[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 466 KB, 1200x1275, husky pug wolf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793245 No.14793245 [Reply] [Original]

how can a husky and a pug have the same genetic closeness to a wild gray wolf when their phenotypes are so different and one looks so much more like the gray wolf?

>> No.14793298

>>14793245
Chimpanzees and humans are closer (except chromosome #).

>> No.14793326

>>14793245
Theres no concept of genetic closeness that you could understand as some number indicating " distance" as the wording suggests. DNA is not a number you can use to calculate distances or percentages.
Tell me what is the distance between the books Tom Clancy's Red October and Cervante's Don Quixote? State your answer in centimeters or as a percentage.

>> No.14793335 [DELETED] 

>>14793326
Are you joking? "Closeness" in this case obviously indicates the amount of shared DNA.

>> No.14793344

>>14793245
do they?

>> No.14793347

>>14793335
DNA is not a number. You can't even define what "shared" means in this context.

>> No.14793367 [DELETED] 
File: 124 KB, 726x750, 352423.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793367

>DNA is not a number. You can't even define what "shared" means in this context.

>> No.14793388 [DELETED] 

>>14793347
>You can't even define what "shared" means in this context
And if it were a number what that change?

Your arguing is stupid. Not only do you present your answer as a critique of the question and a condescending attitude, you fail to simply say that the DNA can be looked at in a meaningful for this question way only in it's entirety.

>> No.14793416

>>14793367
>>14793388
Write down an algorithm to calculate the "share" between two chains of DNA. Protip: You can't.

>> No.14793425 [DELETED] 

>>14793416
Literally all you had to do was type "genetic distance" into the search bar, you dumb nigger.

>> No.14793427

>>14793416
It's pretty frequently done in genetic testing for ancestry. Gray wolves and coyotes are "closer" than Europeans and Sub-Saharans for example.

>> No.14793429

Almost like it takes a long time for species to diverge and until then many traits are superficial.

>> No.14793471

>>14793425
>>14793427
No such thing exists. There isnt some algebraic operation defined on DNA where you can take two chains and calculate the "difference" " distance" " share" or whatever fuzzy analogy you want to use to insinuate something you can't possibly calculate.
You think just because two things exist that you can pretend you can do common mathematics on them? How much is an orange x apple+rock? Thought so, nigger

>> No.14793535

>>14793471
Of course you can. It's based on the amount of overlap in groups from known group-specific genes and things like haplogroups which have (literally) mathematically defined comparability.

How do you think they plot the relatedness of human subspecies? Mathematics.

>> No.14793539

>>14793326
THIIIIS!!!!!
There is only one race, the human race.
Open borders and vaccinate, fellow clampers.

>> No.14793560

>>14793471
Lol. We can find closeness to discriminate relations between siblings and their parents, uncles, grandparents.... differentiation based on race is just a continuation. There are entire industries of paternity testing and DNA analysis based on this.
You are gravely uneducated, its embarrassing to read your posts.

>> No.14793583

>>14793535
>and things like haplogroups
So you don't know what you are talking about and you are going by memes now? Clearly you dont have a clue. You keep saying you know some secret DNA algebra yet you cant say what it is. Faking confidence isn't going to save you this time, you either explain in mathematical terms how you calculate "genetic distance" or you stay exposed as a pseud
>>14793560
>We can find closeness to discriminate relations
You can't do shit with whole DNA chains, even if they were digitalized and turned into a computing problem. Things like paternity tests involve comparing a few randomly picked genes where you are already expecting similarities (no similarity would imply no father-son relation, but that doesnt allow you to cook some "distance" number, its either yes/no answer). You cant use that as a method for comparing two random different DNA chains. Not as a generalization nor an extension of paternity tests.

>> No.14793649

>>14793326
>>14793347
>>14793471
>>14793583
>this is the type of braindead retard that posts on /sci/ in twenty ought twenty two
Which do you think is closer:
AAAAA and AAAAB or AAAAA and ABCDE?

There are absolutely algorithms for determining which determine how closely related species are. This is BIO 101 stuff.

>> No.14793669

>>14793649
>There are absolutely algorithms for determining which determine how closely related species are. This is BIO 101 stuff.
Post the algorith then

>> No.14793689
File: 226 KB, 874x631, TextSimilarity.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14793689

>>14793326
>Tell me what is the distance between the books Tom Clancy's Red October and Cervante's Don Quixote? State your answer in centimeters or as a percentage.
You're an idiot. Distance metrics are EXACTLY what you use for measuring text similarity. You can represent basically anything as a vector of numbers, and you can take a distance metric for two vectors.
Cosine similarity is used constantly in measuring distance between consumer products / UI selection options in predictive marketing and recommendation systems.
Facial recognition software for the security industry uses k-NN to find the distance between people's faces on camera and faces on watchlists.

>> No.14793698

>>14793689
Fantastic, so are you going to post the algorithm to calculate the distance between DNA chains? Post the one for text too

>> No.14793701

>>14793669
Euclidean distance you tard. Learn the Pythagorean theorem and you'll magically have one of the methods that have been used to measure genetic distance.

>> No.14793707

>>14793698
double util::cosinesimilarity(vector<double> set1, vector<double> set2){

double x = 0;

double y = 0;

vector<double>::iterator i;

for (i = set1.begin(); i != set1.end(); i++){

x += pow(*i,2);

}

for (i = set2.begin(); i != set2.end(); i++){

y += pow(*i,2);

}

>> No.14793710

>>14793707
return dotproduct(set1,set2) / (sqrt(x) * sqrt(y));

}

>> No.14793721

>>14793701
Euclidean distance of what? Oh let me guess. You are gonna assign a RANDOM numerical value to every element in a chain to make it Le Vector and play like an euclidean distance. So your "calculation" involves complete random numerical values. And you choose an euclidean metric? What does that have to do with biology. More randomness.
Too bad your random-ass method doesnt even work when chains have different length. Because they do. Same as different books have different lengths.
Bet you are feeling pretty stupid right now

>> No.14793731

>>14793710
This doesnt even work when chains have a different length. So your method is useless as an actual program because it would just return an error. Notwithstanding how unstable and random it is. I could have accepted such randomness if it was an agreed ipon standard, but your alleged method is mathematically impossible for any real DNA chains

>> No.14793734

>>14793721
lol, I really hope you're just baiting, but either way kill yourself.

>> No.14793740 [DELETED] 

>>14793734
He's not baiting. This is the intellectual level of the nuchanner reddit plants.

>> No.14793742

>>14793731
>This doesnt even work when chains have a different length.
THEY'RE VECTORS YOU IDIOT
HOLY SHIT

>> No.14793755

>>14793742
So what? You are trying to represent a DNA chain with a vector and the do a dot product but such an operation is not defined if the vectors have a different dimension. You cant actually do the mathematical operation you pretend you can do. Your algorithm is fake.

>> No.14794812

>>14793245
>how can two places be at an equal distance from a third?
probably a new low for /sci/. plus, dogs don't descend from 'the wolf', meaning the eurasian wolf.

>> No.14794819

Huskies aren't related to wolves at all. In fact huskies are a divergent lineage compared to other wolves, they're not closely related to any other breed of dog. They're also less closely related to wolves than other dogs, surprisingly enough.

>> No.14794838

>>14794819
*compared to other dogs
They're known as a "basal breed" meaning that they're not closely related to modern dogs. Other basal breeds include the akita inu, the basenji and the chow chow. Huskies are even an outgroup to other basal breeds, which is wild.

>> No.14794842
File: 143 KB, 960x720, Wolf_Dog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
14794842

>>14793245

>> No.14795000

Everyone in this thread but me is retarded for not mentioning Levenshtein distance or n-grams
By the way, Levenshtein distance can compare strings of different lengths; that's not part of the definition of a distance metric

>> No.14795009

>>14795000
You just like saying "Levenshtein" dont you?

>> No.14795034

>>14794838
so the common ancestor to dogs and huskies is literally the wolf?

>> No.14795037

>>14795009
Maybe

>> No.14795057

>>14795000
I just couldn't remember the name of it: >>14793649

>> No.14795208

Yeah I think we have multiple breeds of human.

All of the 1% globally are white and asian, the difference between someone in top 1% and 10% is significient even if we are comparing money say compare fitness where once again this replicates asians and whites with some sport exceptions.
Lawyers same deal.

There's no way in hell we are one species.

>> No.14795239

>>14795057
Lmao you are the retard that said genetic distance was measured with an euclidean metric.
Tell me what are the random numerical values you assign for Guanine, cytosine, adenine and thymine in a DNA chain when you are cooking your "euclidean vector"?

>> No.14795328

>>14793471
So incest is impossible because genetics are a poem and genetic closeness is a meme?

>> No.14796596

>>14793245
pugs just carry all the crappy genetics that lay dormant in wolves i guess

>> No.14796643

>>14793347
>DNA is not a number
DNA is literally a number. You can even encode binary data onto it.

>> No.14797381

>>14794842
you are telling me that if I taught generations of wolves to catch rats they'd shrink down to their size in time? woah

>> No.14797412

>>14794842
it's actually not evolution at all

>> No.14798070

>>14796643
Ok tell me how you do algebra on dna chains

>> No.14798448

>>14798070
Numbers themselves aren't calculators. But if the right proteins were made for quaternary operations, it would be possible.

>> No.14798455 [DELETED] 

Shapedata is suprisingly efficient and a very minimal portion of dna. I wouldn't rely on it to easily establish species. This is why even within a heteromorphic species like humans, you still see so much diversity while allowing to reproduce.

This is also how a nigger is still argued to be the same species as human.

>> No.14798460 [DELETED] 

>>14793689
This, it's like the retard doesn't even understand how non linear curve fitters are made in the AI world and applied to so many abstractions.

>> No.14798466 [DELETED] 

>>14794842
Artificial selection is not evolution unless you're claiming that our hand picking of genes upon each generation of organism is entirely naturally dictioned. Upon which I will then tell you to shut the fuck up, because the words exist and I'm going to uphold the entire spectrum until every concept is fully separated without intrepable overlap. Your words should be subject to the same concision as mathematics.

>> No.14798576

>>14798460
DNA chains are not vectors nor can be represented as such. Tell me the numerical value of an "cytosine" or a "guanine". Tell me how to do a dot product between vectors of different dimension. Protip: You cant.
You are so stupid that you are not even aware that the operation you can use to measure a distance between DNA chains is Levenshtein distance but in your idiocy you think its some kind of euclidean geometry problem because of your 6th grade education

>> No.14798605 [DELETED] 

>>14798576
>DNA chains aren't data

You're just simply not that smart, so I'm certainly not going to give you a detailed dissertation. I seriously doubt after witnessing most of your arguments in this thread after walking in so late that you'll ever do anything but grasp at straws eternally.

Keep seething while the rest of us utilize arbitrary values to coheed self-relevant control over our environment. We'll be applying eugenics and all sorts of novelties and you'll be angrily arguing semantics to stroke your ego as if your opinion was essential to the function of the universe.


Hahaha.

>> No.14798627

>>14798605
Ok so ill write down two DNA chains and you calculate the distance
Chain 1: AG
Chain 2: GGC
Really short chains, go ahead and calculate the numerical value of the "euclidean/ curve fitting" data. You should be able to do it on a napkin since these chains have only 2 and 3 elements instead of the billions of a real DNA chain

>> No.14798661 [DELETED] 

>>14798627
>gives me exactly enough variables to demonstrate a visual model with simple triginometry

Dude, why are you even still posting? Hahaha, you're not even worth opening ms-paint over. You've been btfo'd by plenty enough other people here for me to know that you're very upset right now and have already long since fallen upon the sword of your ego, already making its death spasms hoping to scrape some pitiful meaning from the fleeting incursion.

Go smoke a bowl of weed or something, go touch grass.

>> No.14798921

>>14794819
Is huskies are basal then they also are closer to wolves compared to other dogs

>> No.14798939

>>14798921
my dick is closer to ur mum than other dicks

>> No.14799081

Anything at a scale higher than organic chemistry is only observable and not comprehendible. Anything at a lower scale is only comprehendible and not observable. You cannot have both.

>> No.14799096

>>14793245
socioeconomic factors

>> No.14800115

>>14798661
OP btfo, he can't even reply

>> No.14800275

>>14793755
You're pretending to be retarded

>> No.14800653

>>14793245
They aren't. The husky is less genetically divergent from the wolf than the pug is.

>> No.14800833

Closest to the wolf is the poodle. How do you like them Granny Smiths?