Challenge/Offer To Bob B...

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So would any one else who considers themselves open minded care to answer the question which I posed, which was as follows:

Concentrating on the English language analogy (parable) portion for a moment, do you believe that starting with the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, one can get to a different meaningful sentence by a series of steps, each step consisting of changing a single letter but each step restricted to yielding a meaningful intermediate sentence?

Further, considering that in most texts, including the one from which the sentence mentioned was extracted, do not consist of sentences selected and arranged at random, but instead contain information that is intended to be read sequentially in a larger context such as a paragraph, page and chapter, do you believe that the step by step process described above to morph one sentence to another while still maintaining meaning in the overall context of paragraph, page and chapter is at all feasible, regardless of how much time and how many steps would be allocated to the process?

I would appreciate a yes or no answer to this question.
 

JustinFoldsFive

New member
Bob B said:
I specifically asked you to concentrate on the English sentence portion of the analogy and forget the analogy itself foor a moment.

I was concentrating on the faulty comparison you were drawing between evolution and sentence composition, seeing as how the latter is usually not a topic of discussion. However, to answer your question...no, it is very unlikely, if not impossible.

Would you like to address my last post, now? Or would you rather we continue discussing English sentence composition?

P.S. Bob, I noticed that you edited your last post AFTER I responded to it. For those of you who haven't been following along, Bob B originally began his previous post by quoting another TOL user (not me). However, after I responded, Bob "cleverly" edited out the original quote (to which he was responding), and addressed the post to me. Thus, attempting to make it appear that I was evading his question, when in reality, he had addressed the question to another TOL user. I just thought I should point that out to everyone.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JustinFoldsFive said:
I was concentrating on the faulty comparison you were drawing between evolution and sentence composition, seeing as how the latter is usually not a topic of discussion. However, to answer your question...no, it is very unlikely, if not impossible.

Would you like to address my last post, now? Or would you rather we continue discussing English sentence composition?

P.S. Bob, I noticed that you edited your last post AFTER I responded to it. For those of you who haven't been following along, Bob B originally began his previous post by quoting another TOL user (not me). However, after I responded, Bob "cleverly" edited out the original quote (to which he was responding), and addressed the post to me. Thus, attempting to make it appear that I was evading his question, when in reality, he had addressed the question to another TOL user. I just thought I should point that out to everyone.

Justin,
The reason I edited the post is I noticed after completing the posting that I had erroneously clicked on the edit button on the wrong posting. The easiest way to correct this was to scratch the quotation from the wrong posting and add your name as an introduction to make it clear that I was responding to you not Jukia (who never says anything worth responding to anyway).

Now with regard to the question I asked, I would like to ask you why you think that it would be unlikely if not impossible to change a single letter in an English sentence and arrive at another sentence, however slightly altered that would still make good sense in the context of the paragraph, page andd chapter in which the original sentence was embedded.

Was it because you had calculated the probabilities?

OR

Was it that you had used the dreaded and obviously false and illegal

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INGREDULITY?


Incidentally I want
 

noguru

Well-known member
BillyBob said:
Bob b is known to resort to false allegations and lies when he is losing a debate, he just does it politely.

Yes, like "I don't like to be crude, but are you a moron or what?" Or "Don't be such a ninny." Or "If you believe that to be science, you must be more naive than I thought." Or "I wil respond when you have something of substance to offer."...... There are many more. Now granted I don't have a problem with these types of criticsims if they are based on reality and can be shown to be accurate. Bob's strategy is to make these statments, and then not back them up with evidence. He uses them as an excuse to discontinue dialogue, or to belittle his opponents without the support of examples.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Yes, like "I don't like to be crude, but are you a moron or what?" Or "Don't be such a ninny." Or "If you believe that to be science, you must be more naive than I thought." Or "I wil respond when you have something of substance to offer."...... There are many more. Now granted I don't have a problem with these types of criticsims if they are based on reality and can be shown to be accurate. Bob's strategy is to make these statments, and then not back them up with evidence. He uses them as an excuse to discontinue dialogue, or to belittle his opponents without the support of examples.

Stop whining you pipsqueak. ;)

To Justin,
I wish to thank you for giving a forthright answer to my question

That takes courage, which judging by the silence of other evolutionists, seems to be in short supply around here.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JustinFoldsFive said:
Your analogy is flawed. Using your analogy, one must know what constitutes a "meaningful sentence" prior to the point at which you change a letter. There is no such prior knowledge requirement when it comes to evolution. With evolutionary theory, the result of the mutation (letter change) is a meaningful intermediate sequence, so long as the organism survives. If the mutation is not beneficial (or even harmful), the organism will die, and will not constitute a meaningful intermediate sequence.
"meaningful sentence" and "so long as the organism survives" are the same in this context. However, you should add, "so long as the organism survives and the change renders it more fit than its ancestor or peers".
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Jukia said:
bob b: who cares, last time I looked evolution did not depend on the English language.
Another classic worthless post from Jukia.
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yorzhik said:
"meaningful sentence" and "so long as the organism survives" are the same in this context. However, you should add, "so long as the organism survives and the change renders it more fit than its ancestor or peers".

Yorzhik seems to "get it".

In the context of English text the reader is the stand-in for selection, because people have the ability to quickly determine what works and what doesn't.

Interestingly typos are not that big a problem for readers until they accumulate to a certain point.

Applied to DNA we note that there is biomachinery in cells that can edit out most typos, leading one to ask how that mechanism can possibly work. I am sure that this can be considered "natural", and further research will illuminate how it works.
 

JustinFoldsFive

New member
Bob B said:
The reason I edited the post is I noticed after completing the posting that I had erroneously clicked on the edit button on the wrong posting. The easiest way to correct this was to scratch the quotation from the wrong posting and add your name as an introduction to make it clear that I was responding to you not Jukia (who never says anything worth responding to anyway).

I would have accepted the edit as an honest mistake had you not, following my response, acted as if I was deliberately avoiding your post...

Bob B said:
Note that you did not answer my question. I specifically asked you to concentrate on the English sentence portion of the analogy and forget the analogy itself for a moment.

I would have bet money that you would be incapable of answering the question yes or no.

I am really a very bad person and should be ashamed of myself.

I get such evil delight in the responses from dogmatic evolutionists like yourself to such elementary questions.

Now, on to the rest of your post...

Bob B said:
Now with regard to the question I asked, I would like to ask you why you think that it would be unlikely if not impossible to change a single letter in an English sentence and arrive at another sentence, however slightly altered that would still make good sense in the context of the paragraph, page andd chapter in which the original sentence was embedded.

Probability, along with personal observation.

Bob B said:
Was it that you had used the dreaded and obviously false and illegal

ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INGREDULITY?

Hmm, nope. Probability and personal observation.

So Bob, are you ever going to address my earlier post? Or are we going to continue to discuss your "analogy" with regard only to the English composition aspect of it?
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
JustinFoldsFive said:
I would have accepted the edit as an honest mistake had you not, following my response, acted as if I was deliberately avoiding your post...

You did seem to be avoiding a straight answer, which is why I repeated the question.

Probability, along with personal observation.

I assume that you did not calculate a probability (pretty safe assumption wouldn't you say?)

That being the case you are in the same position as many creationists when they doubt that random mutations plus natural selection can morph creatures into different types. Yet whenever the unliklihood of this is brought up they are accused of committing the fallacy of personal incredulity. But I digess, probably because I am human and wished to point out the hypocrisy that occurs on creation/evolution forums.

So Bob, are you ever going to address my earlier post? Or are we going to continue to discuss your "analogy" with regard only to the English composition aspect of it?

I am now willing to move on to the next phase, and begin to discuss the similarities between languages, including the DNA and protein language which is found within the cells of all living creatures.

But before I do I cannot resist posting one final example of the English language.
-----

The Source of Novels

On the Derivation of Ulysses from Don Quixote

I IMAGINE THIS story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.

His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote."

I raise my eyebrows.

Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.

"The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo."

Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.

"As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576."

I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.

"Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."

I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?"

"Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."
------------
David Berlinski
 

noguru

Well-known member
bob b said:
Yorzhik seems to "get it".

In the context of English text the reader is the stand-in for selection, because people have the ability to quickly determine what works and what doesn't.

Interestingly typos are not that big a problem for readers until they accumulate to a certain point.

Applied to DNA we note that there is biomachinery in cells that can edit out most typos, leading one to ask how that mechanism can possibly work. I am sure that this can be considered "natural", and further research will illuminate how it works.

Of course he gets it, you guys already agree on the conclusion you are trying to support with this example.
 

JustinFoldsFive

New member
Bob B said:
You did seem to be avoiding a straight answer, which is why I repeated the question.

Bob, you asked ANOTHER USER your question. Then, once I commented on your general argument, you changed the post to address me, and then accuse me of avoiding your question. Bob, I am not psychic.

Bob B said:
That being the case you are in the same position as many creationists when they doubt that random mutations plus natural selection can morph creatures into different types. Yet whenever the unliklihood of this is brought up they are used of committing the fallacy of personal incredulity. But I digess, probably because I am human and wished to point out the hypocracy that occurs on creation/evolution forums.

I am still waiting for you to explain how your sentence composition is analogous to evolutionary theory. Remember, you were the one who wanted to discuss the English aspect of your analogy before you would move on and address my post. I am waiting...
 

bob b

Science Lover
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
noguru said:
Of course he gets it, you guys already agree on the conclusion you are trying to support with this example.

One of the disadvantages of open discussion forums is that sometimes when a really good discussion is going on between two or more participants a few people chime in with comments that can only be described as inane and of no real value. This is disruptive.

It seems that this is what is happening here and now.

That being the case I will take a break and attend to some things around the house that I have been neglecting, and try to accomplish them before taking my wife out to dinner.

Hopefully the people who have felt compelled to post useless comments can now "run free" and "get it out of their system".

Tomorrow I will return to what I hope will be an interesting and fruitful discussion free of what I believe is sometimes call "spam".
 

death2impiety

Maximeee's Husband
JustinFoldsFive said:
Hello Bob, how are you doing? Since you always seem intent to point out the supposed "fatal flaws" in evolutionary theory, and endlessly challenge atheists/agnostics (whom you seem to expect to be evolutionary experts, simply by their lack of religious belief) to refute your arguments, why don't you raise your objections to working scientists who have actually worked in the fields of evolutionary biology, archaeology, etc.? If you really would like to raise your objections to the scientific community, I think you might find more of a challenge/informed debate over at www.iidb.org Click on the link, create an account, enter the Evolution/Creation sub-forum, and let the debates and discussions ensue. However, if you would rather raise your objections at a Christian message board, that speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments. Will you accept the offer/challenge, Bob B?

Translation:

JustinFoldsFive said:
I'm so utterly terrified of your arguments and unable to defend my perpective that I have to ask that you go somewhere else to debate.
 

littledoc

New member
bob b said:
The analogy was presented in a thread called METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL.

OMG! I can't believe you pulled out that old bag of bones! It's supposed to prove that evolution is so absurdly improbable that it could just never happen. It's actually a "rebuttal" to Richard Dawkins' model of cumulative selection. The argument conveniently ignores the fact that Richard Dawkins already accounted for their objection when he created the model.

From Wikipedia:

A computer program could be written to carry out the actions of Dawkins' hypothetical monkey, continuously generating combinations of 26 letters and spaces at high speed. Even at the rate of millions of combinations per second, it is unlikely, even given the entire lifetime of the universe to run, that the program would ever produce the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL."

Dawkins intends this example to illustrate a common misunderstanding of evolutionary change, i.e. that DNA sequences or organic compounds such as proteins are the result of atoms "randomly" combining to form more complex structures. In these types of computations, any sequence of amino acids in a protein will be extraordinarily improbable. (See: Fred Hoyle)

Dawkins then goes on to show that a process of cumulative selection can take far fewer steps to reach any given target. He refines the program to preserve "favorable" combinations (or "hits") and to allow the remaining letters in the sequence to be replaced. In Dawkins's words:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation, preserving characters of the "target" phrase and replacing non-matching characters with randomly-chosen ones. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 1: WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 2: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL




Geez. Scientists actually use statistical probability all the time in evolutionary theory. Creationists use statistical probability too – they know that the odds that anyone who they preach to will know enough about evolutionary biology to properly refute their pseudoscientific nonsense are pretty slim.

Dawkins' model isn't intended to be an exact model of evolution btw. It simply illustrates the importance of natural selection in the evolutionary process.
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
JustinFoldsFive said:
Hello Bob, how are you doing? Since you always seem intent to point out the supposed "fatal flaws" in evolutionary theory, and endlessly challenge atheists/agnostics (whom you seem to expect to be evolutionary experts, simply by their lack of religious belief) to refute your arguments, why don't you raise your objections to working scientists who have actually worked in the fields of evolutionary biology, archaeology, etc.? If you really would like to raise your objections to the scientific community, I think you might find more of a challenge/informed debate over at www.iidb.org Click on the link, create an account, enter the Evolution/Creation sub-forum, and let the debates and discussions ensue. However, if you would rather raise your objections at a Christian message board, that speaks volumes about the strength of your arguments. Will you accept the offer/challenge, Bob B?

I basically asked the same thing of TheLaughingMan in the speed of light forum (actually I asked why he didn't contact them) and he said that he would rather "not talk to the nuts in person".

He would rather get on a forum and talk about them and their work rather than actually talk to the "nuts" in person.
 
Top