METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[sentientsynth]

Better and better all the time, eh Bob?

 

[bob b]

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.

This parable is far easier. But if you wish to concede defeat so be it.

Perhaps someone more flexible can penetrate this "unfathomable mystery".

I think SS already has.

 

[fool]

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;
This new approach you have taken has disapointed me to a depth that I cannot express.
I plead to you to turn away from this course and seek a way that you may serve truth without becoming the antithesis of that you wish to espouse.
Some of the finest men I have known were YEC.
They suffered the ridicule of the whole World and bore their burden with grace, but they never resorted to bad arguments, or ridicule of logic, to score cheap points.
In the past when I have walked you down to the end of a trail you have given me "not enough is yet known" or, as I saw again in a recent thread, "this has been pondered since the begining of man" but you have not in the history of our relation gone so far as to hold up the unknown as proof of anything, nor have you ever been so arrogant as to not make arguments and say that your non-arguments were proof of somthing.
I feel as though my friend is falling down a well, and I don't know what to do to keep him from letting go

 

[immivik]

natural selection requires a complete sell living and active in order that the 'fittest' would continue and also improve, yet the cell is found to be infinately more complicated than Darwin ever imagined the smaller parts of living things to be. He even said that if it could be shown that any living thing had complexity which could not have occurred in steps but required all parts to be completed all at once for the species to survive (irreducable complexity) his theory would be destroyed.

 

[bob b]

Bob;
This new approach you have taken has disapointed me to a depth that I cannot express.
I plead to you to turn away from this course and seek a way that you may serve truth without becoming the antithesis of that you wish to espouse.
Some of the finest men I have known were YEC.
They suffered the ridicule of the whole World and bore their burden with grace, but they never resorted to bad arguments, or ridicule of logic, to score cheap points.
In the past when I have walked you down to the end of a trail you have given me "not enough is yet known" or, as I saw again in a recent thread, "this has been pondered since the begining of man" but you have not in the history of our relation gone so far as to hold up the unknown as proof of anything, nor have you ever been so arrogant as to not make arguments and say that your non-arguments were proof of somthing.
I feel as though my friend is falling down a well, and I don't know what to do to keep him from letting go

What can I do?

I posed a parable that has an obvious connection to creation-evolution (my favorite topic).

I reference another thread (The Source of Novels).

Still, there is great difficulty in discovering the point of the parable!

There is no value in my stating the point, because I am (how did ThePhy put it) essentially a worthless source.

The only value in the parable is for those who are interested to seek and find the meaning themselves, even if while doing so they still reject the meaning.

Sorry, but this has been the conclusion which I have come to.

If everyone wants to give up, so be it.

But remember what Jesus said: "Seek and ye shall find" (of course He was talking about the Kingdom of God).

 

[fool]

There is no value in my stating the point,

I would say that the best path would be to state your point and nothing else.
Speak softly and.............................

But remember what Jesus said: "Seek and ye shall find" (of course He was talking about the Kingdom of God).

"Seek" being the operative word.
You have tried to be Jesus with these threads, you make a much better Bob.
We need Bob back, Jesus is Jesus's job.
If we have our Bob trying to be Jesus we will have niether a Jesus or a Bob.

 

[sentientsynth]

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.

Oh, SS. I see what you're saying now. I retract my statement. My apologies.

Not a problem fool. Hey, it happens right? Just so long as I've made myself clear now. Sorry if I seemed nebulous.

Gosh, SS. You're such a great guy. How can I become more like you?

I don't know how I do it, fool. Sometimes I amaze even myself.



SS

 

[sentientsynth]

I don't know how I do it, fool. Sometimes I amaze even myself.

But you're SO awesome, SS. It doesn't seem humanly possible to be that awesome ALL the time. There must be a secret. I am in utter awe of your awesomeness. I'm willing to do ANYTHING to be more like you.

Well, fool, awesomeness, as I see it, is one of those qualities that a man is born with. He cannot be taught it. If you are truly thirsty for my awesomeness, I suggest that you read everything I say and attempt to re-make yourself after my pattern. This is your only hope, fool

Gosh, SS. That seems so hard to do. But I'm in such awe of your awesomeness that I'm willing to do anything. Please, SS. Teach me how to be totally awesome just like you.

When you wake up in the morning, the first thing you must say to yourself is, "I do not suck. Neither will I allow myself to do anything that isn't awesome. By this I will channel the spirit of SS, and thereby become more awesome."

Thanks, SS. You're so awesome.

I know, fool. I know.

 

[fool]

Blah blah blah

Looks like you're over your flu.
Cool.
As far as me destroying your posts, it does matter to me that I may have misconstrued which particular nuance you were refering to, vis-a-vie you talkin to SUTG, but what set me off was Bob holdin that particular post up as bein the only serious post regardin his OP. And the fact remains that you used the word "unfathomable", which is a red flag word for me. It implies that something can't be fathomed. And I maintain that is an argument from ignorance.
Having read your subsequent posts I can see that you were refering to a nuance of a sub argument of a dispute about the formula of the original OP argument that Bob still declines to make or defend. So I apologize for hammering you. However, that "unfathomable" word will set me off whenever spotted so just watch it.
:cheers:

 

[koban]

Looks like you're over your flu.
Cool.
As far as me destroying your posts, it does matter to me that I may have misconstrued which particular nuance you were refering to, vis-a-vie you talkin to SUTG, but what set me off was Bob holdin that particular post up as bein the only serious post regardin his OP. And the fact remains that you used the word "unfathomable", which is a red flag word for me. It implies that something can't be fathomed. And I maintain that is an argument from ignorance.
Having read your subsequent posts I can see that you were refering to a nuance of a sub argument of a dispute about the formula of the original OP argument that Bob still declines to make or defend. So I apologize for hammering you. However, that "unfathomable" word will set me off whenever spotted so just watch it.
:cheers:

The ease with which you can be set off is unfathomable. :chuckle:

 

[sentientsynth]

Looks like you're over your flu.

Almost. I self-medicate well.

As far as me destroying your posts, it does matter to me that I may have misconstrued which particular nuance you were refering to

Thanks.

And the fact remains that you used the word "unfathomable", which is a red flag word for me. It implies that something can't be fathomed. And I maintain that is an argument from ignorance.

"Unfathomable" is indeed a red-flag word. Whenever you see it, look for context. Here, it was hyperbole. I use many literary devices when I write. They help me to communicate with clarity and style. Language isn't algebra, fool. I'd like to share with you this resource that I refer to from time to time to help me with my writing. This resource will help you in your day to day striving to become more..well...you know...

However, that "unfathomable" word will set me off whenever spotted so just watch it.

I can understand your aversion to it within formal logic. However, If you want to be really awesome (like me), then you should look to see if the context warrants the use of that word. If it's presented within a syllogistic format, then "argument from incredulity" is warranted.



Your friend,

SS

 

[aharvey]

I’ve still seen no evidence that bob even knows what the point of his parable is, but I’ll note the following (No microscope here, not that there ever was one: it strains credulity that you would present a very specific mathematical model, and claim that the point it makes is valid no matter how completely wrong the model is!):

1. Calculating probabilities involving specific “behaviors” of even simple words is far more complex than some folks are apparently aware.
2. Proper accounting of these probabilities show that even simple words often don’t “behave” the way you might expect them to.
3. Proteins are far more complicated than even complex words.
4. Thus, a simplistic probabilistic viewpoint that fails to account for the “behavior” of simple words has little chance to correctly infer the “behavior” of complex proteins!

I’ll also note that in either case (words or proteins), if you relax the assumption of a priori functionality, all bets are off.

 

[bob b]

I’ve still seen no evidence that bob even knows what the point of his parable is, but I’ll note the following (No microscope here, not that there ever was one: it strains credulity that you would present a very specific mathematical model, and claim that the point it makes is valid no matter how completely wrong the model is!):

I would agree that recognizing the point of the parable is not proof that its point is valid. For some, like myself, it is sufficient. For others it hopefully raises an interesting question.

1. Calculating probabilities involving specific “behaviors” of even simple words is far more complex than some folks are apparently aware.

The complexity arises when a specific set of words is specified, because the hidden assumption in the simple model assumes homogeneity in the distribution of the word-space.

2. Proper accounting of these probabilities show that even simple words often don’t “behave” the way you might expect them to.

Correct.

3. Proteins are far more complicated than even complex words.

Correct.

4. Thus, a simplistic probabilistic viewpoint that fails to account for the “behavior” of simple words has little chance to correctly infer the “behavior” of complex proteins!

Again, correct. However the value of parables (or analogies) is to point to key issues. This the "word parable" does in even its simplist form, i.e. transformation of a single specially unique word to another single specially unique word, where these "specially unique words" are in the minority in the total word space.

To add to the complete parable, there are two deeper levels beyond the initial "word parable" that have yet to be fully revealed and explored.

These two additional levels further strengthen the sense of validity of the parable for those who become aware of the deeper levels.

Try rereading The Source of Novels.

I’ll also note that in either case (words or proteins), if you relax the assumption of a priori functionality, all bets are off.

Do you recommend doing this?

 

[noguru]

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. 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."




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

Yes, you addressed my questions very well. The reason I asked those questions and posted those definitions was for a specific purpose. I appologize if they seemed vague to you.

At any rate, I agree that there are highly specific processes governing the means of protien synthesis. I would add that arbitrary in this sense is referring to the lack of principle. In Bob's example it is referring to a more strigent and codified written language. Are you certain that Bob's "parable" is a good analogy? I mean I would say that a better analogy would be verbal language. In this case misspellings (in the head of the orator) can occur (because it is the pheonetics and context that is most important), but functionality for the most part remains intact.

 

[bob b]

Yes, you addressed my questions very well. The reason I asked those questions and posted those definitions was for a specific purpose. I appologize if they seemed vague to you.

At any rate, I agree that there are highly specific processes governing the means of protien synthesis. I would add that arbitrary in this sense is referring to the lack of principle. In Bob's example it is referring to a more strigent and codified written language. Are you certain that Bob's "parable" is a good analogy? I mean I would say that a better analogy would be verbal language. In this case misspellings (in the head of the orator) can occur (because it is the pheonetics and context that is most important), but functionality for the most part remains intact.

Bingo! The 2nd level of the parable appears!

Nice work noguru. :thumb:

 

[noguru]

Bingo! The 2nd level of the parable appears!

Nice work noguru. :thumb:

OK. Thanks. Now how does this support or influence the probability calculations of your first level "parable"?

 

[bob b]

OK. Thanks. Now how does this support or influence the probability calculations of your first level "parable"?

Back to the thread subject, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

What single letter could we substitute in one of the positions of "LIKE" and still retain reasonable sense?

Out of the possible 456,976 4-letter combinations and 4155 "good" 4-letter words, there are 17 candidates:
bike dike hike kike mike pike sike tike lake leke lice life lime line lire lite live

Some of these 17 probably do not make better sense in the sentence than LIKE does.

But remember, there is at least one more level in the "parable".

 

[koban]

Back to the thread subject, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

What letter could we substitute in one of the positions of "LIKE" and still retain reasonable sense?

M




Although why anybody would name a weasel "MIKE" is beyond me. :dizzy:

 

[noguru]

Back to the thread subject, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

What letter could we substitute in one of the positions of "LIKE" and still retain reasonable sense?

Bob, can we add and remove letters and words also?

 

[bob b]

M
Although why anybody would name a weasel "MIKE" is beyond me. :dizzy:

Exactly!!

But review my edited post for all 17 possible words.