Timeline for Can estimating the likelihood of protein sequences adopting functional enzyme folds show life is too complex for evolutionary timescales?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 8, 2023 at 16:49 | answer | added | arara | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 9:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackBiology/status/783239121200418816 | ||
| Sep 23, 2016 at 20:23 | comment | added | swbarnes2 | You might find some useful analysis of the paper here: pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/01/92-second-st-fa.html | |
| Sep 21, 2016 at 4:59 | history | edited | James | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 20, 2016 at 7:55 | history | edited | James | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 41 characters in body
|
| Sep 20, 2016 at 7:52 | comment | added | James | @David The guidelines on questions aren't entirely clear in this case. This could be seen as a give me teh codes question, however I think the complex methods are indeed exceptional and asking whether they can have conclusion X drawn from them is a valid question. We disagree on Elsevier's right to ownership (they legally own it, but I'm an open access idealist), but you're right; you've lost when you start swearing! | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 7:41 | comment | added | James | @David I've asked similar questions about skeptically analyzing conclusions drawn from articles. It certainly shouldn't be closed because of Elseviers shameless paywalls. Often abstracts don't include some observations, particularly long technical papers with advanced and nuanced methods like this. +1 good question. | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 6:32 | comment | added | David | @James — I have no objection to Elsevier charging for what is there's. Your language is another matter. Even if the article were not behind a paywall the question is unsuitable for SE Biology as it requires one to read a paper and then imagine a third party's attitude to it. If you ask similar types of questions they too should be closed. The guidelines on writing questions are quite clear. | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 3:35 | answer | added | James | timeline score: 3 | |
| Sep 20, 2016 at 3:18 | history | edited | James | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 160 characters in body
|
| Sep 19, 2016 at 21:52 | review | Close votes | |||
| Sep 20, 2016 at 3:18 | |||||
| Sep 19, 2016 at 21:33 | comment | added | David | I appreciate the way you phrased your question in terms of appropriateness, and the good will of the person that gave you an answer, but this is really not an appropriate question. The main reason is that it is not comprehensible as it stands. First one is required to go elsewhere to read a paper (which happens to be behind a paywall), and second the paper (at least the summary) makes no reference to evolutionary time. Thus, we do not know what argument your acquaintance is making. So, with reluctance, I am voting to close the question unless you can edit it to make it fully self-contained. | |
| Sep 19, 2016 at 12:46 | vote | accept | dshulgin | ||
| Sep 19, 2016 at 7:58 | answer | added | VonBeche | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 18, 2016 at 19:11 | comment | added | dshulgin | In addition. As i understand, this man considered linear exhaustive search of nucleotides. As i understand it is wrong, because genetics and evolution algorithms are optimized exhaustive search. | |
| Sep 18, 2016 at 18:54 | history | edited | MattDMo | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2016 at 15:14 | history | asked | dshulgin | CC BY-SA 3.0 |