Ok. Reading the paper now. Some aspects are bit technical and so I don’t follow all of the arguments or genetic claims other than at a broad level. However, the money quote is “Therefore, UCA is at least 10^2,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis.” (I’ve replaced the superscript with a ^ becaause I don’t know how to format superscripts). 10^2860 is a very big number.
They have hypotheses concerning whether Eukarya, Archaea and Bacteria share a common ancestor or not, or possibly in pairs. All hypotheses were given equal prior likelyhood.
Ok. Reading the paper now. Some aspects are bit technical and so I don’t follow all of the arguments or genetic claims other than at a broad level. However, the money quote is “Therefore, UCA is at least 10^2,860 times more probable than the closest competing hypothesis.” (I’ve replaced the superscript with a ^ becaause I don’t know how to format superscripts). 10^2860 is a very big number.
What were they using for prior probabilities for the various candidate hypotheses? Uniform? Some form of complexity weighting? Other?
They have hypotheses concerning whether Eukarya, Archaea and Bacteria share a common ancestor or not, or possibly in pairs. All hypotheses were given equal prior likelyhood.