METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[bob b]

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.

Let us hope that your faith in God will water the seed that I have planted.

 

[noguru]

Let us hope that your faith in God will water the seed that I have planted.

Bob I think you flatter yourself. My faith in God is not dependant on any "seed" you might think you have planted. I need only open up the Bible and live my life, in order to plant and water seeds of faith.

 

[ThePhy]

Let us hope that your faith in God will water the seed that I have planted.

Wow. Incorrect mathematics trying to support an incorrect idea, and that is supposed to be a seed that God can make blossom. If God has one ounce of integrity He will use it to show how un-truthful Bob's use of this thread has been.

 

[bob b]

Wow. Incorrect mathematics trying to support an incorrect idea, and that is supposed to be a seed that God can make blossom. If God has one ounce of integrity He will use it to show how un-truthful Bob's use of this thread has been.

Isn't God amazing?

Even though He works through His fallible servents, the Truth still shines through!!

:wave:

 

[ThePhy]

From bob b:

Even though He works through His fallible servents, the Truth still shines through!!

I take this as an admission that in this thread your point was indeed wrong, but you expect God can still salvage something from your blunder.

 

[SUTG]

fallible servents(sic)

Point taken. :chuckle:

 

[bob b]

From bob b: I take this as an admission that in this thread your point was indeed wrong, but you expect God can still salvage something from your blunder.

The point was interesting, even though an analogy is of course never "proof".

Yes, I did struggle a bit with the probabilities, but the exact numbers were not the "point". The trend should be clear to those with eyes to see. Whether the same trend occurs in proteins is of course the real question and that will not become clear until more research is done on determining the Natural Laws (if any) governing the determination (folding I suppose) of "good" proteins.

Did anyone notice how flawed the original Dawkin's analogy was?

That was why I used his "punchline" of METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

He actually came up with an interesting concept of comparing the English language to the "language" of DNA/proteins. But somewhere along the way of finetuning his analogy he strayed off the course of plausability.

 

[SUTG]

Did anyone notice how flawed the original Dawkin's analogy was?

No, but if you want to discuss that, why not post the original Dawkins' analogy and your criticism of it?

 

[bob b]

No, but if you want to discuss that, why not post the original Dawkins' analogy and your criticism of it?

I am amazed to hear someone claim it is not flawed.

Perhaps you would like to discuss why you think the sky is not blue.
(It's raining?)

 

[aharvey]

I am amazed to hear someone claim it is not flawed.

Perhaps you would like to discuss why you think the sky is not blue.
(It's raining?)

At one time I would have been amazed to hear someone equate the statement "No, I hadn't noticed how flawed the original Dawkin's analogy was" with the claim "No, it is not flawed." I guess I've finally lost my innocence when it comes to creationist argumentation tactics.

 

[bob b]

At one time I would have been amazed to hear someone equate the statement "No, I hadn't noticed how flawed the original Dawkin's analogy was" with the claim "No, it is not flawed." I guess I've finally lost my innocence when it comes to creationist argumentation tactics.

So you think SUTG hasn't heard of the flaws?

Boy are you are naive.

I interpreted his answer to mean that he doesn't consider the "flaws" in Dawkin's WEASEL model to be actual flaws and wants to argue that position.

The difference is that you consider SUTG to be ignorant and I don't.

BTW, I am assuming you are aware of the flaws, right?

 

[SUTG]

I interpreted his answer to mean that he doesn't consider the "flaws" in Dawkin's WEASEL model to be actual flaws and wants to argue that position.

I was not familiar with Dawkins' WEASEL model, but just looked it up on Google.

Are you sure you understand the model? Can you explain it, and the flaws, in your own words?

 

[bob b]

I was not familiar with Dawkins' WEASEL model, but just looked it up on Google.

Are you sure you understand the model? Can you explain it, and the flaws, in your own words?

Too much hassle. Post the link and I will tell you whether I agree or disagree with their description of it (I have the Dawkins book).

And I am truly amazed that you had never heard of it, and furthermore would be interested in whether you agree with its applicability to evolution and have noticed the obvious flaws or not.

 

[aharvey]

So you think SUTG hasn't heard of the flaws?

Boy are you are naive.

I interpreted his answer to mean that he doesn't consider the "flaws" in Dawkin's WEASEL model to be actual flaws and wants to argue that position.

The difference is that you consider SUTG to be ignorant and I don't.

BTW, I am assuming you are aware of the flaws, right?

I interpreted his/her answer as he/she typed it in response to the question that you asked. Since I've made it clear what I think of your worth as a mind reader, I guess we'll have to let SUTG speak for him/herself. Even so, I'll note that SUTG may have heard of the flaws but not noticed them him/herself.

For example, to answer your question (let's see how you bollux this up!), I have heard creationists claim the Dawkins Weasel example is flawed (a creationist really has no option to claim otherwise!), but as I've never read the original paper by Dawkins and only have a general familiarity with the idea, I don't know what these flaws are supposed to be, and therefore I can't possibly pass judgement on whether they are really flaws. If I'm not mistaken, all Dawkins was trying to do was show the error in only thinking of evolution as a "random process," and that a structured, i.e, non-random process can rapidly generate non-random structure. How much more specific does he get than that?

 

[SUTG]

Too much hassle. Post the link and I will tell you whether I agree or disagree with their description of it (I have the Dawkins book).

Here is one of them.

And I am truly amazed that you had never heard of it, and furthermore would be interested in whether you agree with its applicability to evolution and have noticed the obvious flaws or not.

I'm also surprised I hadn't heard of it. I am reading the Wikipedia entry right now, and will post afterwards.

 

[SUTG]

Seems OK to me for what Dawkins said it was doing - illustrating the difference between random and cumulative selection.

What are the flaws?

 

[bob b]

Seems OK to me for what Dawkins said it was doing - illustrating the difference between random and cumulative selection.

What are the flaws?

A lot of work just to do that.

Besides I asked you if you thought it had any applicability to evolution? If so what?

 

[SUTG]

A lot of work just to do that.

What do you mean? He went through alot of work to show the difference between random selction and cumulative selection?

 

[bob b]

I asked you if you thought it had any applicability to evolution? If so what?

 

[SUTG]

I asked you if you thought it had any applicability to evolution? If so what?

Well, the program was designed ( :chuckle: ) to show the difference between random selection and cumulative selection, which it does just fine.

So are you asking whether cumulative selection has any applicibility to evolution?