This DePat Tuesday Open Thread honors the author of the original Tuesday open thread on this site, namely the late Susie Sampson, a.k.a. Deplorable Patriot, among her other handles, pen names, etc.
For more on the untimely passing of Dear DePat, please see these three posts.
At one time, DePat handled FOUR daily open threads here, in addition to taking care of her relatives, choir duties, and numerous other responsibilities. She was a powerhouse – a dynamo – a true force of nature.
DePat’s faith in Trump, Q, “The Plan”, the White Hats, and “the anons” in general, was legendary. Although I didn’t always agree with her quick acceptance of some sketchier evidence and fringier theories, I will gladly admit to “coming around” to numerous so-called “conspiracy theories” which she championed first. I was always careful to give her credit for being right, too, when I had been wrong.
It is impossible to overstate how much DePat did for not only this site, but for her country. I urge all to say a quick prayer of thanks, whenever you think of her, for the privilege of knowing, in life or after death, such an exemplary human being, and lover of God.
And thank you, Susie, for the firm foundation which you left us, when you were called to your true home!
The Myths and Realities of Human/Ape “Similarity” Numbers
If you have ever read or heard something about the genetic similarity of humans and (other) apes, and were suspicious of the numbers – whether you’re a fan or skeptic of evolution – then you were absolutely right to be suspicious.
This video, by an evolutionist who is something of an expert in the topic, will explain WHY you should be suspicious of genetic similarity numbers.
She is able to make this topic understandable, but unfortunately, it can get a bit boring, too. Grab some coffee and maybe some cookies.
The TL;DR is that there are an infinite number of ways to measure similarity, with completely different meanings, and every one has pluses and minuses. The worst thing – the thing that you can’t do – is mixing and matching different measurements. By one standard, 99.5% and 99.2% is a huge difference in similarities, but by a different one, 75% and 65% are almost the same, no big deal. By one standard, 99% similarity means it’s the same species at the same time. By another standard, 99% similarity could be two species that cannot interbreed, and one is a fossil.
Pretty meaningless, if you’re not extremely careful. The numbers change rapidly between methods, as you will see.
I am familiar with this problem, having designed similarity metrics for certain types of searched data at “Shallow State”. What one learns to do is to observe how the metric behaves, and interpret the results based on the metric, NOT based on what you think “100%”, “99%”, “95%”, “75%”, “50%”, and other values, should mean. If the metric works well for your purposes, that’s all you need. If it works perfectly for your most important cases, even better.
The numbers mean what THEY mean, not what YOU THINK they should mean. You will see this in spades, in the video.
Erika uses a “provocative question” about orangutans as a phony but effective way to get people to listen to an introductory lecture on similarity metrics in comparative genomics. If you listen all the way through, you get to hear her joke about this at the end. You also get to hear her excellent perspective about how massive the differences are between humans and (other) apes, in whatever percentage difference a particular metric gives.
And by then, you will be 100% skeptical of similarity numbers without explanation and context.
And with that, let’s get started.
W
100% WOLF
And remember…….
Until victory, have faith!
And trust the big plan, too!
And as always….
ENJOY THE SHOW
W
