You probably don't even know what I'm talking about. Worse, you might actually think you do. No sense even continuing the discussion until you come up to speed. Peace.

 

[raross]

Apparently the models that you've been exposed to and adopted as your belief system, forming your worldview, have been limited to classical models (the Multi-Regional model, Out of Africa model, etc..). That's too bad for there certainly are other, even better, testable origin of humanity and origin of life models emerging quite different than those. Just for the sake of opening you out of your shell a bit; one of them doesn't rely upon pure naturalism. You probably don't even know what I'm talking about. Worse, you might actually think you do. No sense even continuing the discussion until you come up to speed. Peace.

You have been the one that is going on about these models you learned in a highschool biology class. I have hardly even said anything about them because of there superficialness. I thought we were going to have an intelligent conversation, not just repreat things you heard people say or read online.

 

[Aspirin]

Not at all raross. I network with professors at CalTech. You're way off on every point.

 

[raross]

Not at all raross. I network with professors at CalTech. You're way off on every point.

You network with guys from calpoly that teach introductory biology? I do not understand your point, every statement I made you said absolutly nothing about. You just simply change the topic to these superficial theories you learned in an intro biology class.

Everytime you bring up these superficial theories I have agreed with you on most of the points. They seem feesible from a childs point of view. It seems you are either argueing with yourself on your own points or you are simply saying I am off on every point because you do not understand what I am saying?

Just because you say you network with profs from cal poly does not make them credible resources. If you ever tried getting a paper accepted to a world class conference/journal you should know that it is all about politics. Someday you might have the chance to play the political game, but not until you realize it.

 

[Aspirin]

Haha... raross you are cracking me up. I'm not the enemy. And it's CalTech not CalPoly. Totally different. A quantum leap up in knowledge and understanding. No children here.

I understand that you are struggling with what I am saying because you don't understand what I am saying and have not been exposed to the information. That's ok though. We've all been there and done it. It's normal at some stage. Even Eistein did it (specifically in his battle with quantum physics [and he was a frequent visiting professor at CalTech by the way which is the MIT of the west coast]).

Rather than take the time to mount a defense (which really would consist of just providing a lot of valuable, verifiable, emperical information to you in a structured manner designed to open you to new alternative testable models which I think would help you in your journey... again information you haven't been exposed to yet). I'll just exhort you to keep learning friend, plenty of studies are being conducted and have been conducted with resulting scholarly publications regarding what I stated. And a person like you who views education as life long, which I certainly do, will probably be exposed to it at some point. I can provide you with a list of scholarly references relevant to the specific assertions I made if you are really interested. Again though, if bias or pride are in your path it will do you no good. Anyways, I'm busy believe me constantly learning, qualifying, and applying what I learn. And there's a lot more to learn, as you well know.

If I make elequent arguments fully supported, a biased person will not even read and consider them. They will just react. They are predisposed not to. That goes for all of us including my astute friends involved in post doctrial work beyond my understanding.

Honestly, I argue with you like I do one of my brothers (which means I like and respect you based on the aggregate of your posts). The best science professors I have met argue constantly, in a friendly manner, as means of promoting science (this approach has its basis in the scientific method). I'm working today so have to keep going. Definitely not the time or will to prepare proper arguments dealing with origin of life and origin of humanity right now on a computer forum. So you get instead an exhortation to go back and qualify what I have already posted and develop that with an eye toward the aggregate. Let's see if you do it or not . Stop kicking at me and start qualifying what I already posted friend. Peace.

 

[raross]

uhhh? Ok? I am wondering if you can even read what you're posting or better yet what I am posting. You are fighting with yourself, which is pretty humorous. I would like to see your publications. But if you do indeed have any please link me. If you do have any, then they are most likely journalism like youÂ’re doing now. Taking a superficial topic that any 8th grader learned and trying to make it into a big deal.

After repeating myself numerous times, let me repeat myself again. I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRIVIAL MATTER OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE OR WHATEVER YOU ARE BICKERING ABOUT. Frankly I do not give two shits about it. It is a superficial topic and I would not debate it with anyone because it would be wasted time. I wanted to have an intelligent conversation, but I have realized in previous posts that this will never happen with such an arrogant and superficial person as yourself. Good day ?

PS: Last time I checked stanford was the top school on the west coast. But it does not matter if you're not involved in what the school has to offer. So why even mention it?

 

[Aspirin]

raross, easy does it. It's just a discussion. Peace friend.