A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]

Nutters.org ^ | 13-Dec-1995 | Brett Watson

[gore3000]

Yet Aaron declares the age of the universe to be irrelevant on the grounds that we can speculate about as much additional time and space (in the form of other universes) as is needed to solve the problem.

There are several problems with this multiple universe theory, one is that it is not science. Another is where does the matter for these ever recurring universes come from? It's hard enough for a materialist to explain how the matter arose for a single universe, for infinite universes the problem just multiplies.

The other problem shown quite well by the monkeys is that evolution does not have an infinite amount of time. At most it has had some 4 billion years from which to 'evolve' humans from simple bacteria. A human has a genome of some 30,000 genes and some 3 billion base pairs of DNA, a simple bacteria has some 1,000 genes and some 1 million base pairs of DNA. Now just considering how hard it is to get a string of 41 letters by chance, to propose that one can get that many changes in 4 billion years is utterly impossible.

[Dan Day]

"But hey, I'll call your bluff. A minimum complexity gene has 7 codons."

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).

Have you wound down yet? Oh, I see you haven't...

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!

Done now?

You sure? I wouldn't want to cut you off in mid rant, especially when you're doing such a marvelous job of making yourself look like an ass.

Not only are you *very* transparently trying just another lame dodge to avoid having to present (or admit that you don't have) your claimed "precise" calculation for the probability of gene production, but you're proving yourself grossly ignorant of biology at the same time, which is rich since you're trying to convince us all that you know more about it than we do, that you can "disprove" a whole branch of biology.

Here you go: The smallest gene known is a gene in a bacterium that has 21 base pairs. The source is given as Analysis of Human Genetic Linkage by Jurg Ott.

Codons are made of 3 base pairs, you do the math. If you need help, it startss with "21 / 3 = ..."

Now, are you done dodging? Are you going to produce the "precise" probability calculation you claim you have? Or are you going to try to divert attention yet one more time?

[VadeRetro]

Are you really representing that my one little blue paragraph is all the answer you ever got to your 13 paragraphs of dumb-dumbing about families? That's a very inaccurate characterization of what has happened up until now. You have brought it up several times and several people have addressed it.

I've personally been over a lot more with you than you admit in your post here. I don't wonder that you think you can present the topic in a light favorable to yourself if you're going to do such creative editing.

[Ahban]

I'll edit your part out next time I post this snippit.

I will say for the record that you DID have a lot more to say than this. I did not want to clog the thread with a long excerpt of our old debate. In the follow on, neither of us impressed the other with our arguments.

I know what you think about it, I'd like to show Dan Day for his view. BTW, you have sometimes gotten a bit uncivilized in our debates over the years, but compared to Dan the Man, you're David Niven.

At any rate, his tone in itself demonstrates one of my core beliefs- that it matters what you believe on this issue.

It matters whether in your heart of hearts you think we are cosmic accidents or images of God. It effects how kind or nasty one is. In that sense, even if evolution is true, believing it is true produces a coarser, meaner society, while believing the opposite produces a kinder, more respectful, and loving society. So even if its true (It's not), its self-defeating. Evolution has then evolved creatures who should not believe in evolution!

[gore3000]

Also one has to understand that neutral mutations DO NOT SPREAD THROUGHOUT A POPULATION. -me- False statement. If both your mother and father have a neutral mutation, you and your siblings will also have it.

False. With a new mutation no other person has it so only one parent can have the mutation and the chances are only 50% that the child will have it. In a stable population the two parents will have two children and only one will have the mutation. Therefore the mutation, being neutral will not spread throughout the population. It will remain at one individual in the entire grouping. Thus the chances of achieving a sequence of favorable mutations are nil.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Non sequitur. DNA from the same source is essentially e same whether in vivo or in vitro. You and the jury may choose to believe differently.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your original statement was: Of course "feedback" implies intelligence.

You are now claiming: What you've failed to comprehend is that I NEVER said that natural feedback was "impossible".

Which side of the issue do you wish to argue today?

[Hunble]

Uh, as I see it, eventually 50% of the population descended from those parents would have that neutral mutation.

Oh I give up.

Now when a girl falls in love with a boy......

[Doctor Stochastic]

With a new mutation no other person has it so only one parent can have the mutation and the chances are only 50% that the child will have it. In a stable population the two parents will have two children and only one will have the mutation. Therefore the mutation, being neutral will not spread throughout the population/

False again. In a stable sexually reproducing population, there needs to be more than two offspring per couple.

[Doctor Stochastic]

"e same" should be "the same" (where have all the edths gone?)

[gore3000]

False again. In a stable sexually reproducing population, there needs to be more than two offspring per couple.

While there may be a need to have a bit more than 2 due to chance deaths, that does not alter the situation. In a population of 1000 those having the mutation will be 1/1000 of the population. In a population of a million those having the mutation will be 1/1,000,000 of the population even in cases where the population increases. Therefore the neutral mutation will not spread and there will be only a very small chance of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th mutation which will be helpful occurring. The likelihood is that the mutation will dissappear because of the fact that the overwhelming amount of mutations are detrimental.

[Southack]

"Here you go: The smallest gene known is a gene in a bacterium that has 21 base pairs. The source is given as Analysis of Human Genetic Linkage by Jurg Ott."

Oh good grief. Did I really have to specify the smallest gene to achieve replication?

We were discussing abiogenesis and evolution weren't we?

No matter, consider myself to be corrected. What is the smallest possible gene size to achieve replication (i.e., to actually be germaine to this debate)?

Oh, and the probability formula that you are going to want from me will probably end up being 1/4096^number that you give to respond to that question (4 possible valid bases ^ 2 = potential # of base pairs combinations ^ 3 base pairs per codon), a probability that will decrease subtantially faster than that of the math for the monkeys typing the same length of Hamlet characters.

[Southack]

"Which side of the issue do you wish to argue today?"

Nice jab, but missing the point on purpose hardly advances science. Tsk, tsk.

The feedback mechanism proposed in post #12 injected intelligence into the monkeys typing the first sentence of Hamlet because it wanted the monkeys to use a dictionary to modify their behavior (i.e. keep some work and not repeat other work).

That's not a non sequitur and pointing it out doesn't play both sides of the fence. It's not like I am claiming that natural feedback can't exist. What I'm pointing out is that the feedback mechanism in question injects intelligence into the equation, and yes, that implies some form of intelligent intervention.

[Southack]

"Non sequitur. DNA from the same source is essentially e same whether in vivo or in vitro. You and the jury may choose to believe differently."

It's not a non sequitur and I'm not asking the jury; I am asking you.

Can natural selection explain how inanimate DNA becomes animated, or is SOME OTHER THEORY required for that explanation?

[Southack]

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. - Southack

"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."

No, that's incorrect.

Water evaporation isn't more complicated because it does NOT depend upon any set, specific sequence of water molecules.

However, the first sentence of Hamlet ABSOLUTELY depends upon a set, specific sequence of characters, as does every gene depend upon a set, specific sequence of base pairs.

[Doctor Stochastic]

DNA is a molecule. There is no such thing as animation of DNA anymore than there is an animation of common table salt.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Your statement was the unequivocal: Of course "feedback" implies intelligence.

If you wish to modify your statement, okay.

[Southack]

"DNA is a molecule. There is no such thing as animation of DNA anymore than there is an animation of common table salt."

Nonsense. A person has DNA. The same person has the same DNA alive as when the person completely dies, yet the living person's DNA is animated in that it is replicating and controlling output.

In contrast, the completely dead person has inanimate DNA. It is no longer replicating or controlling output.

Likewise, the very first life, by definition, had to come from a completely inanimate environment (DNA and all).

Does "natural selection" explain how inanimate DNA can become animated, or is SOME OTHER THEORY required to explain how life evolved from that inanimate matter?

[Dan Day]

No, that's incorrect.

It is correct, your habit of saying "is not!" notwithstanding.

If you think you can find any flaw in my physics, feel free to point it out now.

Water evaporation isn't more complicated because it does NOT depend upon any set, specific sequence of water molecules.

First, the end process in my example was rain, not evaporation. Try to keep up.

Second, the point is that it most certainly *does* take a very unlikely specific configuration of water molecules if, like the author of the original post, you foolishly make your calculations without taking into account all the physical processes at work.

However, the first sentence of Hamlet ABSOLUTELY depends upon a set, specific sequence of characters,

...which is one of the many reasons it's an invalid analogy...

as does every gene depend upon a set, specific sequence of base pairs.

Gee, really? Then you must have new information to rebut all those biologists who have found huge numbers of alternate forms of various genetic sequences in various species, all performing the same function.

And the potential "sequence space" is even larger:

However, an analysis by Ekland suggests that in the sequence space of 220 nucleotide long RNA sequences, a staggering 2.5 x 10^112 sequences are efficent ligases [12]. Not bad for a compound previously thought to be only structural. Going back to our primitive ocean of 1 x 10^24 litres and assuming a nucleotide concentration of 1 x 10^-7 M [23], then there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year, let alone a million years. The potential number of RNA polymerases is high also; about 1 in every 10^20 sequences is an RNA polymerase [12]. Similar considerations apply for ribosomal acyl transferases (about 1 in every 10^15 sequences), and ribozymal nucleotide synthesis [1, 6, 13].

Similarly, of the 1 x 10^130 possible 100 unit proteins, 3.8 x 10^61 represent cytochrome C alone! [29] There's lots of functional enyzmes in the peptide/nucleotide search space, so it would seem likely that a functioning ensemble of enzymes could be brewed up in an early Earth's prebiotic soup.

-- Ian Musgrave [footnote links available in original link, try reading it]

That was from one of the references I strongly suggested that you read. Is there any reason you didn't bother? Is there any reason I should continue to spoonfeed you information if you're not going to bother to pay any attention to it?

[Dan Day]

While there may be a need to have a bit more than 2 due to chance deaths, that does not alter the situation. In a population of 1000 those having the mutation will be 1/1000 of the population.

Initially, yes.

In a population of a million those having the mutation will be 1/1,000,000 of the population even in cases where the population increases.

No, look up "Genetic Drift".

Therefore the neutral mutation will not spread

Again, this is an invalid assumption. True, there's no guarantee it will spread, but it is as likely to spread as it is to die out.

Look up "Genetic Drift" -- there's a surprisingly good chance that a neutral mutation will spread to the entire population.

and there will be only a very small chance of a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th mutation which will be helpful occurring.

You're making a fallacy there. Sure, there's a "very small" chance that a particular "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutation will pile onto a particular individual with a given mutation, but you're missing that other members of the large population will have their own unique mutations from the current or past generations. This makes for a large pool of mutations to be "worked with" as new mutations occur in the population.

Also, as the population interbreeds, the various mutations in the population get "mixed and matched" very rapidly, the "2nd, 3rd, etc." mutations don't have to occur in any direct descendant of the individual with the "1st" mutation. If they occur *anywhere* in the population they can get shuffled together at any subsequent generation.

Sexual reproduction is a very powerful process for the bringing together of multiple mutations which occurred very separately in space and time.

The likelihood is that the mutation will dissappear because of the fact that the overwhelming amount of mutations are detrimental.

Now you're changing the subject.

First you were talking about the fate of neutral mutations, suddenly you try to say that "the mutation" will "disappear" because it's likely detrimental. No, it isn't, you were specifically talking about the neutral ones.