Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
This is part two of the famous "Million Monkeys Typing On Keyboards for a Million Years Could Produce The Works of Shakespeare" - Debunked Mathematically.
For the Thread that inadvertently kicked started these mathematical discussions, Click Here
For the Original math thread, Click Here
You've either contradicted yourself or else accidently used the wrong tense ("there are" vs "there aren't").
Please explain.
I'm completely baffled by why you are saying the above. It seems a bit off-topic.
More to the point of contention at hand, do you claim that analog computers are unable to process data?
No, you cannot separate information from the substrate it resides on, though people frequently (and incorrectly) view it that way. Information is a property of the hard drive substrate, which is why information can never be moved from a substrate, only copied to another substrate. While this may seem like a pointless distinction, it is extremely relevant in that it is the foundation of transaction theory. Life would certainly be much easier for software engineers if this wasn't the case.
I don't think this is generally true, and in any case the distinction between analog and digital is essentially superficial. In fact, all analog systems are representable with full information fidelity on digital systems. A point that escapes most people is that analog and digital are merely coding formats for information in a carrier, but people have taken them to mean something else due to historical precedent in usage rather than fact.
If we limit this discussion to cellular life-forms (thus bypassing the on-going debate about whether or not viri are considered Life), can we agree with each other that Watson's math applies?
You proposed a very, very, very, very long set of numbers that relate to nothing but itself. It's like saying, "pink, flying elephants don't exist, therefore evolution could not happen."
Once more, we cannot. Mammalian red blood cells show that his assumption about the minimum number of genes needed for a living cell is flat-out wrong. Cells can survive without genes.
You're trying very hard to go down the path I outlined in post #74, but I'm not going to follow you there.
Including the possibility that all things will cease to exist?
If we limit this discussion to cellular life-forms (thus bypassing the on-going debate about whether or not viri are considered Life), can we agree with each other that Watson's math applies?
No, because then the math is completely irrelevant. You would claim that Watson demonstrates that no DNA-based single-celled organism could spontaneously arise. But who cares? Nobody suggests that such a thing happens - its a strawman. Those non-DNA life forms (RNA cells, mitochondrial cells, etc.) are all examples of what the PRECURSORS to DNA-based cells might have been like.
Because life did not spontaneously appear as a fully formed DNA-based cell, but rather arose through a process of selection and chemistry, Watson's math is irrelevant.
But then, you knew that. It's been pointed out for three threads now, and you haven't answered it. You've just ignored it and moved on, brazenly repeating your assertions.
Viruses and prions are wholly dependent upon cellular life and, absent evidence to the contrary, it would seem to me they had to arise after cellular life had become the norm. They are parasites. There is no basis for assuming that viruses and prions are precursors to cellular life. Unless of course I am mistaken.
Simply not true. Ever hear of the three body problem? If your assertion were true, the orbits of the various members of the solar system could be represented digitally and everything predicted perfectly. No wondering about the appearance of comets, etc. And the weather could be predicted.
Not only is it impractical to make perfect digital representations of complex systems, it is theoretical impossible.
I prefer digital audio to vinyl, but not to a live performance with acoustic instruments.
I make no such assumption. They merely illustrate that life in general cannot be defined in terms of cells.
Interesting. You simply re-iterated the point -- while somehow thinking you were critical of it.
No. It's trivial.
You guys are missing out a bit in discussing it, the data is stored in the sequence of the individual bases in the DNA polymer. You can substitute as for in and it makes no difference.
The notion that life is information or data seems conceptually related to the notion that evolution has a direction or goal. Which is not true.
Nor is it true that living systems can be modeled or represented digitally. You can certainly make approximations that might or might not be useful -- just as you can make useful, but not accurate predictions of weather.
But the underlying "information" is for all practical purposes, infinite. You cannot predict the direction of an evolutionary process.
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.