Evolving Phone Numbers

Over on  the The War is Over: We Won! thread at UD, The subject of phone numbers is brought up by Bob O:

lots of things are sequences. But they can be produced in lots of different ways. Frankly, I have difficulty seeing how phone numbers mate and recombine, especially when within a longer string of sequences.

Our beloved Mung is quick to retort:

Ah, the old “I cannot imagine” defense. I could write a program in which phone numbers mate and recombine. Incredulity is not an explanation.

We all love Mung having a go at programming. Come back and walk us through it.

A few of thoughts for discussion:

  1. How big is the state space for phone numbers and how much functional space (viable / live numbers) is there?
  2. What is the ‘evolutionary’ history of telephone numbers? How big was the ‘biogenesis’ phone number?
  3. Is there a stepwise evolutionary history for phone numbers?
  4. Or is this all evidence for Evolution by design!!!1111???

79 thoughts on “Evolving Phone Numbers

  1. Mung: If the point of the Weasel program was to demonstrate that guided search performs better than blind search, surely that was known already and was news to no one.

    Cute use of if, Mung. Cute injection of prejudicial terminology that is used only by crypto-creationists. If you were unable to figure out what Dawkins illustrated with his monkey/Shakespeare model of cumulative selection — you’ve seen me use his term on multiple occasions — then you would be an ignoramus. You’re not an ignoramus. Therefore you are able to figure out what Dawkins illustrated with his monkey/Shakespeare model of cumulative selection, and something else must account for your rhetoric.

    We’re not allowed to speculate on motives. But I will say that if you do not explain why you based your rhetoric on a premise that is obviously false, then you richly deserve to be treated like shit in this forum.

  2. Mung: Tom English has no test.

    Joe Felsenstein put you to the test, by offering to put money on the line. You responded with incoherent rant (perhaps embarrassing even yourself, when you looked over what you had posted), and then vanished from TSZ for a time. So now you’re back, motor-mouthing the same inanity you did before.

  3. If Joe and Tom combine their assets perhaps they could match my offer of $!0,000.00 dollars. Or they can pretend that I never made that offer.

  4. Mung: Post your code that tests your claims, if you can.

    As I told you before, with no effect on what you subsequently said, I have tested a number of codes against the theoretical curves plotted by DiEb. When multiple codes match up with the theory, you can be pretty damned sure that the codes, the theoretical analysis, and the plots are all correct. Or am I not giving the Great Deceiver his due?

    Mung: And I I put $10,000.00 on the line.

    No, cutie pie, you incoherently changed the line, and made a pathetic display of upping the stakes.

  5. Tom English: But I will say that if you do not explain why you based your rhetoric on a premise that is obviously false, then you richly deserve to be treated like shit in this forum.

    Did you not see this, Mung? Or have you simply attempted to change the topic?

    I do not believe that you do not understand that Dawkins’s monkey/Shakespeare model of cumulative selection is an illustration of cumulative selection. So why did you base your rhetoric on a false premise?

  6. Mung: If Joe and Tom combine their assets perhaps they could match my offer of $!0,000.00 dollars. Or they can pretend that I never made that offer.

    Stick to the original bet, and I’ll gladly wager $100,000 I can withdraw without penalty from brokerage accounts. The idea in setting the stakes low was to leave you no excuse for turning down the bet. If your excuse is that the stakes are not high enough for you to mess with, I will gladly remedy that. But you do not get to change what we’re betting on.

    To the others of you reading this, no, I’m not in a pissing match with Mung. The expected return is high, and the probability of losing any money at all is low. I’d be a fool not to stake however much a fool was willing to cover.

  7. Tom, to Mung:

    As I told you before, with no effect on what you subsequently said, I have tested a number of codes against the theoretical curves plotted by DiEb. When multiple codes match up with the theory, you can be pretty damned sure that the codes, the theoretical analysis, and the plots are all correct. Or am I not giving the Great Deceiver his due?

    Not only that, I tested my drift Weasel against Joe’s theoretical predictions and found that they agreed to well within one percent.

    Meanwhile, Mung couldn’t even correctly implement a Weasel.

    Mung, have you ever asked your omnipotent God why he enjoys seeing you fail, time after time? Or why he was so stingy with you when intelligence was being handed out?

  8. Tom,

    To the others of you reading this, no, I’m not in a pissing match with Mung. The expected return is high, and the probability of losing any money at all is low. I’d be a fool not to stake however much a fool was willing to cover.

    Well, I’d say that the actual expected return is low, at least monetarily, because Mung won’t pay up when he loses. But it will be amusing to see him squirm.

  9. Mung: And I I put $10,000.00 on the line.

    Mung is neglecting to tell his readers one detail. He put 10,000 dollars on the line, where he was betting on the same side as me, in favor of the Weasel.

    He did not take the opposite side from me, but raise the stakes.

  10. keiths: Well, I’d say that the actual expected return is low, at least monetarily, because Mung won’t pay up when he loses.

    What Joe proposed was that Winston Ewert, who’s in the Seattle area, hold the money. I am not terribly keen on that arrangement, going from $100 to $100,000, considering Ewert’s ethical lapse at Baylor.

  11. Joe Felsenstein: Mung is neglecting to tell his readers one detail. He put 10,000 dollars on the line, where he was betting on the same side as me, in favor of the Weasel.

    Perhaps that’s why I could not make sense of what he was saying.

  12. Mung:

    Joe Felsenstein: 1. All computer simulations of anything are designed.

    What does the Dawkins Weasel program simulate?

    I think everyone here knows what the Dawkins program was intended to simulate, a simple form of selection. For teaching purposes. I guess Mung never learned that. I’m sorry to hear that but as most everyone else has got it figured out, I will leave Mung mystified.


    Joe Felsenstein
    If I do a computer simulation of landslides, does that mean landslides are designed?

    No.

    We are in agreement.

    Joe FelsensteinDoes the fact that landslides aren’t designed mean that a designed computer simulation cannot help us investigate their behavior?

    How do you know that landslides are not designed? You assert it as a fact. How do we test your claim?

    The ones we are interested in explaining are ones that occur by natural processes. If you want to argue that some can be detected to not occur by natural processes, perhaps you can go to the site Uncommon Descending and make your case there.

    How do we test the claim that your simulation actually simulates a landslide?

    I must apologize to the other commenters here for not spending wasting my time on that issue.

    Joe FelsensteinA Weasel simulation, designed as it is, is designed to imitate evolutionary processes. You don’t understand that?

    What does the Weasel program simulate, and how do we test that claim?

    I guess you don’t understand what the Weasel is intended to do. Pity.

  13. Tom English: Perhaps that’s why I could not make sense of what he was saying.

    If we both (Mung and I) agree to take the bet, we are AFAIK both betting on the same side. It is not clear who we have betting against us. Maybe Mung can convince Barry Arrington to take the bait.

  14. Tom English: What Joe proposed was that Winston Ewert, who’s in the Seattle area, hold the money.

    No, I didn’t propose that anyone hold the stakes. I proposed that once we all agreed who had won and what amount, that Ewert could receive the payment and the winner would pick it up from him, thus preserving the bettors’ anonymity. Except for my anonymity which is not at issue.

  15. Mung,

    What does the Weasel program simulate, and how do we test that claim?

    First off you’ll need a time machine…

  16. OMagain:

    First off you’ll need a time machine…

    Don’t say that. You’ll get Alan all excited.

  17. Mung:

    Tom English: Joe Felsenstein put you to the test, by offering to put money on the line.

    And I I put $10,000.00 on the line.

    Betting against me?

    Or on my side of that bet?

    Or betting on something else?

    Total lack of clarity. The world wonders, but anyway Mung is betting $10,000. On something …

Leave a Reply