In article <41kpkj$b3k at newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
HPYockey <hpyockey at aol.com> wrote:
>#See above. What is a random sequence? The Szostak et al. paper in Science
>269 July 1995 is very interesting. I notice he says on page 368 last
>paragraph second column: "We started with only 1.4 x 10^15 of the 10^132
>possible N220 sequences". He doesn't know about the Shannon- McMillan
>Theorem cited frequently in my book. There are far fewer significant
>sequences than the "total possible".
Since you pride yourself on your grammatical expertise, precisely what
part of the quoted comment by Szostak contradicts this point?
You are very quick to ascribe ignorance to people who disagree with
you. In the case of a humble postdoc like myself you can get away
with it, but when you apply this style of "argumentation" to a Jack
Szostak, who has contributed far more to biology than you ever have or
will, it's really pretty obnoxious, and will contribute nothing
towards getting people to take your ideas seriously.
Opinions are mine alone; I never met a university with opionions!
Steve LaBonne ********************* (labonnes at cnsunix.albany.edu)
"It can never be satisfied, the mind, never." - Wallace Stevens