Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doubting Didymus · 01-23-2003, 03:12 PM

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANIST
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANS
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIAN
ANY-DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN
AN DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN (A small mistake, but still readable)
A DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN (said mistake now now removed)
DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN
DIE-ESTABLISHMENTARIAN (something a disestablishmentarian might say)
I, ESTABLISHMENTARIAN
ESTABLISHMENTARIAN
ESTABLISHMENT AVIAN (We're talking about birds now, but anyway)
ESTABLISH MEN EVIAN (the men who first decided that selling water in a bottle might make a tidy profit)

Its not easy, but it's not impossible. Admittedly, I have used more than one letter, but never more than two.

pz · 01-23-2003, 03:13 PM

But we also need to be allowed to generate entirely random strings in one step, which only need to have some relatively short stretch of correspondence with the target string!

I know, that makes it too easy. But that's an allowed rule in evolution.

Doubting Didymus · 01-23-2003, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pz
But we also need to be allowed to generate entirely random strings in one step, which only need to have some relatively short stretch of correspondence with the target string!

I know, that makes it too easy. But that's an allowed rule in evolution.

Oh yes, of course! we could do:

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM

then:

ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM
ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM

Where only the first set is preserved by selection. Then we can do what we like to the second word.

Funny how it takes only a moments thought to take the magnum opus of one Micheal Behe apart into tiny bit sized strings.

Principia · 01-23-2003, 03:32 PM

Quote:

so with these rules in mind, can you generate the word ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM with no unselectable steps?

Seems like the only word you'd have to evolve is "stable": anti+dis+e+stabl+ish+ment+arian+ism

stable comes from the Latin stabulum which comes (roughly) from the suffix -ulum and stare (infinitive of sto, a verb meaning to stand)...

All the rest are suffices and prefixes that have their own etymology. Are we allowed to use foreign languages in the steps... or am I missing something?

RufusAtticus · 01-23-2003, 07:29 PM

Don't forget the fact that the strings do not have to make sense in English. They can make sense in Old English then they can stick around long enough to produce string that make sense in English.

Quote:

It looks like the phoneme is the unit of "genetic" change in linguistics, and the expressed meaning of a string of phonetic sounds is analogous to a phenotype, best understood in some local framework (syntax, grammar, etc.).

Close. Here is a detailed explaination of phonemes vs phonetics.

"Any difference in speech sound is a phonetic difference.
A difference in speech sound that can signal a difference in meaning is a phonemic difference."

The problem with language phylogenies is the rate of mutation and horizontal transfer is really high. That is why the family-tree model of language change has competition from the wave-model. Computational methods developed for molecular data don't fare to well when analyzing linguistic data because it violates too many assumptions. I've seen some really bad trees generated that way.

rafe gutman · 02-01-2003, 05:28 PM

it's funny that sean pittman is using a similar tactic as the subject of this thread to argue against evolution:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/33350-2.html

Quote:

As an illustration, consider the word "cat". This word has a definition or function in the English language system. How many other words can you get to without loosing function along the way? You can go in any direction by changing one letter at a time or adding or subtracting one letter at a time. For example, we could go from cat to hat to bat to bad to dad to dig to dog. Presto, we have evolved cat into dog without loosing function along the way. We could also go from cat to cap to tap to tip to top to mop. It seems easy doesn�t it? And it is! It just so happens that the functions that are represented by these words are represented by relatively simple sequences. In other words, there are a whole lot of three letter words in the English dictionary as compared with the total number of possible three lettered words. There are only 17,576 possible three-letter words using the 26 letters of the alphabet. If there are 5,000 three-letter words that are actually defined by the English language, almost a third of all the possibilities have been defined. Because of this, the odds that any one particular three-letter word is one mutation away from a different defined and even "beneficial" word are very good.

A similar situation is found with the genetic code. The genetic code defines three letter sequences in DNA called codons. Since the genetic alphabet only uses 4 letters, the total number of different sequences are 64. Every single one of these sequences is arbitrarily defined by the genetic code to represent one of 20 amino acids. Obviously this code is redundant since there are fewer definitions than there are sequences giving some amino acids several sequences that code for them. However, every single mutation in a coding region of DNA does in fact have a defined function. Some mutational changes may change the nucleotide sequence for a codon and yet the codon still codes for the same amino acid as the previous codon did. Obviously, In this case, the mutation would be a "neutral" mutation.

But, things do get more complicated. Consider the word "batter". This word is made up of a sequence of 6 letters. The total number of potential words that are six letters long is 308,915,776. If there are 100,000 defined six-letter words in the English dictionary, this would only be about 0.0003% of the total number of possible 6 letter words. In this case, a mutation in a given word would most likely not result in a new defined word since each one of the 100,000 defined six letter words would be surrounded by an average of 300 or so non-defined words. A few clusters of words might be fairly close together, allowing for quick mutation and evolution of function. Batter could mutate to butter or mutter, or bitter to sitter. But soon further mutation runs into walls of non-function.

The situation gets more and more difficult the bigger the word gets. Then sentences come into play. Try evolving a sentence where each new change is functional as well as beneficial in the English language. Consider the Shakespearean phrase "Methinks it is like a weasel" made even more famous by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins illustrated the process of natural selection by starting with a garbled phrase such as "MWR SWTNUZMLDCLEUBXTQHNZVJQF". His computer made random changes in this phrase in each "generation" of phrases and then compared the individual phrases in each generation to the ideal "Methinks it is like a weasel" phrase. Of course, in very short order the "Methinks it is like a weasel" phrase evolved. The problem is; this is not how it works in real life. In real life, there is no selection unless there is a functional difference between the various sequences that are being compared. Dawkins�s illustration fails to explain anything because he starts with a non-functional phrase and then produces many non-functional phrases and then compares these non-functional phrases to see which one of the non-functional phrases is closest to one particular phrase that does actually have function. Of course, if the selection process is based on genotypic comparisons alone then Dawkins�s illustration is a fine way for evolution to proceed. However, if selection is not based on genotypic comparisons, but on phenotypic function, then Dawkins�s illustration is completely worthless.

For example, if we start with a certain portion of genotypic real estate that reads, "MWR SWTNUZMLDCLEUBXTQHNZVJQF", and evolution can proceed in any direction, how long on average would it take to get to something, anything, that has a phenotypic function using random mutation alone? Go ahead and try it. Evolution can go in any direction whatsoever here. Of course, that is the problem. Since neutral evolution can go in any and every direction randomly, it does so. Program a computer with the sequence, "MWR SWTNUZMLDCLEUBXTQHNZVJQF" and have it change one letter at random and see how long it takes to evolve any phrase in English that is actually functional (given any particular steady state population of evolving phrases). Let�s say that there are at least 100 million 28-character phrases that mean something in English. The problem is that there are a lot more 28 character phrases that don�t mean anything in English . . . like 1 x 10e40 of them. You see the problem . . . don�t you? No matter what letter is mutated in "MWR SWTNUZMLDCLEUBXTQHNZVJQF", the resulting sequence will not mean anything. In fact, if several letters in a row are mutated toward any one particular meaningful phrase, the intermediate phrases still will not mean anything until quite a few more mutations have taken place. In each generation a bunch of phrases will exist that don�t mean anything. Natural selection will not be able to select between them since they all have the same non-functional function. All such mutations are therefore selectively neutral.

The problem doesn�t get much better if you start with a functional phrase. Starting with "Methinks it is like a weasel" change one letter at a time and see how many different phrases you can evolve without loosing function in the process. It is very difficult to change this phrase into anything else without loosing function along the way.

RBH · 02-01-2003, 07:17 PM

Rafe quoted from Christianforums

Quote:

But, things do get more complicated. Consider the word "batter". This word is made up of a sequence of 6 letters. The total number of potential words that are six letters long is 308,915,776. If there are 100,000 defined six-letter words in the English dictionary, this would only be about 0.0003% of the total number of possible 6 letter words. In this case, a mutation in a given word would most likely not result in a new defined word since each one of the 100,000 defined six letter words would be surrounded by an average of 300 or so non-defined words. A few clusters of words might be fairly close together, allowing for quick mutation and evolution of function. Batter could mutate to butter or mutter, or bitter to sitter. But soon further mutation runs into walls of non-function.

This is a problem only if point mutations are all that's allowed. But as noted above there are other evolutionary operators available, including duplications, insertions and deletions in addition to point mutations, along with one or more kinds of recombination operators. The fitness landscapes induced by those various operators are different from one another (have different topographies and different nearest neighbor relations) and all of them are different from the landscape induced by a point mutation operator. Hence arguing that one can't get from here to there using just point mutations doesn't show that one can't get from here to there by single steps on a different fitness landscape.

(Before people start hollering at me, "fitness function" and "fitness landscape" are NOT synonyms. A fitness landscape is induced by an evolutionary operator given a fitness function. For the same fitness function - an equation that calculates fitnesses over all instances - different evolutionary operators induce different landscapes with different topographies. Hence, what might look like a saltational leap on one fitness landscape may be a simple one-step increment on another. For example, the nearest neighbors (strings that are one operator step away) of a given string on the fitness landscape induced by a point mutation operator are different from its nearest neighbors on the fitness landscape induced by the deletion operator.

RBH

Principia · 02-01-2003, 08:22 PM

Quote:

You see the problem . . . don�t you? No matter what letter is mutated in "MWR SWTNUZMLDCLEUBXTQHNZVJQF", the resulting sequence will not mean anything. In fact, if several letters in a row are mutated toward any one particular meaningful phrase, the intermediate phrases still will not mean anything until quite a few more mutations have taken place.

I don't understand. First he requires the starting phrase to be "functional." Then he complains that Dawkins' string isn't a functional starting string. Isn't that the whole point? Anyways, here is a way to evolve "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"

A -- MA -- ME

I -- HI -- HIS -- THIS -- THIN -- THING -- THINK -- THINKS

I -- IT

I -- IS

A -- AT -- ATE -- LATE -- LAKE -- LIKE

A

A -- AS -- ASS -- LASS -- LAST -- EAST -- EASE -- EASEL -- WEASEL

Now that we have all of the components, we have to make sure that the words are assembled in "functional" intermediates:

ME + THINKS = METHINKS
A + WEASEL = A WEASEL
IT + IS = IT IS

LIKE + A WEASEL = LIKE A WEASEL
METHINKS + IT IS = METHINKS IT IS

METHINKS IT IS + LIKE A WEASEL = METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

Note that " " (spacers) can apparently be added to any word without changing the meaning of the phrases. So we can tack on to any word any number of spaces, and each would be a selectable intermediate.

Also, while we are drawing analogies, it seems to me that spelling errors can also count as meaningful intermediates. After all, when we read, we readily forgive these kind of errors. There is no reason why we should be so stringent here.

HRG · 02-02-2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Principia
Seems like the only word you'd have to evolve is "stable": anti+dis+e+stabl+ish+ment+arian+ism

stable comes from the Latin stabulum which comes (roughly) from the suffix -ulum and stare (infinitive of sto, a verb meaning to stand)...

OT curio:

It's a bit more complicated, IIRC. The Latin stabulum comes from sta-dhlo- where the -dhlo- is an Indo-European suffix meaning roughly "where something is". "Stadl" (Austrian dialect for German "Stall" = stable) is an almost identical cognate.

Romans and other Italians changed some Indo-European aspirates "dh" to "b", as in *rudh- (red) => rubrum; that's where the "b" in stabulum comes from.

Regards,
HRG, who sometimes dabbles in comparative linguistics.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-23-2003, 03:12 PM	#11
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANISM ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANIST ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIANS ANTIDISESTABLISHMENTARIAN ANY-DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN AN DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN (A small mistake, but still readable) A DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN (said mistake now now removed) DISESTABLISHMENTARIAN DIE-ESTABLISHMENTARIAN (something a disestablishmentarian might say) I, ESTABLISHMENTARIAN ESTABLISHMENTARIAN ESTABLISHMENT AVIAN (We're talking about birds now, but anyway) ESTABLISH MEN EVIAN (the men who first decided that selling water in a bottle might make a tidy profit) Its not easy, but it's not impossible. Admittedly, I have used more than one letter, but never more than two.

01-23-2003, 03:13 PM	#12
pz Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Morris, MN Posts: 3,341	But we also need to be allowed to generate entirely random strings in one step, which only need to have some relatively short stretch of correspondence with the target string! I know, that makes it too easy. But that's an allowed rule in evolution.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.