[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Rconstructing DNA (was Re: Dino-fuzz found in amber?)
Since other things are very cosmetic, I will concentrate in only one point.
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> Roberto Takata <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> I've showed how it works well even for a chicken/croc comparison. The
>> technique gives the right answer to the first position in ambiguous
>> codon eight times in 14 cases.
> Ummm... 8/14 not particularly impressive. Especially considering it's
> just the FIRST codon position. What's your success rate for the third
> position - the position that most readily reaches saturation.
You could regard it as unimpressive. It is your opinion. But it is not
a matter of opinion that it is an *improvement*.
(I regard it as a good improvement - yes, just a opinion too -
considering that it used just two organisms and a distantly related
one - more distantly than T-rex and chicken.)
For the third position the technique predicted accurately 27 of 55 (it
remains ambiguous in 2 cases, and was wrong in 26 cases).