METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[koban]

Exactly!!

But review my edited post for all 17 possible words.

You missed "LUKE".



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

 

[bob b]

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

It is only an analogy. The point is what is important. Remember, we started with:
FOUR LETTER WORDS - 4155 "good" words out of 26x26x26x26=456,976 possibilities

Here are the candidate words for LIKE when considering a single-letter substitution.

LIKE
bike dike hike kike mike pike sike tike lake leke lice life lime line lire lite live 17

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

 

[noguru]

It is only an analogy. The point is what is important. Remember, we started with:
FOUR LETTER WORDS - 4155 "good" words out of 676x676=456,976 possibilities

Here are the candidate words for LIKE when considering a single-letter substitution.

LIKE
bike dike hike kike mike pike sike tike lake leke lice life lime line lire lite live 17

Is this number equivalent to the possible number of functional protiens?

 

[noguru]

You missed "LUKE".



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

And nike. ike, if you can remove the first letter altogether. And if we a considering pheneotics, there is meik, leik, beik, deik, heik, keik, peik seik, teik, leik, reik, myek, lyek, dyek...... Also if we can change other words simultaneously or at another time the sentence will eventually begin to take on another meaning altogether.

 

[bob b]

Is this number equivalent to the possible number of functional protiens?

At this point nobody knows.

What is known is that the average protein consists of something more than 100 amino acid letters, each "letter" having 22 different possible amino acids.

So the number of possible combination of 100 letters would be:

22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22

Which is a fair sized number. Roughly equal to the number of atoms in the universe cubed or quadrupled.

How many "good" proteins is one thing. How many could be formed from a specific "good" protein by changing a single amino acid to form another "good" one (which would have to be better than the old one in order to be preserved by natural selection) is something yet to be determined by science. This is the first level of meaning.

But "hope springs eternal" it is said.

 

[noguru]

At this point nobody knows.

What is known is that the average protein consists of something more than 100 amino acid letters, each "letter" having 22 different possible amino acids.

So the number of possible combination of 100 letters would be:

22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22

Which is a fair sized number. Roughly equal to the number of atoms in the universe cubed or quadrupled.

How many "good" proteins is one thing. How many could be formed from a specific "good" protein by changing a single amino acid to form another "good" one (which would have to be better than the old one in order to be preserved by natural selection) is something yet to be determined by science. This is the first level of meaning.

So in other words, you are admitting that you don't really know whether or not your simplistic little "parable" is an appropriate analogy.

But "hope springs eternal" it is said.

Well perhaps not in your case.

 

[Lord Vader]

At this point nobody knows.

What is known is that the average protein consists of something more than 100 amino acid letters, each "letter" having 22 different possible amino acids.

So the number of possible combination of 100 letters would be:

22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22

Which is a fair sized number. Roughly equal to the number of atoms in the universe cubed or quadrupled.

How many "good" proteins is one thing. How many could be formed from a specific "good" protein by changing a single amino acid to form another "good" one (which would have to be better than the old one in order to be preserved by natural selection) is something yet to be determined by science. This is the first level of meaning.

But "hope springs eternal" it is said.

The chance of forming an enzyme like carboxypeptidase, a 300 amino acid long protein, randomly is 1 in 2.04 X 10^390. Add to that the probabilities of all the other enymes to get a number God hasn't invented yet...

 

[sentientsynth]

The chance of forming an enzyme like carboxypeptidase, a 300 amino acid long protein, randomly is 1 in 2.04 X 10^390. Add to that the probabilities of all the other enymes to get a number God hasn't invented yet...

:darwinsm:

 

[aharvey]

At this point nobody knows.

What is known is that the average protein consists of something more than 100 amino acid letters, each "letter" having 22 different possible amino acids.

So the number of possible combination of 100 letters would be:

22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22x22

Which is a fair sized number. Roughly equal to the number of atoms in the universe cubed or quadrupled.

How many "good" proteins is one thing. How many could be formed from a specific "good" protein by changing a single amino acid to form another "good" one (which would have to be better than the old one in order to be preserved by natural selection) is something yet to be determined by science. This is the first level of meaning.

But "hope springs eternal" it is said.

Yeah, sooner or later the "big numbers, tiny probabilities" argument was bound to appear. Ah well. I've already given a simple example (the number of possible arrangements of 100 grains of sand in a liter of water: 100^600, conservatively) that dwarfs these numbers, and yet when asked how the sand grains are likely to distribute themselves in the water, we somehow can easily eliminate virtually all of those possible arrangements. How is that possible?

 

[bob b]

Yeah, sooner or later the "big numbers, tiny probabilities" argument was bound to appear. Ah well. I've already given a simple example (the number of possible arrangements of 100 grains of sand in a liter of water: 100^600, conservatively) that dwarfs these numbers, and yet when asked how the sand grains are likely to distribute themselves in the water, we somehow can easily eliminate virtually all of those possible arrangements. How is that possible?

For the same reason that crystals form in regular patterns.

But on the contrary, DNA and proteins appear in irregular patterns, what some have referred to as "specified complexity".

BTW, in the WEASEL example we can see in the particular case of LIKE being transformed into one of the other 17 "good" words which differ from it by only one letter, that the probability of doing this is 17 divided by 25+25+25 +25=100 (the total of possible words which could occur). Thus the probability in this case (given the initial word LIKE) is 17/100=0.17

The "hooker" in the case of the English language is that not all of the 17 "good" words are equal in the "sense" that they make when placed into a sentence. Thus in the METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL example, many of the 17 words would be rejected by an editor (artificial selection), further reducing the probability of achieving a "better" sentence.

In an analogous way, several proteins are typically embedded in a "sentence" (control system) so that not all "good" proteins are equal in improving the operation of the overall control system, and hence many would tend to be rejected by the "editor" (natural selection). This is the 2nd level of the parable (there is a 3rd).

 

[Jukia]

In an analogous way, several proteins are typically embedded in a "sentence" (control system) so that not all "good" proteins are equal in improving the operation of the overall control system, and hence many would tend to be rejected by the "editor" (natural selection). This is the 2nd level of the parable (there is a 3rd).

I'm sooo glad bob b was able to continue this long enough to get to use the words "control system".

And is the 3rd lever the one that this long enough to move the earth?

 

[bob b]

I'm sooo glad bob b was able to continue this long enough to get to use the words "control system".

And is the 3rd lever the one that this long enough to move the earth?

Level not lever. Natural selection would eliminate your typo. :rotfl:

 

[aharvey]

For the same reason that crystals form in regular patterns.

But on the contrary, DNA and proteins appear in irregular patterns, what some have referred to as "specified complexity".

Hmm. So, "on the contrary," 100 sand grains in a liter of water will form a regular pattern? This is getting better and better.

BTW, in the WEASEL example we can see in the particular case of LIKE being transformed into one of the other 17 "good" words which differ from it by only one letter, that the probability of doing this is 17 divided by 25+25+25 +25=100 (the total of possible words which could occur). Thus the probability in this case (given the initial word LIKE) is 17/100=0.17

The "hooker" in the case of the English language is that not all of the 17 "good" words are equal in the "sense" that they make when placed into a sentence. Thus in the METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL example, many of the 17 words would be rejected by an editor (artificial selection), further reducing the probability of achieving a "better" sentence.

In an analogous way, several proteins are typically embedded in a "sentence" (control system) so that not all "good" proteins are equal in improving the operation of the overall control system, and hence many would tend to be rejected by the "editor" (natural selection). This is the 2nd level of the parable (there is a 3rd).

Too bad organisms are neither as tightly structured nor as linearly constrained as the English language.

But I am interested in how far you're willing to take this, because at some point you will have made such an excellent case, building on your assumptions, that you will have conclusively demonstrated the profound implausibility of the slightest evolutionary change. At that point we can revisit the question of whether, in a few thousand years, we could reasonably expect any genetic differences to have accumulated within biblical kinds, much less differences in genomic structure, if your arguments and assumptions are correct.

 

[bob b]

Hmm. So, "on the contrary," 100 sand grains in a liter of water will form a regular pattern? This is getting better and better.

I could pursue this further but would prefer another thread so we can stay on topic here.

Too bad organisms are neither as tightly structured nor as linearly constrained as the English language.

An analogy is not an equality, but is only suggestive. The suggestion is that some characteristics of a language may be present to a more or less degree in the DNA/protein "language". If so then it suggests possible lines of investigation.

But I am interested in how far you're willing to take this, because at some point you will have made such an excellent case, building on your assumptions, that you will have conclusively demonstrated the profound implausibility of the slightest evolutionary change.

That is way overstating the case for what is after all only an analogy. However your comment does raise an interesting characteristic of the English language: its redundancy.
People can still understand the meaning of a sentence even if there are typos in it. It should be obvious that the same holds true for organisms with protein mutations: they frequently still work. Exactly why is a subject for further research.

At that point we can revisit the question of whether, in a few thousand years, we could reasonably expect any genetic differences to have accumulated within biblical kinds, much less differences in genomic structure, if your arguments and assumptions are correct.

Again, you miss the purpose of an analogy by treating it as an equality or a model.

 

[aharvey]

I could pursue this further but would prefer another thread so we can stay on topic here.

Fine, but don't overlook my point that a few simple rules can invest a whole lot of nonrandomness into a system, so that outcomes that seem impossibly unlikely in a random system become not so far fetched after all.

An analogy is not an equality, but is only suggestive. The suggestion is that some characteristics of a language may be present to a more or less degree in the DNA/protein "language". If so then it suggests possible lines of investigation.

I'll be interested to learn what possible lines of investigation your "analogy" suggests that are not already under investigation by biologists.

That is way overstating the case for what is after all only an analogy. However your comment does raise an interesting characteristic of the English language: its redundancy.
People can still understand the meaning of a sentence even if there are typos in it. It should be obvious that the same holds true for organisms with protein mutations: they frequently still work. Exactly why is a subject for further research.

So, again, you think biologists aren't aware of this? That no one's studying this?

Again, you miss the purpose of an analogy by treating it as an equality or a model.

Not at all, but it will be interesting to see how you ultimately summarize the "points" of your analogy/parable/fable/shaggy dog story/etc.

 

[bob b]

Fine, but don't overlook my point that a few simple rules can invest a whole lot of nonrandomness into a system, so that outcomes that seem impossibly unlikely in a random system become not so far fetched after all.

It was a good point, and should be taken into consideration.

I'll be interested to learn what possible lines of investigation your "analogy" suggests that are not already under investigation by biologists.

This discussion was not aimed at "educating" research biologists, many of whom are probably well aware of the "English language" analogy.

So, again, you think biologists aren't aware of this? That no one's studying this?

Ditto my previous answer.

Not at all, but it will be interesting to see how you ultimately summarize the "points" of your analogy/parable/fable/shaggy dog story/etc.

The parable "seed" has now been planted in the minds of those who have been reading this thread.

It will be interesting to see whether, or in whom, it will grow.

It might take awhile.

 

[ThePhy]

I still think this thread is a credit to bob. It takes a pretty good con artist to keep people coming back to a thread for well over 100 exchanges before the ruse starts to show.

 

[bob b]

I still think this thread is a credit to bob. It takes a pretty good con artist to keep people coming back to a thread for well over 100 exchanges before the ruse starts to show.

Thanks. That's got to be the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

 

[ThePhy]

Thanks. That's got to be the nicest thing you've ever said to me.

That's what best buddies are for.

 

[noguru]

I still think this thread is a credit to bob. It takes a pretty good con artist to keep people coming back to a thread for well over 100 exchanges before the ruse starts to show.

It's par for the course. That's the only reason I read Bob's posts anymore. That is to see how he sets that "salesman's" hook.