Posted on 03/05/2002 12:52:58 PM PST by Southack
There is a recurring claim among a certain group which goes along the lines of "software programs can self-form on their own if you leave enough computers on long enough" or "DNA will self-form given enough time" or even that a million monkeys typing randomly on a million keyboards for a million years will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare.
This mathematical proof goes a short distance toward showing in math what Nobel Prize winner Illya Prigogine first said in 1987 (see Order Out of Chaos), that the maximum possible "order" self-forming randomly in any system is the most improbable.
This particular math proof deals with the organized data in only the very first sentence of Hamlet self-forming. After one examines this proof, it should be readily apparent that even more complex forms of order, such as a short story, computer program, or DNA for a fox, are vastly more improbable.
So without further adue, here's the math:
Inventing a great hyper-computer in the future does not invalidate known mathematical proofs today.
Evolutionists try to point to specific evolutionary events, but the closer you look, the more you realize that Almost all their examples are of REDUCTIONS in information, not the stepwise GROWTH of information.
This is like ramming a copy ofRomeo and JulietShakespeare through a paper-shredder, reversing the movie, and claiming that it shows how Romeo and Juliet developed.
A few years ago Niles Eldridge, a noted punc eqist, wrote the book Time Frames, in which he studied trilobites for years, because he thought their high definition would make it easier to track their evolution. He failed. Eventually he found a trilobite, phacops rana which seemed to show evolution in action in a population---and rapid, at that (just the thing for a punc-eqiste), But what was it, really? A reduction (Yes r-e-d-u-c-t-i-o-n) in the number of rows of compound eyes, from 18 to 17 and then to 15.
Now I ask you, in all candor, is this a small INCREASE in genetic information? Or is it a small DECREASE? The evolutionists constantly substitute DEVOLUTION for EVOLUTION, why? because examples of DEVOLUTION are vastly, massively, easier to find.
That wouldn't be much proof then, if scientists couldn't agree upon the mechanisms.
As for scientific observation, if a scientist observes that varies models of automobiles buried in junkyards seem to change ever so slightly between each model year, would said scientist conclude that the cars self-evolved or that the cars were designed via Intelligent Intervention?
Wrong. the clean-up is called lethality. That's why you can't "gradually" develop new systems. There are millions of systems that require many steps to reach. Until the system is operational, it doesn't get naturally selected. Until then, it's just excess baggage, i.e., gets eliminated by natural selection, which is a process that works for stasis, not for change.
Nope. Still don't buy it.
Any random order anything would imply there is no Creator intelligence ... no God.
I know nothing about these things, but I'll ask ... is there any example of this theory?
Or does it take so long it can only be displayed as a mathematical equation?
Look, the point is that the "mathematical proof against evolution" in this article is not a valid mathematical proof. The theory of evolution may be right or it may be wrong. And there may be other methods of proving that it is either right or wrong. But this isn't a valid method.
The great thing about math is that it is scientific. If you think that a math proof is flawed, simply show the math that will falsify it.
I'm not so smart, so it may be that you're using "proof" in some esoteric sense which I don't comprehend, but if I invited you over to my house to observe my driveway, which you found littered with 50,000 pennies, all of which were facing heads up, would you not test my statement that "I flipped 'em that way at random" by multiplying probabilities to gether to arrive at a vast sum? ---Or, at the very least, estimating where those multiplications would lead you?
And if it was a trillion pennies, would it then, finally, begin to fail as a method of proof (because the number is TOO astronomical)?
Actually, no it is not. Math is a tool in science that can be used to give evidence, but it is not inherently scientific. A mathematical proof is not a scientific proof, as there is no such thing as scientific proof.
There's nothing wrong with the math in this piece. But it still fails to prove what it sets out to prove, because it fundamentally misunderstands the iterative nature of evolution. The failure is in the assumption that evolution is a completely random process. It is not. It has an element of randomness, but it is not completely random. Therefore, trying to calculate the "odds" of evolution producing anything is a worthless exercise.
The math is fine. The assumptions the math is based on are fundamentally flawed, insofar as they completely misrepresent how evolutionary processes actually work.
Probably in the same situations as my mother - right after looking in on my room and declaring it to be a pigpen ;)
You must not have read this through:
In our hypothesising above, we imagined 17 billion galaxies, each with 17 billion planets, each with 17 billion monkeys, each of which was producing a line of text per second for 17 billion years.
Sounds to me that the above is more chances than we can imagine having been feasible for the monkeys to write a simple 41 character sentence at random.
he used it with the "fitness function" idea. once one correct letter was in the correct place, it wouldn't change anymore.
The above article has everything to do with evolution
The problem is as follows. The smallest functional part of a living thing is a gene. It is the gene that makes a particular part of a living thing work. There are some 20,000 genes in humans, much fewer in one celled creatures. The above mathematical problem applies explicitly to the chances of a single gene, providing a new function, a new ability to the species, arising by random chance.
i'm sorry, i didn't make a calculation, so i'm not following.
Replace your single acceptable outcome with an infinitely large group of target outcomes and the calculation changes a lot.
eh? so now an infinitely large number of monkeys are trying to get one of an infinately large number of targets? sounds almost like one of them will get it on the first try.
You clearly do not understand the problem evolutionists have with the above. A gene is either functional or not functional. In the example above until the entire sentence is written, the gene is not functional. Therefore, until the correct gene sequence is found for the new function, the individual(s) possessing the incipient new gene, do not derive any benefit from it and perhaps may suffer harm from it (ie it may be dysfunctional before it is correctly coded). Therefore there is no reevaluation, no feedback possible.
The reason the example was chosen is that it does give the odds of creating a new gene of smaller than average size. If the gene were to merely copy itself it would give absolutely no benefit to the individual possessing it. The reason why new genes are needed for higher species is that they need new more complex functions. These functions are proviced by genes which are not present in the simpler species such as bacteria. A duplicated gene therefore would be of no help.
Sorry 'bout that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.