Replies

"It was in the link that I gave in my original post, if you want the math for sequencing."

Ok, I read it... good grief. Here is his conclusion:

"In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life. How can I suppose that Shakespeare himself was the result of a random process when it is quite clearly impossible for even a trivial fragment of his work to have arisen by chance? No sir, I see information all around me, and I conclude that it is the product of a far, far greater intelligence.

Information is the product of intelligence, not chance."

Since it would take an astronomical amount of time for the monkeys to type shakepeare, life could not have evolved? What kind of a lame argument is that?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. Just because he wrestled us through his grade 8 math tutorial on probability, we should just believe his conclusion that has nothing to do with his data?

Also, with regards to his monkey logic, he is WRONG. The saying specifies an infinite number of monkeys and an infinite number of typwriters. In the guy's logic, he does the math for ONE monkey! Not that it matters, since his conclusion was a non-sequitur anyway, and, well infinity is an abstract concept in mathematics, so you couldn't use it in the equation anyway. Which means he should have known better from the start.

This is the best argument you have for ID? Have you glanced lately at the thousands of technical papers published on evolution in the actual scientific literature?

"Since it would take an astronomical amount of time for the monkeys to type shakepeare, life could not have evolved? What kind of a lame argument is that?!?! It makes absolutely no sense. Just because he wrestled us through his grade 8 math tutorial on probability, we should just believe his conclusion..."

I'm surprised that you failed to understand his logic. He dumbed down mathematical probabilities so much that even grade school children could grasp the basics of his point.

In brief, it is mathematically impossible, given the 17 billion years in age of our universe, for unaided processes to precisely sequence data longer than a few scores.

His conclusion is that there *must* be some bias, some outside aid, to correctly sequence long series of data.

You are welcome to argue with his *math* on that thread (it would a digression from this one), but his conclusion is supported by his math.

In other words, if you can't fault his math with math of your own, then any attempt to fault his conclusion would be itself unsupported.

Primarily the article is irrelevant because it ignores selection. Random proposes; selection disposes. A random drift "moves" proportional to Sqrt(time) but selection can cause movement proportional Exp(time). (I used to think selection was linear (proportional to time) but I've since figured out that it's much faster.