METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[aharvey]

Consider the following two questions:

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?

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.

Second question from bob:

And what do random transformations from one "good" word to another "good" word have to do with the point of the parable?

Answer from bob (in bold, from the very first post in which he gives us this fine parable):

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 ?

snipped: his answer to his question, followed by his conclusion:

METHINKS DAWKINS STINKS

Perhaps the point of your parable is too difficult for even you to divine?

 

[Johnny]

I don't even think Bob knows what his point is anymore.

 

[noguru]

I don't even think Bob knows what his point is anymore.

His only point is that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

 

[sentientsynth]

So, to recap this thread, Bob starts out with some stuff about scrabble.
SS gives us an arguement from personal incredulity.

Fool,


What are you talking about? That wasn't an argument from incredulity. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep myself from calling you names right now? I deserve a medal.



SS

 

[ThePhy]

deleted

 

[fool]

Fool,
What are you talking about? That wasn't an argument from incredulity. Do you have any idea how hard it is to keep myself from calling you names right now? I deserve a medal.
SS

It was text book.

It's so much more complex, it's unfathomable (to me, at least.)

The red part follows the formula for argument from ignorance

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is a logical fallacy asserting that if something is currently unexplained then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist."

The green part modifies the argument from ignorance into a subspecies called argument from personal incredulity

Argument from ignorance is similar to but not equivalent to the argument from personal incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true.

You really should bone up on your fallacies, once you get familiar with the different forms their quite easy to spot, the wikipedia article has the link to the general fallacies article, if for some reason you think that your post would fit better under a different fallacy type then please advise.

 

[sentientsynth]

Fool,


Part of committing an argumentative fallacy is actually creating an argument. You're so off base it's pathetic.


SUTG said: But I'll bet the probablilites would be different for the creation of the good word and the creation of the good protein sequence.

SS replied: It's so much more complex, it's unfathomable (to me, at least.)


My comment speaks to my impression of the complexity differential between creating "good" words and creating "good" proteins. editThe "it" in the "it's unfathomable" refers to the magnitude of the comlexity differential. close edit 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. Perhaps.

I'll let you slide on this one fool. I've come down with the flu and am feeling especially sympathetic for some strange reason.



Sincerely,

SS

 

[noguru]

Fool,


Part of committing an argumentative fallacy is actually creating an argument. You're so off base it's pathetic.


SUTG said: But I'll bet the probablilites would be different for the creation of the good word and the creation of the good protein sequence.

SS replied: It's so much more complex, it's unfathomable (to me, at least.)


My comment speaks to my impression of the complexity differential between creating "good" words and creating "good" proteins. editThe "it" in the "it's unfathomable" refers to the magnitude of the comlexity differential. close edit 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. Perhaps.

I'll let you slide on this one fool. I've come down with the flu and am feeling especially sympathetic for some strange reason.



Sincerely,

SS

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.

 

[bob b]

You guys slay me. :rotfl:

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.

 

[sentientsynth]

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 saying that natural selection understands this concept arbitrary

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.

and only allows the creation of protiens through means that are not arbitrary?

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. Source​

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."

Or is it genetic variation that has a guideline of not creating protiens through means that are not arbitrary?

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

 

[sentientsynth]

Yo Bob B,

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.

Examining the material would give us an indication of how insulating the sweater is, and would in fact tell us if it would work as a sweater or not. But we'll hold this one as a "loose analogy" as well.


SS

 

[bob b]

Yo Bob B,


Examining the material would give us an indication of how insulating the sweater is, and would in fact tell us if it would work as a sweater or not. But we'll hold this one as a "loose analogy" as well.


SS

SS

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. :sigh:

 

[sentientsynth]

I am sorry if I offended you by my remark.

Offended?!? What on earth gave that impression? I thought your remark was legit. The whole sweater bit was me joshin with you.

BTW, the sweater analogy was off the top of my head

You mean it didn't come from your brain?!? We need to ask ourselves serious questions, bob.

 

[bob b]

Offended?!? What on earth gave that impression? I thought your remark was legit. The whole sweater bit was me joshin with you.
You mean it didn't come from your brain?!? We need to ask ourselves serious questions, bob.

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.

 

[sentientsynth]

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.

 

[Johnny]

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.

 

[bob b]

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, That's utterly hilarious, considering Bob's initial post questioned Bob then spent the rest of the post calculating what he thought was the right probabilities.

It was enlightening that people focused on whether the parable probabilities were precise.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

You're still here, if maybe for the wrong reasons.

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

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.

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?

 

[bob b]

From bob b: 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?

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.

 

[ThePhy]

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.