What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Non-Darwinian Wordle

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
8,277
Reaction score
3,685
Points
208
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?

 
Last edited:

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
47,706
Reaction score
8,155
Points
2,030
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?

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

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
8,277
Reaction score
3,685
Points
208
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
47,706
Reaction score
8,155
Points
2,030
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

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
8,277
Reaction score
3,685
Points
208
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.)
 
Last edited:

Woodznutz

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
8,277
Reaction score
3,685
Points
208
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

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
47,706
Reaction score
8,155
Points
2,030
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?
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
4,787
Reaction score
4,281
Points
1,940
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:

Wordle - The New York Times (7).jpg
 

Attachments

  • View recent photos.jpg
    View recent photos.jpg
    74.9 KB · Views: 14

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
47,706
Reaction score
8,155
Points
2,030
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.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
4,787
Reaction score
4,281
Points
1,940
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".

Nov 21 Wordle.jpg
 

Hollie

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
47,706
Reaction score
8,155
Points
2,030
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.
 
OP
ChemEngineer

ChemEngineer

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
4,787
Reaction score
4,281
Points
1,940
Dec 30.PNG


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...


Jan 2, 2023.jpg


January 4 below
We took a BREAK from racketball.





Jan 4.PNG






January 7 below
Our pastry had chocolate GLAZE on it.

Jan 7.PNG


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

Jan 8.jpg


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."


Jan 9 toughie.PNG
 

Attachments

  • Jan 5.PNG
    Jan 5.PNG
    13.8 KB · Views: 6

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
12,428
Reaction score
9,984
Points
2,138
''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.
 

đź’˛ Amazon Deals đź’˛

Forum List

Top