For the benefit of those who do not wish to wade through 21 pages of sometimes useless and tangential material, I have prepared a summary which leaves out the "junk".
The first 8 pages (of 21) follow:
METHINKS Data
#1 February 14th, 2006, 09:13 AM
METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL
Question: How many “good” words are there in English for the various numbers of letters, two, three, four, five and six etc. ? What then is the probability p that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change will result in another good word ?
#2-#5 February 14th, 2006, 11:35 AM to 2:07 PM
#6 February 14th, 2006, 02:08 PM
Another horrible analogy (quell suprise). You and Bob Enyart should team up. Perhaps you two working together could cook up something even more deceitful than either of you have achieved on your own. Johnny
#7 February 14th, 2006, 02:09 PM
#8 February 14th, 2006, 03:12 PM
#9 February 14th, 2006, 03:14 PM
I love this. Johnny can't rise out of his thinking "rut" either. Bob b
#11 February 14th, 2006, 03:19 PM
#12 February 14th, 2006, 03:19 PM
#13 February 14th, 2006, 03:25 PM
I actually had no expectation that you would "tumble", but I really did think that fool and Johnny might have. I will give them more time to think about it while remaining hopeful that they might see at least the first part of what is really a three-part example. Bob b
#14 February 14th, 2006, 03:27 PM
#15 February 14th, 2006, 03:33 PM
These results are wrong considering how you've defined p. You need to recheck the math.
SUTG
#16 February 14th, 2006, 03:41 PM
Oh, this is rich. I predicted to my wife that someone would start arguing about the details and miss the whole point of the example. That is probably why some smart people, like most evolutionists, never can "see the forest for all those trees", yet the "simple" folk can, because lacking knowledge of all the nitty gritty details (the trees) they can easily see the big picture (the forest). Bob b
#17 February 14th, 2006, 03:56 PM
#18 February 14th, 2006, 04:09 PM
Inattention to details is why you are and will remain just another creationist who will never get his science right. What value does any analogy have if it is not analogous? What is the whole point of the example? Do enlighten us lowly evolutionists. Johnny
#19 February 14th, 2006, 05:00 PM
Actually my posting on METHINKS IT IS (LIKE) A WEASEL nicely disposes of "random mutations plus natural selection plus millions of years" in a simple and easy to see manner.
Bob b
#20 February 14th, 2006, 05:10 PM
#21 February 14th, 2006, 05:47 PM
1) You did the math wrong.
2) Even if you would have done the math right, your analogy is flawed.
3) Even if you would have done the math right, and used a better analogy, you should have included a description of your goofy conclusions in this thread.
#22 February 14th, 2006, 05:48 PM
The point was that random changes can't produce information, right? But if the math is wrong . . . . The example assumes facts not in evidence beginning with the size of the DNA "dictionary."
Billwald
#23-#30 February 14th, 2006, 06:30-08:59 PM
#31 February 14th, 2006, 09:05 PM
I asked him a straight forward question. Where on his scale of "p" does his spread of species from Noah's primordial kinds fit? Perhaps you would like to take a crack at it. fool
#32 February 14th, 2006, 09:08 PM
pretty simple really, bovine after it's kind, canis after its kind, avian after its kind, rodent after its kind, fool after its kind, (well hopefully not). bowhunter
#33 February 14th, 2006, 09:15 PM
#34 February 14th, 2006, 09:19 PM
#35 February 14th, 2006, 09:27 PM
looking at the math again, I'm not so sure if it answers the question bob b put forward. The math deals with the probability of two random letters getting a good word, not a single letter change. hmm..... sentientsynth
#36 February 14th, 2006, 09:33 PM
Perhaps it would be best if Bob got out of his "rut" and told us what he did mean, instead of saying it's evidence of him disposing of somthing with an arguement that he declines from making, in a thread that looks like it was OPed by Letsargue. fool
#37 February 14th, 2006, 09:38 PM
#38 February 14th, 2006, 09:43 PM
You're correct. Bob's arithmetic is good. It is true that 56 + 39 does equal 95, and 26 x 26 does equal 676. But bob did the wrong problem. He was supposed to be answering his question "what is the probability p that having one particular good word that a single letter change will result in another good word?", but instead he answered the question "what is the probability of making a good word out of randomly selected letters?" But even if he wouldn't have botched that, this still isn't an accurate simulation of "random mutations plus natural selection" since it ignores the natural selection part. I love how bob refers to doing the math as "the details".
#39 February 14th, 2006, 09:46 PM
looking at the math again, I'm not so sure if it answers the question bob b put forward. The math deals with the probability of two random letters getting a good word, not a single letter change. hmm..... So do you think that Bob is talking about Scrabble? or mutation? Is Scrabble in any way an analogy for mutation? Does DNA spell out recognizable words in the English language?
If it does, does that mean that any organism who's DNA does not spell out recognizable words in the English language is non-viable? Do you see that for him to claim that he has refuted mutation with this analogy is dishonest? Do you see that the sword cuts both ways and that his speciation from Ark Kinds is also under attack by his own OP? fool
#40 February 14th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Yeah, I agree that the math doesn't reflect the real problem. Why wouldn't you say that created a "good" word would be analogous to creating a "good" protein sequence? SS
#41-#43 February 14th, 2006, 09:47-09:52 PM
#44 February 14th, 2006, 10:00 PM
To be honest, I don't know squat about Biology...but I think this analogy could be granted. But I'll bet the probablilites would be different for the creation of the good word and the creation of the good protein sequence. But just choosing random groups of letters leaves out one of the most critical and important parts of the "random mutations plus natural selection" - the natural selection! SUTG
#45 February 14th, 2006, 10:00 PM
#46 February 14th, 2006, 10:08 PM
It's so much more complex, it's unfathomable (to me, at least.) I think this could hold as a rather loose analogy, though I wouldn't push it too far. I think the qualification of "good" is roughly analogous to being naturally selected. About the math, wouldn't you have to do it on a word by word basis, especially for the larger words? SS
#47-#49 February 14th, 2006, 10:18-10:39 PM
#50 February 15th, 2006, 04:37 AM
This is the first posting I have seen which takes the example seriously. This is undoubtedly because it comes from a believer. Believers like you see things that are hidden from unbelievers. For example, one level and one "snare". The example seems to be a "parable" which has multiple levels of meaning plus a number of snares for unbelievers, some of which are only slowly becoming apparent to me. The concept is probably not from me, because it simply "popped" into existence as I was in a semi-dreamlike state following the alarm going off and my drifting back into oblivion. Bob b
#51 February 15th, 2006, 05:48 AM
#52 February 15th, 2006, 08:59 AM
#53 February 15th, 2006, 09:47 AM
Are you referring to the fact that I carelessly entered an extra digit on the calculator while doing the six-letter example or perhaps to the fact that p is not strictly the probability as stated in the preamble to the example? As far as the parable is concerned, these are minor details having very little to do with the point of the parable or even the detailed example for that matter.
"For some can not see the forest because all those pesky trees get in the way of the view."
"And why do you look at the splinter in your brother’s eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye? Matt 7:3 "
What a creationist idiot! Did you ever take a ruler and measure the size of an eye and then the size of a wooden beam? Check your math buddy.
Bob b
#54 February 15th, 2006, 10:15 AM
13Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: 15For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. Matt 13:13-15
bob b
#55 February 15th, 2006, 10:56 AM
p is not strictly the probability as stated in the preamble to the example?
Ding, Ding, Ding!!! I think we have a winner!
Although why understate it by saying that p is not "strictly" the probability as stated in the preamble? You made a rudimentary probability error, and I stepped in to Truthsmack you silly.
If you can't even understand the basic problem you posed in the preamble, you'll never understand the Theory of Evolution. SUTG
#56 February 15th, 2006, 11:10 AM
#57 February 15th, 2006, 11:13 AM
#58 February 15th, 2006, 11:29 AM
It's funny how you compare your parables to Christ's parables. Christ's parables had a different purpose. They taught ideas where the details of who and what don't matter. Unfortunately, when you're trying to make a scientific point, you're not afforded the same luxury. So while you may feel you're the creationist messiah preaching to us heathen evolutionists using cryptographic parables and then berating us for pointing out that you're analogy is flawed, the rest of us are marvelling at the lengths to which deliberate ignorance and intellectual prostitution can drive a man. You can't tell us what heavenly revelation your analogy is supposed to be reveal because you know that it will fall apart upon cursory examination. I am quite willing to accept that you are already well aware of the shortcomings of this analogy, but like Bob Enyart, this does not concern you. Instead, you will simply pretend that only believers in creationism can get your point. On this matter I will agree with you. Only someone who is as scientifically incompetent as a young earth creationist would be willing to overlook such a flawed analogy. Don't blame the rest of us for our intellectual standards. I must bow out of this thread. I think I've said enough.
Johnny
#59 February 15th, 2006, 01:26 PM
#60 February 15th, 2006, 01:28 PM
SS said, "I think this could hold as a rather loose analogy, though I wouldn't push it too far
I think the qualification of "good" is roughly analogous to being naturally selected. " I just chose not to fluff your ego and told you straight up that it was a wretched analogy.”
I'm interested in why you think it is an analogy, what it might be comparing and why you think it is flawed. BTW I fixed my calculator misstep in the six letter case in my first posting which started this thread. It doesn't affect the point that was being made at all, of course. Too bad so few ( if any) get the point of the "parable". Bob b
#61 February 15th, 2006, 08:02 PM
I have watched this thread loosely without sensing the reputed deep spiritual insight Bob has hidden here. With all the advertising of this thread Bob has done, and the critical attention it has garnered from the TOL regulars, I am reminded of those movies that are so bad that Hollywood knows they will flop if they don’t first hype them unmercifully. I am willing to wait and see if Bob has a blockbuster or just another bust in the offing. He has already been successful at garnering a lot of participation without anything but vague secretive hints at glorious revelations to come in this thread. ThePhy
#62 February 16th, 2006, 08:04 AM
I have "fine tuned" my example to satisfy the "nit pickers" here, even though the previous minor flaws did not affect the point of the "parable" in the least. What puzzles me is how otherwise intelligent (perhaps even brilliant) unbelievers here can not see the point of this example. Jesus was certainly right when He observed that few saw the point of his parables.
----------------------
WEASEL
Question: How many “good” words are there in English for the various numbers of letters, two, three, four, five and six etc. ? What then is the probability p that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change in that same word will result in another "good" word ?
Summarizing:
2 - p= 0.165 3 - p= 0.0543 4 - p= 0.0091 5 - p= 0.00084 6 - p= 0.000069 7 – p= 0.00000??
Should I reveal the meaning of the parable in the Truth Smacker's area? bob b
#63 February 16th, 2006, 08:13 AM
Bob; Your "parable" is false because it ignores the fact that new words are created that didn't exist before. For example, "wookie" wasen't a word before Star Wars, it wasn't on the list, now it is. fool
#64 February 16th, 2006, 08:15 AM
Still waiting for bob b to explain his parable to those of us too dense to figure it out ourselves. Jukia
#65 February 16th, 2006, 08:26 AM
Bob is defining a "good" word as one that existed before.
So in that he has gone so far away from a mutation analogy that his parable is useless.
fool
#66 February 16th, 2006, 08:32 AM
I don’t see a lot of value in trying to do a technical analysis of the content of Bob's example, when I don’t know what he his really trying to get at with it. It looks similar to some of Spetner’s ideas. If Bob is going to say his problem is relevant to some aspect of evolution or abio, then he will need to show that there are not substantive differences between his problem and what he is trying to show. So far, I see only a question about forming words – hardly something that grabs my attention. Bob is right about Jesus’ parables being hidden from many, though. Heck, I am still stuck in Genesis trying to figure out how to make a snake talk. That should be a very up-front thing to demonstrate, nothing requiring hidden meanings behind it (unless it really didn’t happen). Like I already said, Bob could walk away from this thread right now comfortable in the knowledge that he riled up a bunch of posters who tried to attack his idea – an idea that he hasn’t even elucidated to us less-discerning types. Quit giving him free publicity. Make him come up with the goods or let the thread die. ThePhy
#67 February 16th, 2006, 08:49 AM
See the new thread, The Source of Novels. bob b
#68 February 16th, 2006, 08:55 AM
#69 February 16th, 2006, 11:48 AM
Why is this beginning to smell like a case of you seeing how many threads you can drag posters into without really having to come up with anything defensible? If you have something to say that doesn’t require a Christian fundamentalist inspected and certified and registered parable decoder, then let me know. I really prefer to have ideas clearly expressed and evaluated. If you don’t have anything that you are willing to expose to examination, then please don’t ask me to waste my time. You have been eminently adroit at that already. (Is this really the way you used to do your engineering?) ThePhy
#70 February 16th, 2006, 12:00 PM
#71 February 16th, 2006, 02:37 PM
#72 February 16th, 2006, 02:50 PM
I did sometimes plant "seeds" (ideas) and later got to see them sprout.
It was not uncommon for me to suggest something to the group in a meeting, have the naysayers shout it down (figuratively) and then some months later have someone announce to me their "great new idea", with no recollection regarding the previous incident and their original negative attitude. I always smiled, and congratulated them for coming up with such a great new idea.
Works almost every time. bob b
#73 February 16th, 2006, 03:12 PM
#74 February 16th, 2006, 03:32 PM
parable, the term translates the Hebrew word "mashal"—a term denoting a metaphor, or an enigmatic saying or an analogy. In the Greco-Roman rhetorical tradition, however, "parables" were illustrative narrative examples. Jewish teachers of the 1st cent. A.D. made use of comparisons in narrative form to clarify scripture. As used in the Gospels, the "parable" not only denotes metaphors, analogies, and enigmatic statements, but also short illustrative narratives. In Jesus' parables, the speaker compares an observable, natural, or human phenomenon to the Kingdom (i.e. the rule) of God. Some of these challenge and mystify or even attack the hearer. Other parables are allegories. The major themes of the parables of Jesus include the contrast between the old and new age now dawning in the ministry of Jesus; the necessity of radical decisions; the gradual but sure growth of the Kingdom of God on earth; God's way of relating to people; and God's invitation for people to enter his Kingdom. bob b
#75 February 17th, 2006, 07:27 AM
For those who are interested in how to actually calculate the p values for the question bob has posed, using the two-letter example:
For each "good" word (not each "possible" word), calculate the probability that a single random letter change in either the first or second position will generate a known "good" word. The number of "possible" words never comes into play. There is no a priori way to calculate these probabilities because they are dependent on direct comparison with a pre-established list of known "good" words. Therefore you have to calculate the probabilities for each "good" word, sum these (assuming that every "good" word is equally likely to experience the random letter change), and divide that sum by the number of "good" words.
In the present case, this leads to a calculated overall probability of 0.2545 that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change in that same word will result in another "good" word. I tested this by doing 50 replications of 100 independent random letter changes each, and averaged 27.7+ 4.6 "good" words per each 100 changes.
Change the criteria for "good" words, you change the probabilities. Reduce the number of alternate states (e.g., from 26 letters down to, say, 4) will increase the probabilities. Relax the assumption that all changes are equally likely and you are most likely to increase the probabilities.
As far as guessing what you want us to see, bob, well, I'm sure it wasn't your intellectual laziness or your lack of analytical skills, but these are the most obvious elements of this 'example'. I can look at this post and see many different potential patterns, knowing where you're coming from I can make some educated guesses as to what you are hinting at, but I can't imagine why you think anyone would be interested in engaging in "well, bob, could it be this?" "nope, try again! " "okay, then how about this?" "close, but no cigar!" ad nauseum. If you have an actual point, please make it, and spare us the games. At least when it comes to parables, you're no Jesus!
aharvey
#76-#88 February 17th, 2006, 07:30-09:56 AM
#89 February 17th, 2006, 09:56 AM
Notice that harvey did not try to calculate the probabilities for anything but the trivial case. Why? Obviously because anything beyond a trivial case quickly becomes impractical in a forum like this, not to mention that the example is only a parable and treating the example as a precise mathematical model causes one to completely miss the point of the parable (as we have seen in action on this thread). Thus the example sticks to the most practical way to illustrate the trend that is happening right before one's eyes.But in whipping out his microscope and examining the bark of the tree in detail, the typical scientist fails to notice that the forest is on fire.
"How could a log be stuck in a person's eye?"
So my message to all is simply to try harder to understand the meaning of the "parable", for it is really simple in concept, even if you still don't agree with the point that is being made. bob b
#90 February 17th, 2006, 09:57 AM
#91 February 17th, 2006, 10:02 AM
#92 February 17th, 2006, 10:11 AM
BTW, the other parable I posted on another thread, The Source of Novels, is related to this one.
How many "clues" do you microscope-wielding evolutionists need? bob b
#93 February 17th, 2006, 10:33 AM
#94 February 17th, 2006, 11:29 AM
OK, but if the math wasn't important then why did you include it? Your OP is almost all math based. Sure, it is bad and incorrect math, but it is math nonetheless.
I'm sure you probably do have a point hidden in there somewhere, or at least you think you do. It might even be an interesting point. (I enjoyed the Borges coffehouse scene) But unless the point is bad math, I think you'd be better off with a different parable. Or even a plain English rephrasing of your point. SUTG
#95 February 17th, 2006, 11:40 AM
So, to recap this thread, Bob starts out with some stuff about scrabble. SS gives us an arguement from personal incredulity. In response to SS's post Bob reveals to us that this is indeed the Emporers New Clothes. Believers like you see things that are hidden from unbelievers. fool
#96 February 17th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Stop with the attempts at mind-reading, you're really no good at it. I only presented the calculations for the simplest case because, as I quite explicitly stated, I was demonstrating, for those who were interested, the proper way to calculate the given probabilities, at which your own efforts failed rather miserably. If you had bothered to work through the two methods (i.e., the correct one and yours), you might have realized that the problem that you are presumably hinting at is in fact an artifact of your faulty methods. Thus, a single random letter change in each of 100 randomly selected 'good' two-letter words had a 27.7+4.6 % chance of forming another 'good' word, over 50 such runs, as I reported earlier. A single random letter change in each of 100 randomly selected 'good' three-letter words had a 26.8+1.3 % chance of forming another 'good' word, over 50 such runs.* [edit] Sorry, I'm worn out, got a little careless in my writing. Each of the 50 three-letter trials was based on 1154, not 100, randomly selected (with replacement, of course!) three-letter words. That's why the standard deviation is so much smaller in this case than in the two-letter case. And in case you have any doubt, no, 26.8+1.3 % (the p for three-letter words) is not significantly smaller than 27.7+4.6 % (the p for two-letter words).
Well, bob, unless the meaning had nothing to do with the "plummeting p's" in your calculations, allow me to suggest that your 'parable' is rather dead in the water. Of course, if the moral of your story is that the most obvious "problems" often turn out to be nothing more than mere illusions, then, yes, I'd say you've illustrated that rather nicely!
*I used the Aussie list you linked to, which had 1154 'good' three-letter words, not the 903 you reported. Also, all should note that I did not calculate the p in this case directly, as I did for the two-letter words, mainly because it was easier to expand the simulation (which I'd already tested with the two-letter words). aharvey
#97 February 17th, 2006, 12:20 PM
By the way, here's a small part of the last three-letter run. The first column gives the randomly chosen "good" word; the second column shows the new word after a random (in terms of both letter identity and location); the third column reports whether or not the new word is a "good" word (i.e., on the list of 1154 approved words). Twenty-nine of these 100 samples produced a good word; for the entire 1000+run, the tally was 25.56%. Again, for all 50 1154-sample 3-letter runs, the average was 26.8%.
In the interest of keeping my claims as transparent and well-documented as possible.
#98 February 17th, 2006, 01:48 PM
#99 February 17th, 2006, 01:53 PM
So, in this case we see a word that was non-viable (a not-good-word in the scrabble anology) which, later became a "good word" in the scrabble analogy. fool
#100 February 17th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Consider the following two questions: 1) I take it from your experiments that you have come to the conclusion that no matter how many letters are in a word that once one has a "good" word that the probability that a random change in that same word will result in another "good" word is reasonable? and 2) And what do random transformations from one "good" word to another "good" word have to do with the point of the parable? bob b
#101 February 18th, 2006, 08:01 AM
I take it from this question that you didn't really pay attention to what I said the first time around. My suggestion to you is that you simply try harder to understand. Perhaps the point of your parable is too difficult for even you to divine? aharvey
#102 February 18th, 2006, 11:46 AM
I don't even think Bob knows what his point is anymore. Johnny
#103 February 18th, 2006, 02:36 PM
His only point is that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong. noguru
#104 February 18th, 2006, 04:48 PM
#105 February 18th, 2006, 05:57 PM
#106 February 18th, 2006, 06:35 PM
#107 February 18th, 2006, 07:08 PM
My comment speaks to my impression of the complexity differential between creating "good" words and creating "good" proteins. The "it" in the "it's unfathomable" refers to the magnitude of the comlexity differential. It does not speak to whether or not creating a good protein from a random genetic mutation is possible. Just how complex is creating a "good" word from a single letter change? In the final analysis, calling a word "good" is meaningless because word creation is somewhat arbitrary. It wasn't a word before? Who cares! It is now! So once it's put in the dictionary, the "probability" within words of the same letter count goes up! If we put the analogy under the microscope, I think we must say that it's utterly meaningless with reference to biochemistry. Creating a functional protein, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of arbitrary. It must meet very specific criteria of functionality within the cell. If anything, my comment is actually an argument against the "good-word" analogy. Perhaps it is because I'm a Creationist that you didn't pick up on this. sentientsynth
#108 February 19th, 2006, 07:45 AM
Are you saying that natural selection understands this concept arbitrary and only allows the creation of protiens through means that are not arbitrary? Or is it genetic variation that has a guideline of not creating protiens through means that are not arbitrary? Just so that we are clear which definition of arbitrary are you using?
arbitrary
1.) Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary choice.
2.) Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3.) Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4.) Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
noguru
#109 February 19th, 2006, 02:04 PM
You guys slay me. Perhaps you should review the purpose of a parable. I gather that at least some are finally beginning to tumble to what the parable is pointing to. And "examining a parable under a microscope" is about as useful as trying to determine the purpose of a sweater by examining a patch of its material under high magnification. BTW, there are at least two further levels of meaning in the parable, but I won't talk about these until I am satisfied that the point of the first level has completely soaked in for all who are currently posting on this thread. bob b
#110 February 19th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Noguru,
I'm using the first definition of arbitrary: determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle. I could make due with the trimming "not determined by principle." Rereading my previous post, I understand how the statement "Creating a functional protein, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of arbitrary," led to some of your questions. Actually, that statement does a rather poor job of conveying the idea I was trying to get across.
Rather, what I'm trying to say is that a protein must meet specific criteria in order to be functional. It's primary, secondary, tertiary, and (possibly) quaternary structures must all work together with it's biochemical surroundings so as to "do" something, and that in accordance with physical-chemical law, i.e. without divine intervention. I guess it's kind of like a jig-saw puzzle. The protein just has to "fit." It may not need to be a razor sharp fit, but it can't be a square peg trying to fit in a round hole. (Yet another "loose analogy" not to be to "under the microscope." I guess you could put a square peg in a round hole if it were small enough. Slight variation: a square piston-head would not function very well in a combustion engine with round piston-holes (whatever they're called.) And what if an engine "devolved" to creating a brittle piston-shaft which broke upon use. It would break, rendering the engine useless. Not good.)
Are you asking me if I anthropomorphize the concept of natural selection in a wooden literal sense? I'm not sure what you're asking me here, NoGuru.
I'm not so much speaking to the means by which the new protein is created, but rather to the nature of the new protein. In order to be functional within the cell, it has to "fit" its surroundings somehow, and one would think that it would carry out a function at least similar to its predecessor protein. Consider the following, written by Douglas J. Futuyama.
“Over the course of vertebrate evolution, gene duplication has given rise to a family of hemoglobin genes that have diverged in function. The hemoglobin of the lamprey, a primitive jawless vertebrate, consists of a single protein chain (a monomer), encoded by a single gene. In jawed vertebrates such as fishes and mammals, hemoglobin is a tetramer: an aggregate of four chains of two types (alpha and beta), encoded by two genes with related sequences. This tetramer has a cooperative oxygen-binding capacity not available to the lamprey. In salmon, quadruple copies of the beta gene, differing slightly in sequence, yield four types of hemoglobin with different, adaptive oxygen-loading properties.1 In mammals, successive duplications of the beta gene gave rise to the gamma and epsilon chains, which characterize the hemoglobin of the fetus and early embryo respectively, and enhance uptake of oxygen from the mother.”
Imagine the mutation had not produced functional proteins. The organisms carrying these mutated genes would simply die. They wouldn't pass along their seed. They wouldn't be "naturally selected." The genetic mutation and subsequent protein would warrant the label "not good." The "means" of protein synthesis is governed by highly specific processes (not arbitrary). I'm not sure if I'm addressing your question. I find it somewhat vague. Hope I made my position a little more clear. SS
#111 February 19th, 2006, 03:33 PM
#112 February 19th, 2006, 03:46 PM
I am sorry if I offended you by my remark. On the other hand the microscope would be more effectively used on the object the analogy is pointing to rather than on the subject of the analogy itself.
BTW, the sweater analogy was off the top of my head, but since I couldn't think of anything more suitable on the spur of the moment, I decided to use it, even though I predicted to myself that someone would in turn examine that analogy with a microscope and conclude that the sweater's warmth (purpose) could be determined by examining the material using a microscope.
#113 February 19th, 2006, 03:54 PM
Offended?!? What on earth gave that impression? I thought your remark was legit. The whole sweater bit was me joshin with you.
#114 February 19th, 2006, 04:21 PM
I should have known, especially since I do the same thing myself.
But at any rate this thread has suffered the same fate as the sweater. Many have examined it under the microscope instead of looking at the object it pointed to.
#115 February 19th, 2006, 05:17 PM
I think I can see what you're getting at with this thread. Very subtle. I may be wrong, of course, but maybe we're on the same page.
#116 February 19th, 2006, 07:25 PM
Yea me too ::wink wink::
I think any incliniation anyone had left to take this thread seriously went out the window when Bob said to aharvey,
"And what do random transformations from one "good" word to another "good" word have to do with the point of the parable?"
That's utterly hilarious, considering Bob's initial post questioned
"How many “good” words are there in English for the various numbers of letters, two, three, four, five and six etc. ? What then is the probability p that having one particular “good” word that a random letter change will result in another good word ?
Bob then spent the rest of the post calculating what he thought was the right probabilities. So Bob, enlighten us all. If random transformations from one "good" word to another "good" word have nothing to do with the point of the parable then perhaps you should have devoted your first post to explaining something else.
My question is why would you intentionally withold something that you feel is so enlightening? I'm willing to bet that you're too ashamed to tell us your original "point" now. I'll be waiting for whatever tale you can concoct to tell us that that was your point all along. I'll lay odds that I know what you'll say. I'll be watching, but the game is getting really old.
Johnny
#117 February 19th, 2006, 08:11 PM
It was enlightening that people focused on whether the parable probabilities were precise.
Did I say that it had nothing to do with the point of the parable? I think not. I simply said,
"And what do random transformations from one "good" word to another "good" word have to do with the point of the parable?"
Johnny asked “My question is why would you intentionally withold something that you feel is so enlightening? “
Because a point stated directly by a creationist would be dismissed and forgotten, but a point discovered by oneself might be remembered, even if not agreed to.
You're still here, if maybe for the wrong reasons.
#118 February 19th, 2006, 08:43 PM
As an active poster in this thread, the thing I detected from the start (may that is a quick “soak in”) is that this was a super-hyped snake oil sales job. So far, there isn’t even an empty bottle of snake oil to show. Are you really going to wait for the “first level” so soak in to me before proceeding? ThePhy
#119 February 19th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Since you seem befuddled regarding the point of the parable, I guess I will have to be patient. Some people take longer to see things than others. bob b
#120 February 19th, 2006, 09:23 PM
Sorry everybody, but this is not the first time I have had the honor of being the excuse for Bob b not sharing some revelatory secret. Might be a long wait, since I am clear back still experimenting with getting snakes to talk so I can get past early Genesis. ThePhy
.
