METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[SUTG]

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.

Wow! Your understanding of evolution or math (or both) is awful. You've failed on at least three accounts:

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.

So, for starters, brush up on your math (specifically probability), learn what the phrase "random mutations plus natural selection" means, and reread your first post for the obvious glaring errors.

By the time you've finished that, you probably won't want to waste our time with this nonsense anymore.

 

[billwald]

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 the the DNA "dictionary."

 

[koban]

Yup, Letsargue has hacked Bob's computer.

I was thinking the same thing when he first posted. :chuckle:

 

[sentientsynth]

You did the math wrong.

I say the math looks good, bob b.

Why doesn't herr professor demonstrate why it's flawed?

 

[fool]

I say the math looks good, bob b.

Why doesn't herr professor demonstrate why it's flawed?

Can you explain to us what Bob is trying to say with the OP?
He's being cryptic in this thread, holding this thread up as evidence of somthing in another thread, refusing to discuss it, and his credibility is starting to look much like Cheney's hunting buddy.

 

[sentientsynth]

Can you explain to us what Bob is trying to say with the OP?
He's being cryptic in this thread, holding this thread up as evidence of somthing in another thread, refusing to discuss it, and his credibility is starting to look much like Cheney's hunting buddy.

I thought the OP was just a cool co-inky-dink, with some applications in more abstract number theory pehaps.

Are you saying there's more than meets the eye, fool?


SS

 

[sentientsynth]

and his credibility is starting to look much like Cheney's hunting buddy.

Poor guy. Got shot. Had a heart attack. Is the center of attention of the whole world. Only to get his credibility questioned on some web forum. C'mon schlemiel. Let's give a brotha a rest.

 

[fool]

Poor guy. Got shot. Had a heart attack. Is the center of attention of the whole world. Only to get his credibility questioned on some web forum. C'mon schlemiel. Let's give a brotha a rest.

The reference to the shooting victim was an analogy, as in shot to pieces, like Bob's credibility for pointing to this nebulus thread as evidence of him refuting mutation.

 

[bowhunter]

like Bob's credibility for pointing to this nebulus thread as evidence of him refuting mutation.

how can he refute something that on the level he is talking about, does not exist?

 

[fool]

I thought the OP was just a cool co-inky-dink, with some applications in more abstract number theory pehaps.

Are you saying there's more than meets the eye, fool?


SS

No.
I'm saying that Bob's statement that his posts in this thread nicely disposed of anything was bullfeces.

 

[fool]

like Bob's credibility for pointing to this nebulus thread as evidence of him refuting mutation.

how can he refute something that on the level he is talking about, does not exist?

"On the level that he's talking about"
What's that mean?
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.

 

[bowhunter]

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).

 

[sentientsynth]

The reference to the shooting victim was an analogy,

:dizzy:

as in shot to pieces,

I think "peppered" is the PC term for what happened to that guy. Then he had a heart attack.
We need to ask ourselves serious questions about this.

like Bob's credibility for pointing to this nebulus thread as evidence of him refuting mutation.

This thread isn't about a nebulus. . And as far as refuting mutation , I seriously doubt that's what bob b is doing here. But I won't speak for bob b. He and I disagree on a few things, even though we're in the same boat.


SS

 

[fool]

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).

And where on Bob's scale of "p" do these variations fall?

 

[sentientsynth]

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.....

 

[fool]

:dizzy:


I think "peppered" is the PC term for what happened to that guy. Then he had a heart attack.

Pepper is a spice.
Old Boy got shot.

We need to ask ourselves serious questions about this.

Like "how bad do I want a quail?"

This thread isn't about a nebulus. .

nebulus is sometimes used to mean "cloudy", as in Bob's purpose, intent, positation, in this thread, which he is holding up as evidence of him refuting mutation in other threads.

And as far as refuting mutation , I seriously doubt that's what bob b is doing here. But I won't speak for bob b. He and I disagree on a few things, even though we're in the same boat.


SS

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.

 

[sentientsynth]

nebulus is sometimes used to mean "cloudy",

Oh I see. You mean nebulAR. "Protean" is a good one to lob at an argument as well.

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.

I guess I'm more interested in seeing the math cleared up.



SS

 

[SUTG]

I say the math looks good, bob b.

Why doesn't herr professor demonstrate why it's flawed?

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.

Someone please tell me Bob Enyart's evolve.exe is better than this!

Oh, this is rich. I predicted to my wife that someone would start arguing about the details...

I love how bob refers to doing the math as "the details".

 

[fool]

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?
Do you think Cheny should resign and let McCain become VP?

 

[sentientsynth]

SUTG,

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