Zachriel
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
| Quote | JOHN_A_DESIGNER: Start with the word “blue”. Is it possible that “blue” could evolve into “pink” using the following rules?
(1) Only single letter (a)substitutions or (b)additions/deletions are allowed for each step. (2) Each transitional word must be a meaningful word in English. |
Don't forget that we are dealing with populations, including recombination.
| Quote | JOHN_A_DESIGNER: It turns out that it can. We can do so in nine steps.
blue> glue> glut > gout > pout> port> part> pant> pint> pink. |
Good work!
| Quote | | JOHN_A_DESIGNER: This illustrates to me the way natural selection is used by committed Darwinists to explain virtually all evolutionary change. |
The question isn't whether "blue" can evolve into "yellow," but whether they have a common ancestor. Nor is a specific, arbitrary goal of your choosing the goal of evolution. If "qqqqq" were inserted into the dictionary, Word Evolution would never find it, because there is no available precursor. Many such sequences can never be found by an evolutionary process. But "blue" will evolve into all sorts of other words by this process; ashamed, slackers, skewering, spluttered,
oh, and "yellow."
| Quote |
blue, glue, glut, gout, got, go, o, i
o
ow
i
hi
hid
had
head
held
hell
yell
yell-ow |
This must be why Zachriel was silently banned from Telic Thoughts.
Xposted to Telic Thoughts, but never showed.
--------------
You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.
|
