If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
Notes for future OT posters:
1. Please add the 'open_thread' tag.
2. Check if there is an active Open Thread before posting a new one. (Immediately before; refresh the list-of-threads page before posting.)
3. Open Threads should be posted in Discussion, and not Main.
4. Open Threads should start on Monday, and end on Sunday.
Even without propagation of math lessons it's generally taught that evolution doesn't find optimal solution but just solutions that are good enough.
It's also worth noting that various if you do an infinitive amount of minor design changes you can find global maxima. If I remember right the Metropolis–Hastings algorithm does get you a global maxima provided you turn the parameters right and wait long enough. It might take longer than trying every single possible value but if you just wait long enough you will get to your maxima.
Biologists also are often happy with solutions that aren't 100% perfect. The standard for truth is often statistical significance.
Yes, I agree with everything you say (- well, I don't know the M-H algorithm, but I'll take that on faith).
I mentioned this explicitly because it's mindblowingly bad to see someone saying this, with this background, when he says so many other smart things that clearly imply he understands the general principle of local optimizations not being global optimizations.
What he didn't say is, "This enzyme works really well, and we can be pretty confident evolution has tried out most of the easy modifications on the current structure. It's not perfect (admitt... (read more)