Talk:Marcel-Paul Schützenberger

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics Mid‑priority

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Untitled[edit]

Please note that to fully evaluate this biography, a strong working knowledge of academic-style French is strongly suggested. -- QTJ 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 07:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Praising as "bete noire"?[edit]

I'm confused nonetheless praising it as one of his "bête-noires" alongside his thinking on artificial intelligence; how can something be "praised" as a bête-noire??? The source doesn't quite use this kind of wording. I'm not French enough to know if this is correct usage, but it seems strange to me. Merzul (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any response to his mathematical attacks on evolution?[edit]

Surely people have by now done some mathematical modelling of these matters. I'm not suggesting that he needs to be completely refuted on his biography, but his criticism must have lead to some rigorous models being developed and in the end the theory of evolution still stands to this day, so clearly people must have done the math and responded to his work. This should be mentioned, I think. Merzul (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this section needs to be balanced with the facts (showing Schützenberger's misunderstandings) because it violates WP:UNDUE. This has to do with the 1966 Wistar Institute symposium which is discussed by Nature [1], Integrative and Comparative Biology [2], Ronald L. Numbers (Darwinism comes to America page 163), and The Panda's Thumb (blog)[3] as a faux-criticism of evolution by people who don't understand the subject. C56C (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merzul, I think the real issue is that the critique was based on false premises, and was basically wrong. Creationists selectively quote the conclusion of Schützenberger's paper, but there were evidently rejoinders to it. The problem is that the symposium was held 43 years ago, and the proceedings are pretty much unavailable. Daniel R. Brooks of U Toronto had the following posted on The Panda's Thumb website[4]:

"If one actually reads the conference transcript, one realizes that what really happened was that approximately two befuddled math/computer science people, Murray Eden and Marcel-Paul Schützenberger, were schooled in basic population genetics & evolutionary theory by the likes of Ernst Mayr and Sewall Wright. It makes hilarious reading... The central misunderstandings from the mathematician side involved, as always, the same old dumb “but it’s impossible/extremely improbable for these sequences to come together all at once by random chance!” argument, which ignores (as always) the elemental point that evolutionary theory is the exact opposite of all-at-once-by-chance assembly."

The same could be said in reverse, that biologists do not understand the mathematics they pretend to manipulate. When mathematicians say "all at once by chance" they only talk about the randomness of the assembly of the genes involved, not the survival of the individual carrying those genes (which indeed doesn't happen by chance). The neo-darwinist model entails a random assembly of genes prior anything else (including birth, growth, etc.). It is at this level that these critics have a problem with the neo-darwinism theory. Many biologists talk about random mutation but do not understand what random means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.54.85.179 (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to link to that as a critique of Schützenberger's position?--Digthepast (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced[edit]

I had a quick read of Foata's writing and only the negative points are cited in this wiki article making it quite unbalanced. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]