Non-Darwinian Wordle

[Woodznutz]

Try getting some new slogans to replace your tedious, cut and paste “polypeptide chains” when you neither understand the terms nor the biology.

Sooo, you actually understand this stuff? And, do you think others that 'believe' in the ToE understand this stuff? And, if a 'believer' were to peruse this stuff would, or could, he or she attribute it to evolution, or would their eyes simply glaze over as mine did while reading this stuff?

Polypeptide - The Definitive Guide | Biology Dictionary

The polypeptide definition describes a chain of more than twenty and under fifty amino acids bound together via covalent peptide bonds.

biologydictionary.net

 

[Hollie]

Sooo, you actually understand this stuff? And, do you think others that 'believe' in the ToE understand this stuff? And, if a 'believer' were to peruse this stuff would, or could, he or she attribute it to evolution, or would their eyes simply glaze over as mine did while reading this stuff?

Polypeptide - The Definitive Guide | Biology Dictionary

The polypeptide definition describes a chain of more than twenty and under fifty amino acids bound together via covalent peptide bonds.

biologydictionary.net

I can't say I know any believers in biological evolution. As the facts of evolution are demonstrated, there's no requirement for belief. I have trust that facts and evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experimentation has no requirement for supernaturalism.

"Beliebers" on the other hand are a different matter. Belief / faith is a relgious requirement. theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of various divine, supernatural beings who via supernatural means established all of reality including the laws of nature.

Demonstrable your various gods. When others demonstrate theirs, you Beliebers can thrash out which group and which gods are left standing.

 

[Woodznutz]

I can't say I know any believers in biological evolution. As the facts of evolution are demonstrated, there's no requirement for belief. I have trust that facts and evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experimentation has no requirement for supernaturalism.

"Beliebers" on the other hand are a different matter. Belief / faith is a relgious requirement. theological faith is an acceptance of the existence of various divine, supernatural beings who via supernatural means established all of reality including the laws of nature.

Demonstrable your various gods. When others demonstrate theirs, you Beliebers can thrash out which group and which gods are left standing.

God's handiwork is beyond human understanding. We understand this. The question is do you actually understand what you believe?

(Sorry Chem, couldn't resist.)

 

[Hollie]

God's handiwork is beyond human understanding. We understand this. The question is do you actually understand what you believe?

(Sorry Chem, couldn't resist.)

Firstly, make sure your daddy Chem allows you to post.

If the God's handiwork is beyond human understanding, why is it you're arguing about the God's alleged handiwork? Obviously, you don't know which, if any gods, "handiworked" anything.

Chem - Tell your young charge he is forbidden to post in these threads. Challenges to your collections of supernatural gods, angels, djinn and Satans can only lead to people thinking for themselves.

That's a dangerous thing for religious extremists.

 

[Woodznutz]

Chem - Tell your young charge he is forbidden to post in these threads.

Holly, I'm one of the oldest posters on these boards. (Chem might actually be my son.)

 

[Woodznutz]

I can't say I know any believers in biological evolution. As the facts of evolution are demonstrated, there's no requirement for belief. I have trust that facts and evidence, repeatable and demonstrable experimentation has no requirement for supernaturalism.

Let's look at that more closely.

Science (medical) has proven beyond a doubt that too much salt is bad for you. So why do so many people, who believe in science, still harm or kill themselves by consuming too much salt? While spirit-led folks, like myself, heed the warning and control our salt intake. In fact why are Christians generally more apt to follow good advice than unbelievers? We live longer and are happier. Could the supernatural stuff we believe, and practice, have something to do with that?

Not preaching a 'health and wealth' gospel, jes' sayin'.

 

[Hollie]

Let's look at that more closely.

Science (medical) has proven beyond a doubt that too much salt is bad for you. So why do so many people, who believe in science, still harm or kill themselves by consuming too much salt? While spirit-led folks, like myself, heed the warning and control our salt intake. In fact why are Christians generally more apt to follow good advice than unbelievers? We live longer and are happier. Could the supernatural stuff we believe, and practice, have something to do with that?

Not preaching a 'health and wealth' gospel, jes' sayin'.

Conversely, why do people pray to their gods when prayer does nothing. Prayer is little more than asking for favors in exchange for rewards. In short, influence peddling. I have no reason to accept that relgious people have any more or less self-control than non-religious. What makes you think that Christians are generally more apt to follow good advice than unbelievers? I have no reason to acccept your premise. Can you compare Hindus vs Christians in terms of the likelihood of following good advise? You might want to convert.

I have no reason to accept that belief in the supernatural makes anyone live longer or has a happier life. If it's shown that Moslems and their particular beliefs provide for longer, happier lives, are you going to convert?

 

[ChemEngineer]

A monkey typing on a keyboard has well over 50 keys to choose from, counting numbers, punctuation, and characters but not even case! For simplicity and to give the monkey or monkeys a better chance to validate Darwinian Nonsense, I'll just use 50 choices for each of the five spots in Wordle. The number of combinations, 26 to the 5th, is 11,881,376. There are only~70,000 five-letter words in the English language.

Darwinian nonsense has only a .00589 chance of typing one of the 70,000 words on any given random try. The magic of "selection" is impossible because the Wordle program rejects anything that is not a word in the English language, including proper nouns. Roughly 169 tries are necessary to get the first random word accepted for evaluation. If by chance one letter is in the correct location (*selected*), another 169 tries will be necessary to get a second word for evaluation. If not, Wordle simply rattles back and forth. Nobody gets an infinite number of attempts, only six. Sorry, monkeys.

Science. Statistics. Death to Darwinism. Painful to so many that they dare not even consider the possibility, much less accept it.

Ah, today's solution - no monkeyshines, no rattling around:

 

[Hollie]

A monkey typing on a keyboard has well over 50 keys to choose from, counting numbers, punctuation, and characters but not even case! For simplicity and to give the monkey or monkeys a better chance to validate Darwinian Nonsense, I'll just use 50 choices for each of the five spots in Wordle. The number of combinations, 26 to the 5th, is 11,881,376. There are only~70,000 five-letter words in the English language.

Darwinian nonsense has only a .00589 chance of typing one of the 70,000 words on any given random try. The magic of "selection" is impossible because the Wordle program rejects anything that is not a word in the English language, including proper nouns. Roughly 169 tries are necessary to get the first random word accepted for evaluation. If by chance one letter is in the correct location (*selected*), another 169 tries will be necessary to get a second word for evaluation. If not, Wordle simply rattles back and forth. Nobody gets an infinite number of attempts, only six. Sorry, monkeys.

Science. Statistics. Death to Darwinism. Painful to so many that they dare not even consider the possibility, much less accept it.

Ah, today's solution - no monkeyshines, no rattling around:

View attachment 725950

I'm afraid we see the same, tired monkey business from the religious extremists. Their monkeys on typewriters gas nothing to do with biological evolution and adaptation.

Unfortunately, the religious extremists find these pointless attempts at analogy in the various fundie ministries and at Harun Yahya.

It displays sheer ignorance when the religious extremists cut and paste such nonsense as, ''Darwinian nonsense has only a .00589 chance of typing one of the 70,000 words on any given random try.''

Here's a bit of education for fake Chem engineer; Darwinian evolution describes biological systems, not typewriters.

Heres another shocker for the silly Flat Earther; we live in a heliocentric planetary system.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Today's Wordle, Non-Darwinian.
*Selection* would never get a first check from the computer program.
The keyboard has 104 different keys. Pick five at random, please, and put them
in Wordle squares. It simply shakes "NO".

 

[Hollie]

Today's Wordle, Non-Darwinian.
*Selection* would never get a first check from the computer program.
The keyboard has 104 different keys. Pick five at random, please, and put them
in Wordle squares. It simply shakes "NO".

View attachment 729360

''Selection'' is the process that applies to biological organisms, not computer keyboards.

If you had any knowledge of chemistry that is possessed by most any 7th grader, you would know that.

 

[ChemEngineer]

It's been raining a lot here in California so my friend said "MOIST".

December 30

Next is January 2
Mountains are nearby and we talked about the record snowpack and so...

January 4 below
We took a BREAK from racketball.

January 7 below
Our pastry had chocolate GLAZE on it.

January 8 below
We have to THINK about the first word to begin.

Today was difficult. I always ask one of my tennis partners to give me the first word.
He offered up SUGAR. With a good string of solutions on the third try, I hoped to
continue, but NOOOOO. It took four tries today. My friend said "Maybe it has two "i's" and that led to PIXIE.

Here's the important point. Intelligence can find elegant solutions far more quickly and efficiently than randomness, if randomness can even work. It can't in the sense of monkeys typing out sentences or water dripping onto rocks to form proteins.

SUGAR is in the chocolate chip cookies I bought for snack after tennis.
I call all forms of chocolate indulgences "Vitamin C."

 

[scruffy]

''Selection'' is the process that applies to biological organisms, not computer keyboards.

If you had any knowledge of chemistry that is possessed by most any 7th grader, you would know that.

Selection is a 7th grade concept.

Nothing is "selected". There are only processes that move towards the attractor and processes that don't.

In the most interesting cases you get limit cycles around the attractor, or even catastrophes.

Brownie points to whoever can explain this quote:

A drunk who gets lost can find his way home by morning, but a bird that gets lost is lost forever.

 

[ChemEngineer]

I started with DEATH because it has "T" and "E" and "A" and "H", all good letters.

It was an amazingly good choice, and the only second word I could think of was.....

Let's see random mutations and "selection" do that!

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm hooked, I play every morning! Well done, took me 4 today

 

[ChemEngineer]

Approximately 70,000 five-letter words that are not proper nouns.
Richard Dawkins' silly word games play fast and loose with reality, as do his other arguments
for Darwin's extrapolation and "selection" nonsense.

Some really good words that would be difficult to solve, IMO, include VULVA, EERIE, and FLUFF.
Oy. Maybe COOTY. My friend Michael got BORAX the other day on our third try. Just before that
I got QUALM in three and maestro, the band director, said "That's not a word" but he wouldn't put money
on it.

 

[Hollie]

Approximately 70,000 five-letter words that are not proper nouns.
Richard Dawkins' silly word games play fast and loose with reality, as do his other arguments
for Darwin's extrapolation and "selection" nonsense.

Some really good words that would be difficult to solve, IMO, include VULVA, EERIE, and FLUFF.
Oy. Maybe COOTY. My friend Michael got BORAX the other day on our third try. Just before that
I got QUALM in three and maestro, the band director, said "That's not a word" but he wouldn't put money
on it.

Your Jimmy Swaggert complex is getting worse.

 

[Woodznutz]

''Selection'' is the process that applies to biological organisms, not computer keyboards.

If you had any knowledge of chemistry that is possessed by most any 7th grader, you would know that.

It will be interesting to see what Google's AI 'brain' would say about that.

 

[ChemEngineer]

April 16, 2023


Three days later, April 19, 2023

This is intelligence at work. Random mutations followed by all the magic "selection" you can imagine or pretend will never solve Wordle much less synthesize complex functional polypeptides by the tens of thousands, or even individually for that matter.

 

[alang1216]

View attachment 779944
April 16, 2023


Three days later, April 19, 2023

This is intelligence at work. Random mutations followed by all the magic "selection" you can imagine or pretend will never solve Wordle much less synthesize complex functional polypeptides by the tens of thousands, or even individually for that matter.

View attachment 779945

It would be trivial to create a computer program to solve the Wordle given the rules of the game. No intelligence is required.