tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4566196694103255627..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Is the Origin of New Genes “Basically a Solved Problem”?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47263353333975963042014-09-15T14:11:47.616-07:002014-09-15T14:11:47.616-07:00natschuster: So just shuffling exons doesn;t reall...<b>natschuster</b>: <i>So just shuffling exons doesn;t really solve the problem. </i><br /><br />It dramatically reduces the combinatorial problem. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7734921948633293812014-09-15T13:05:31.888-07:002014-09-15T13:05:31.888-07:00Zachriel:
I'm assuming that by rearrainging e...Zachriel:<br /><br />I'm assuming that by rearrainging exons you mean yorua re rearrainging functional domains, or tertiary structures. But to the best of my knowledge, that isn't there isn't 1: correspondence between exons and domains. Sometimes a number iof exons is needed to make one domain. And they might nit fit together to make a functioning domain if the order is change. Tertiary stucture depends on quaternary structure. So just shuffling exons doesn;t really solve the problem. Its like taking apart a machine, shuffling the parts, randomkling rearrainging them, and hpoing to get something that works.natschusterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13127240463824366637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-42581229284024194842014-09-15T09:52:22.881-07:002014-09-15T09:52:22.881-07:00So you have abandoned everything. Very good.So you have abandoned everything. Very good.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86500711749372313002014-09-15T09:50:55.018-07:002014-09-15T09:50:55.018-07:00Joe G: When that person exists you will have somet...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>When that person exists you will have something to talk about. </i><br /><br />So you have abandoned your position. Fair enough. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49463837170553517202014-09-15T09:48:41.866-07:002014-09-15T09:48:41.866-07:00In any case, someone who could predict 97% of the ...<i>In any case, someone who could predict 97% of the lottery numbers would win the jackpot on four out of five lotteries of six numbers, and when losing the jackpot would almost certainly win one of the lesser prizes.</i><br /><br />When that person exists you will have something to talk about.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82387897303026340662014-09-15T09:38:40.216-07:002014-09-15T09:38:40.216-07:00Joe G: So not a prediction.
The question is whet...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>So not a prediction. </i><br /><br />The question is whether the string was random or not. <br /><br />In any case, someone who could predict 97% of the lottery numbers would win the jackpot on four out of five lotteries of six numbers, and when losing the jackpot would almost certainly win one of the lesser prizes. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7543065683718487802014-09-15T09:33:21.667-07:002014-09-15T09:33:21.667-07:00So not random
So not a prediction.<i>So not random</i><br /><br />So not a prediction.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39377674118733596812014-09-15T09:30:16.145-07:002014-09-15T09:30:16.145-07:00Joe G: that would mean someone looked at the winni...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>that would mean someone looked at the winning numbers and couldn't repeat them correctly. </i><br /><br />So not random. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44622783592368516332014-09-15T09:28:28.733-07:002014-09-15T09:28:28.733-07:00Z:
So if someone can predict lottery numbers with ...Z:<br /><i>So if someone can predict lottery numbers with 97% accuracy, you would consider that random? </i><br /><br />In context that would mean someone looked at the winning numbers and couldn't repeat them correctly.<br /><br />What is wrong with you?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-82095007098671882302014-09-15T09:25:08.106-07:002014-09-15T09:25:08.106-07:00Joe G: I cannot do the same with the altered versi...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>I cannot do the same with the altered version. </i><br /><br />So if someone can predict lottery numbers with 97% accuracy, you would consider that random? <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-55509505971450962982014-09-15T09:23:37.753-07:002014-09-15T09:23:37.753-07:00I can predict the unaltered original to 100%. I ca...I can predict the unaltered original to 100%. I cannot do the same with the altered version. Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-7336995011598645322014-09-15T09:22:11.825-07:002014-09-15T09:22:11.825-07:00It is random with respect to the original.It is random with respect to the original.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-12220295941580722062014-09-15T09:18:56.523-07:002014-09-15T09:18:56.523-07:00Joe G: I said random with respect to the original....<b>Joe G</b>: <i>I said random with respect to the original. </i><br /><br />It's not random with respect to the original. The original predicts the altered version with 97% accuracy. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2834370967861539292014-09-15T09:17:55.450-07:002014-09-15T09:17:55.450-07:00I said random with respect to the original. If you...I said random with respect to the original. If you have to lie and misrepresent, why bother?Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32456672081710761362014-09-15T09:11:23.992-07:002014-09-15T09:11:23.992-07:00Joe G: If 97 < 100 then I am correct.
Add ran...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>If 97 < 100 then I am correct. </i><br /><br />Add random to the concepts you do not understand. For something to be random, it means the chance of guessing the next in the sequence is no better than chance. With 27 characters, that would be about 4%, not 97%. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66933732844530540852014-09-15T09:08:26.788-07:002014-09-15T09:08:26.788-07:00If 97 < 100 then I am correct. And 97 < 100If 97 < 100 then I am correct. And 97 < 100Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-53225178546849510332014-09-15T09:07:32.514-07:002014-09-15T09:07:32.514-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62089515116967718172014-09-15T08:58:27.567-07:002014-09-15T08:58:27.567-07:00Joe G: It is definitely random with respect to the...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>It is definitely random with respect to the original. </i><br /><br />No, it's not. It strongly resembles the original sequence. So you are wrong again. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-88315817846422116902014-09-15T08:56:26.701-07:002014-09-15T08:56:26.701-07:00It is definitely random with respect to the origin...It is definitely random with respect to the original. <br /><br />But anyway this is where it started:<br /><br /><i>If you prefer, take a DNA sequence of a functional protein, change a few bases. The result will not be random.</i> <br /><br />How do you know?<br /><br />Shakespeare is not a DNA sequence of a protein.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91490497498884451312014-09-15T08:16:33.364-07:002014-09-15T08:16:33.364-07:00Joe G: And you will be wrong at every random chang...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>And you will be wrong at every random change. </i><br /><br />Which means 97% of the time we would be correct. That means it is not a random sequence. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-79832379938269516592014-09-15T08:03:35.009-07:002014-09-15T08:03:35.009-07:00And you will be wrong at every random change. So g...And you will be wrong at every random change. So going from a 100% certainty to less than that means it is random with respect to the original.<br /><br />But again all of this is moot as it has nothing to do with what you were trying to respond to.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-3710810560903488132014-09-15T07:44:54.032-07:002014-09-15T07:44:54.032-07:00Joe G: It is random in that you cannot predict wha...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>It is random in that you cannot predict what letter will come next. </i><br /><br />That is incorrect. We can predict with reasonable probability which letter will come next in the sequence. <br /> Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54823272655117739922014-09-15T07:32:11.663-07:002014-09-15T07:32:11.663-07:00It is random in that you cannot predict what lette...It is random in that you cannot predict what letter will come next. However this has NOTHING to do with anything we were discussing. It is just another one of your attempts to obfuscate.Joe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-5859271799339299842014-09-15T07:24:56.350-07:002014-09-15T07:24:56.350-07:00Joe G: the pattern of typos is random
But that&#...<b>Joe G</b>: <i>the pattern of typos is random </i><br /><br />But that's not the question. Is the resultant string random? Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59037457493028927802014-09-15T07:16:53.531-07:002014-09-15T07:16:53.531-07:00Zachriel continues to prove that she is dishonest....Zachriel continues to prove that she is dishonest.<br /><br />Z: <i>Is the resultant string random?</i> <br /><br />Yes, the pattern of typos is randomJoe Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08305194278121208230noreply@blogger.com