Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
- From: John Harshman <jharshman.diespamdie@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:04:13 GMT
rev.goetz wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
rev.goetz wrote:
Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word review of
molecular evolution?
Everything is standard science up till the discussion. Then I consider
the possibility of teleology.
The formating for some of the equations will not hold in a copy and
paste to the newsgroup. So if anybody is interested, I will have to
email the text in an rtf document.
Post it with the equations removed, or reformatted, or merely described.
Generally a review article doesn't deal with equations, so I'm puzzled
as to what they might be.
This could look ugly. I tried to use "^" for all exponants. I hope that
I caught all of them.
It got very ugly. Your line length is too long and you have hard returns
that leave an extra blank line after every one. Reformat. The equations
seem fine, though.
Statistical Probability in the Evolution of Mendelian Populations
By James Goetz
Abstract
The evolution of Mendelian populations has some mechanics that have a
high statistical probability while
other mechanics have a low statistical probability, where a high
probability is equal to or greater than .95
while a low probability is equal to or less than .05 (an arbitrary
decision). The high probability mechanics
include the occurrence of mutations in new generations, purifying
selection, the selection of slightly
advantageous mutations that frequently recur, the selection of highly
advantageous mutations, biased gene
conversion, and some elements of neutral molecular evolution. The low
probability mechanics include the
drift of specific neutral mutations, the selection of slightly
advantageous mutations that rarely recur, and
polygenic Mendelism. A review of these mechanics and statistical
probabilities suggest that assuming the
[shown as an example of the problem. remainder snipped]
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Science In The Bible
- Next by Date: Re: Evidence for Big Leaps?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
- Next by thread: Re: Does anybody want to proofread and criticize a 7000 plus word
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
