4 ms·
The default assumption is non-correlation. No firm evidence was presented demonstrating correlation. Hence "not even clear it qualifies as correlation." This i
by jjk166 2mo ago
The default assumption is non-correlation. No firm evidence was presented demonstrating correlation. Hence "not even clear it qualifies as correlation."
This is a one time event that happened sometime after incirrates and cirrates split. This is like claiming there is a correlation between the Carrington Event of 1859 and the outbreak of the US civil war in 1860. One happened before the other. One could plausibly construct some narrative that causally links the two. But does it qualify as correlation?
- jjtheblunt 2mo agoi understand correlation and causation (as a math person for decades) and the article talks of trying to establish correlation with experiments on e coli and introducing similar breaks. Inserting the same break in the ribosomes of Escherichia coli bacteria made the engineered cells produce proteins with about twice their usual accuracy. they then went looking at the divergence data between the various distantly related cephalopods and again said they again couldn't find a counterexample to the conjecture that the RNA break and higher intelligence are correlated, but not established causal, because both phenotype and genetics are individually correlated to the same timeframes. that doesn't mean they're correlated to each other, let alone causal, of course, in either direction.
- jjk166 2mo agoI'm referring to the link with intelligence. The e coli experiments has nothing to do with that. > that doesn't mean they're correlated to each other, let alone causal, of course, in either direction. Which was my point.