Apparently you can't show the flaws in the math for this thread, either.
Those were your claims, after all, that there were numerous errors...
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:
As you just stated, each aspect alone does not explain evolution. But the combinations of variation, selection and time are a very powerful force.
Three very important and factual aspects of nature which can not be denied.
Apparently you can't show the flaws in the math for this thread, either.
Those were your claims, after all, that there were numerous errors...
The poster in #100 (or thereabouts) wanted the monkeys to read a dictionary and then choose which of their outputs should be kept or discarded. - Southack
"No, actually, he didn't. The dictionary and having the monkeys do the filtering was *your* idea." - Dan Day
but the key is this, its not all randomness, but ITERATED randomness."
I'm hardly "befuddled". I pointed out that natural selection was insufficient, and now you have conceded that point by bringing in "variation".
It is "variation" that is the subject of the math for this thread (i.e. the probability of natural, unaided variation creating order), so you have only now caught up to the fundamental concept under discussion.
Nonetheless, congratulations for making that leap.
Now that you've caught up, perhaps you can explain all of those alleged "errors" in the math for the natural variation in the mathematical simile for this thread.
Or do you do math?
Wow... How... Lame.
So your "precise" probability calculation can't be stated in general, it's *different* for every input value?
I call COW PATTIES, son.
But hey, I'll call your bluff. A minimum complexity gene has 7 codons.
Now show this secret "precise" calculation you claim to have.
Also, nice dodge on your part. Not only did you not provide your own mathematical formula for the probability of genes forming naturally,
Actually, I did. Try reading the links I provided you.
but you also didn't provide a single example of where the math for this thread was in error.
The arithmatic (at least for the original post) is fine -- I haven't proofread the entire thread, nor am I likely to. If you're really curious about typing monkeys, the author has written the definitive treatment.
What's bogus, however, is the comparison of that analysis to anything that is postulated to have happened in evolution. The moment he tries to make that parallel, that's where it all becomes, as I said, "full of errors, unsupported presumptions, and overestimations". As a disproof of evolution, it sucks. Maybe the author should have spent more time on analyzing evolution and less time monkeying around. Evolution does not proceed by interplanetary simian typists.
But then, you already posted where the author admitted that, so I'm not clear on what else you wish me to demonstrate at this point.
"And this is a non sequitur." - Dan Day
What?! How can you claim that my statement above is off subject? What makes it a non sequitur, specificly?
And you're introducing this irrelevant side question why, exactly?
Other than the obvious, I mean -- to distract attention from the fact that you expressed incredulousness that there might be an "intermediate gene" anywhere "in all of science", and I introduced you to the fact that there were thousands.
Because it drags the topic to an irrelevancy, away from the key points being discussed.
The fact that the author failed to introduce *any* sort of feedback mechanism into his calculation is a fatal flaw if he's even remotely trying to model abiogenesis. And since it's *missing* any feedback whatsoever, the exact nature of any hypothetical "added" feedback is an exercise in mental masturbation.
It's like arguing over whether a man with no legs should be wearing loafers or hiking boots.
"No, just bogus calculations." - Dan Day
... "the original post, it's full of errors, unsupported presumptions, and overestimations." - Dan Day
but you also didn't provide a single example of where the math for this thread was in error. - Southack
"The arithmatic (at least for the original post) is fine -- I haven't proofread the entire thread, nor am I likely to. ...
"What's bogus, however, is the comparison of that analysis to anything that is postulated to have happened in evolution. The moment he tries to make that parallel, that's where it all becomes, as I said, "full of errors, unsupported presumptions, and overestimations"." - Dan Day
So now the math is fine?! Oh brother, aren't you the intellectual tap dancer!
Moreover, the author's point was that natural evolution/variation is more complicated and complex than his simile of monkeys banging on keyboards, and thus, even less probable.
2) Random distributions of dirt particles will remain mathematically uniform over time and individual raindrops will cancel each other out. (time)
Hence: It is impossible for erosion to occur. (FALSE)
---------
1) Each raindrop will randomly distribute the particles of dirt that it strikes. (variation)
2) Gravity will cause the water and particles to move downhill in a biased direction. {selection}
3) The downward movements of water and dirt particles will combine and accumulate. (time)
Hence: It is possible for erosion to occur. (TRUE)
Such a statement clearly shows that you don't even understand the author's intellectual trap. What he shows with the math for the monkeys typing the first sentence of Hamlet is that it CAN'T happen unless there is a feedback process in place, a feedback process that has intelligence in it as a matter of course (to wit: the English dictionary example brought up by gfactor, who like you, didn't understand that his demand for an intelligent feedback process is precisely the trap that the author wanted him to fall into).
Indeed, but how much intelligent data is likely to be sequenced by such an inanimate process (hint: the math for this thread touches upon that issue)?
Likewise, it isn't important that bases can be sequenced in between acids, but rather, that DATA can be stored, copied, conveyed, and used by at least one process if the data is sequenced in that manner.
I'm hardly "befuddled". I pointed out that natural selection was insufficient, and now you have conceded that point by bringing in "variation".
Where you were obviously "befuddled" is where you went on to say that considered "science still to answer" the question of where new genetic material comes from. Quite the contrary, this is dealt with in in Biology 101. Were you out sick that semester?
It is "variation" that is the subject of the math for this thread (i.e. the probability of natural, unaided variation creating order), so you have only now caught up to the fundamental concept under discussion.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! (takes deep breath) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh, yeah, that's rich. *I've* finally caught up to the "fundamental concept". *snicker*.
Son, you can't calculate "variation" alone, without considering selection. That's what the original author tried to do, and it's just plain stupid.
"Unaided variation" isn't how nature works, so any blindered calculation of "unaided variation" will necessarily produce wrong answers.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Or do you do math?
I most certainly do, son.
That's why I know quite a bit about what sort of math produces relevant results, and what kind is just playing with a calculator.
This is the sort of behavior that I've found to be typical of Evolutionists. You all seem to fabricate "facts" out of whole cloth.
There is no such minimum complexity gene with only seven codons. You just made that "fact" up.
I mean really, what does that "gene" do?
I know, you can't answer that question (because you fabricated the "fact" in the first place).
So typical. First you dodged the math (though protesting wildly to the contrary), then you made up a "fact".
Like Evolution, all you've got are theories and easily disproven lies such as the one above.
A 7 codon gene. Oh, that's rich!
Son, don't blame me for your own poor reading comprehension and your failure to grasp the various types of errors that are possible when someone sets out to produce a valid calculation.
I said his *arithmetic* was fine. That is, he has managed to use a calculator without fumbling something. But that's a far cry from getting a meaningful result.
I also said I hate "bogus calculations". And indeed I do. Doing number juggling about imaginary monkeys and then claiming to have proven something worthwhile about biology is about as bogus as it gets. I could "prove" just about anything if I was allowed to similarly calculate one thing then make a sudden conclusion about something else entirely without having to carefully establish a connection.
I also said it was "full of errors, unsupported presumptions, and overestimations". I didn't say it was full of *arithmetic* errors, son. Its failures are in logic, biology, epistimology, analogy, and the nature of mathematical proof.
But then, I already explained this in the post to which are you are currently responding:
What's bogus, however, is the comparison of that analysis to anything that is postulated to have happened in evolution. The moment he tries to make that parallel, that's where it all becomes, as I said, "full of errors, unsupported presumptions, and overestimations".Try reading that again until it sinks in.
Moreover, the author's point was that natural evolution/variation is more complicated and complex than his simile of monkeys banging on keyboards, and thus, even less probable.
Except that this point is FLAT WRONG.
More complicated processes often make results *MORE* likely than a simple process in isolation.
Example: Evaporation alone, analyzed without gravity, could not produce rain except as an ENORMOUSLY unlikely combination of water vapor molecules all randomly rebounding in the same direction (towards the ground) at the same time. The odds of this would make the monkey typists look downright productive in comparison.
Gravity alone, analyzed without evaporation, could not produce rain except as a similarly ENORMOUSLY unlikely combination of liquid water molecules (say, in a lake) all randomly rebounding up away from the surface at the same time (and then falling back down to Earth due to gravity).
However, evaporation in conjunction with gravity, which is overall a more complex system, produces rain easily and often.
Natural forces tend to work in combinations as they inevitably interact with each other. It's insanity to try to calculate the "results" of one IN ISOLATION and then declare that you've "proven" anything about how things actually work, but that's exactly what the idiot who wrote the original article was trying to do.
There are no stepping stones. The vast majority of mutations are very harmful so by mere random chance even if one point mutation could be gotten that was 'on the correct path' the chances of it surviving to get a 2nd good mutation are very slim indeed.
Also one has to understand that neutral mutations DO NOT SPREAD THROUGHOUT A POPULATION. A new neutral mutation only spreads at the same rate as the entire group. Therefore the percentage of the population is virtually nil (one originally and if the population is not increasing remains at one individual carrying the mutation).
There are also additional problems such as that similar genes perform similar functions. This restriction makes the great changes required by evolution such as the descent of man from a bacteria impossible. Evolution requires totally new genes and these are totally impossible by the laws of random chance as the full article clearly details. Now one can say that ONE (1) such gene might arise by chance just as a person buying one lottery ticket may win the lottery. However, one cannot say that such an unlikely event could have occurred the millions of time necessary to provide the new different genes required by the millions of species still present on earth.
Well done Dan Day, and hope I helped a little.
Here I present a statistical argument against Macro-evolution. Several evolutionists attempt to refute it. I put their comments in color. This was BEFORE gore3000 started posting in blue, so I don't mean anything by using that color. Mine are in black..I stick with this even when we are quoting each other in our posts. I invite all concerned Freepers to evaluate the arguments presented.....
__________________________________________________________________________________________
If there have indeed been 1.25 million groups of critters diverse enough from all other groups of critters to be classified as their own FAMILY, then......
Since all or almost all of the METAZOANS (animals) first came on the scene at the Cambrian some 543 million years ago, there has been on average, a new FAMILY appear every 435 years. (543 million/1.25 million)
The advent of Man and our recent (since man appeared) climate swings constitute a situation where MORE EVOLUTION than the norm should occur. Man has initiated a large number of extinctions. There have been a lot of extinctions during this epoch. That should open the door for larger than normal amounts of evolution as various niches are left unoccupied or new ones created by man's activities.
Note that by a reasonable set of numbers, NEW FAMILIES should be appearing every 435 years. Yet we have never even witnessed a new animal SPECIES except by SUBTRACTION of information. By this I mean species splitting due to geography or loss of an intermediate subpopulation or some such thing as that.
WHY O WHY don't we see NEW FAMILES? Have we even seen any new FAMILES in the last 30,000 years? I don't mean newly discovered ones that have been around a long time, I mean the NEW FAMILIES that we should expect to find if evolution is still doing what its proponents claim it has been doing throughout biotic history. Where are they?
It is far more reasonable to conclude that the ID people are right. There are only so many ways you can shuffle the genes of a fly or an ape or whatever. There are only so many allowable gene combinations that work and there are only so many mutations that will produce viable offspring under any natural cirmcustances.
ID Proposes this: Living creatures live on islands of genetic possiblity. The gaps between family groups are too big to be crossed the once every 434 years the evidence suggests it would have to be, should evolution be responsible.
I hope that even if not all of you can agree that ID is the best explanation, that at least we are not unreasonable to question the evolutionary hypothesis. I for one just don't see how it can do what folks have claimed that it has done. And if it did, why has it stopped? Where are the new families that should be popping up every few centuries? We have not seen that kind of change. We are still piddling over whether the populations we see separating are even truly new SPECIES.
One new FAMILY of animals every 435 years. Think about it.
38 Posted on 05/14/2001 17:57:51 PDT
To: VadeRetro[vade]
I think you don't realize that the divergence which ultimately results in a new family doesn't make a new family right away. At first the difference is just variety level, then species, etc. You have to get way down the road before you can appreciate the importance of that fork in the road back there in time.[/vade]
I am allowing for that Vade. I am not asking you to show it to me in one animal generation. I am saying that within an OBSERVABLE time it should have happened. If evolution proceeds at the rate which biotic diversity suggests, it should happen at the FAMILY level at an observable rate (once every 435 years on average).
I realize that to some degree it is a matter of opinion where family lines are drawn, but the borders are still real. The line can be fuzzy, but any competent scientist can tell any member of the CANINE family from any member of the FELINE family, or any other mammal family. Please, you simply must concede that this is so.
Yes, the proposed difference must work its way through the VARIETY level, then the SPECIES level, and then the GENUS level before branching off into a new family. I am allowing for all that, but I am also trying to put some numbers to the problem to determine how long this progession, on average, takes.
Those numbers tell me the VAREITY-SPECIES-GENUS-NEW FAMILY progression should occur at least once every 435 years. This has not been observed, even though conditions have been more favorable than average since the advent of man for it to occur. Hence I conclude that even though evolution is at work producing new SPECIES via subtraction of info, SOMETHING ELSE must have also contributed to biotic diversty.
Also one has to understand that neutral mutations DO NOT SPREAD THROUGHOUT A POPULATION.
False statement. If both your mother and father have a neutral mutation, you and your siblings will also have it.
A neutral mutation will spread at the same rate as the entire group. By definition, it has no influence upon the population in any way.
So far, we agree.
Therefore the percentage of the population is virtually nil.
Absolutely false, and a contradiction of your previous statement. If it is neutral, over time, it will spread into the population as a power of 2.
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.