Stack Exchange
log in

y chung

 Discussion on answer by Fizz: Is SARS…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
y chung
Mar 22, 2020 05:31
@John Slegers Believe me, you wont get that far by having bioinformatics derived evidence for both lab-modified and wild animal direct zoonotic origin, there are far too few samples to have anything meaningful other than a qualitative judgment because China has suppressed any necessary investigation, and the quality of the samples are not well-verified either.
 

 Discussion on question by John Sleger…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@JohnSlegers That preprint is bullxxxx for many reasons, the inserts they claimed that correspond to HIV are very short sequences, you probably would find it in human (and a lot other organisms) protein sequence as well. There are too many suggestive and cherry-picking elements, with too little evidence and validation to backup.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@JohnSlegers I would like to see some follow ups from the Taiwan prof. It is too premature to conclusively suggest a lab-modified/made virus. But as I said, relying on so few samples won't get us that far nonethless.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@DavePhD That nature article contains very questionable claims. First in the abstract it says (clearly show not lab manipulated), then in the conclusion it says (more samples and analyses are needed). The reasoning is a bit of a stretch too. Basically, it says the virus does not have the optimal binding solution according to computational model so it is not manipulated...The second reason is a bit better but far from being able to conclusively rule out lab-modification as well.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@Oddthinking Unfortunately, a conclusive answer is unlikely, with China itself suppressing all evidence and investigation of either the animal market and virus lab as well as a lack of evidence that points to possbility that it comes from a place outside China.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@JohnSlegers If anything, that article points to multiple collaboration (not a unilateral US military is the villain) and a gain-of-function type of research which is potentially dangerous and risk leakage.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@JohnSlegers where does it have evidence when and how the virus land on China/Wuhan via the US military? Maybe you can list that out in your question because this would be so much more substantial than personal claims. Also, as far as I read, the first few cases in the most affected area in Europe are identifiable to people from Wuhan
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@ Fizz Lab made/modified has little to do with whether something is bioweapon or not, one could modify a genome for research purpose and then there is a lab leak.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
@JohnSlegers I mean, those claiming that need to at least provide how and when the virus could land on China via the US military, not just saying why it might benefit the US to do this.
y chung
Mar 20, 2020 17:45
As far as I know, aside from a Chinese diplomat openly claim that, there is no actual evidence presented.
 

 Discussion on answer by y chung: Does…

Imported from a comment discussion on skeptics.stackexchange.c...
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 06:14
In the same environment, tree and grass is in a competition relationship mainly (at least in the spatial sense). Being more efficient in photosynthesis (on a spatial basis, i.e NPP) means one can occupy the habitat/space more efficiently. If one can displace the other and establish themselves, it means it is fitter.
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 05:58
I never said it is true in all cases tree > grass in being efficient in photosynthesis like you claimed I said. My definition of efficient is in terms of NPP, I think I put enough emphasis in the answer on this (while I understand there may be some other meaning associated with efficient, like per unit biomass).
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 05:58
If an organism is able to utilize resources more efficiently in an environment (where photosynthesis is one way of utilizing resources), it will do better (to survive). Just a general rule, I used it because I think that is easy to understand. (too long, contune next message).
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 05:45
You clearly have not understood the core of an argument. Having an argument has nothing to do with trying to popularize science/please the public. Getting the highest vote is never my aim. If you do not like the argument, make a suggestion once, but not telling me consistently that something else would be "better" because clearly it isnt necessarily the case (as you do not want to admit you have a black and white stance). About your actual challenge to the content of my answers: 1. "you can look all you like in textbooks about evolution, and none of them will say that "pure survival of the …
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 04:51
You are the one who thinks that direct quoting is necessarily better than writing in your own words in an argument in the first place. Talk about black and white...
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 04:51
If you want a meaningful quotation without appeal to authority, you need context, basically mean to quote everything i.e. no difference from reading the paper. Distillation and synthesizing of the main point that answers the question involves writing in your own words. That's the most basic thing that was taught to every researcher about research ethics. And no one should challenge a point related to cited references without reading the references.
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 04:51
Did you not see the two papers to support my argument (not direct quote, but almost exactly as shown in the papers)? Common sense or not, this is what scientific evidence have shown
y chung
Jan 26, 2020 04:51
Excessive reliance on direct quotes are equivalent to appeal to authority and a gateway to cherrypicking...any person with the right skeptical mind should read the full papers. Talking about making arguments...
 

 Discussion on answer by Ian Sudbery: …

Imported from a comment discussion on academia.stackexchange.c...
y chung
Jan 9, 2020 20:05
Thank you for all of your comments!
y chung
Jan 9, 2020 20:05
@ Richard Erickson, would you mind elaborating a bit more? These error bars are just standard errors (accounting uncertainty in flux estimation (curve fitting)), in this sense I think error bar extending into the negative is definitely possible.