Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Second Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]
Nutters.org ^ | 28-Jul-2000 | Brett Watson

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevolist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 821-828 next last
To: cracker
"ID is not science, so it is not a competing theory."

Any theory that is scientifically falsifiable is scientific. ID can be falsified by several methods. In the distant past, ID was considered to be falsified by scientists because speciation events were claimed to happen slowly, contrary to the prediction of ID for rapid speciation (i.e. a designer introduces a new model car/life form/whatever).

Now that we know that speciation events happen rapidly, ID must once again be considered. The earlier falsification claim was in error, per our fossil record.

241 posted on 03/07/2002 12:33:02 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 238 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
And the theory of evolution cannot currently accomodate such a mechanism.

Why not?

242 posted on 03/07/2002 12:33:17 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 235 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I can show you a physical example, repeatable in any lab in the world and occurring here in the USA on a daily basis, of speciation that occurs non-naturally.

Are you prepared to stand by your claim above that this example will falsify Evolutionary Theory?

What? your "example" is NOT a disproof. I did not say that all you had to show was that speciation CAN occur without natural selection. Your example is preposterous because it is quite obvious what the causes of speciation ARE!

Your word-twisting silliness is irrelevant. Do you even know what falisification means? Suffice it to say that your "example" from a genetic lab will not get the job done. I suggest you try offering evidence that a creator sufficient to have designed and created all living species (and the fossil evidence, etc.) exists.

On a related note, I see you've dug out your genetic engineer's example. Maybe this time you'll respond. Does this mean we'll soon see the auto junkyard or computer viruses resurected as well? Or do you need to start another thread.

243 posted on 03/07/2002 12:39:06 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Actually, no, you didn't.

Yes I did. You said they were "extreme". I guess you didn't like them. But they are certainly examples that would falsify evolution.

Here's a few more:
Find an indigenous lemur in siberia. Evolution predicts you won't.
Find a platypus in Britain. Ditto.
Why are there no human remains older than 200,000 years in North or South America? Evolution has an answer - find some, and the theory's in trouble.
Do birds have chlorophyll? Why not? Again, evolution predicts that they shouldn't. If you found one, it'd be a coup.
Find mastodon remains in the same strata and location as T. Rex.
I could go on...

244 posted on 03/07/2002 12:43:52 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: cracker
"Do you even know what falisification means? Suffice it to say that your "example" from a genetic lab will not get the job done. I suggest you try offering evidence that a creator sufficient to have designed and created all living species (and the fossil evidence, etc.) exists." - cracker

So someone must prove that a Creator exists before you'll accept that Evolution can be falsified?

Methinks that I'm not the one with difficulty comprehending the meaning of "falsification"...

245 posted on 03/07/2002 12:45:38 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Southack
In the distant past, ID was considered to be falsified by scientists because speciation events were claimed to happen slowly, contrary to the prediction of ID for rapid speciation (i.e. a designer introduces a new model car/life form/whatever).

In the "distant past" there was no ID. It was called creationism, and it held that the earth was created by the God of Abraham, as literally described in the Book of Genesis, 6000 years ago.

Again - what exactly IS your theory? And why does the prediction of rapid speciation across time flow from it, rather than a prediction of simultaneous creation at a single moment? WOuld you like to provide some citations to peer-reviewed journals or books that would back you up here?

246 posted on 03/07/2002 12:47:25 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: cracker
"why does the prediction of rapid speciation across time flow from it, rather than a prediction of simultaneous creation at a single moment?"

What sort of theory would predict that designers would create all of their innovations simultaneously? That sounds like a strawman argument rather than ID.

247 posted on 03/07/2002 12:52:13 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Southack
So someone must prove that a Creator exists before you'll accept that Evolution can be falsified?

NO, someone should present me with evidence of a creator before I'll admit that creationism is a viable explanation. No creator (or designer), no creation (no design). That's your burden.

Evolution is an independent matter. As I said - they are not mutually exclusive. And evolution could be disproven and replaced with another scientific theory, and that would still not prove creationism.

248 posted on 03/07/2002 12:54:55 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

Comment #249 Removed by Moderator

To: Southack
What sort of theory would predict that designers would create all of their innovations simultaneously? That sounds like a strawman argument rather than ID.

How do you tell? Maybe if you told us your theory of ID, we could evaluate the strawman-ness of my question. Until you do so, I have to assume it's valid. And, again, how do you know what a creator or designer would or would not do? Sonds like ID has a lot of unstated assumptions regarding the abilities and motives of an unknown and unknowable designer. Maybe it'd be easier if you just told us what they are.

250 posted on 03/07/2002 12:57:41 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
You didn't know who Watson was. You don't know what ID theory is. You apparently have a limited grasp of the theory of evolution.

You appear to be ignorant (or feign as such) regarding every facet of this thread. Troll elsewhere.

251 posted on 03/07/2002 12:58:21 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Evolution on the other hand would seem to be tougher to falsify since it just sprouts a new branch.

It is an old and venerable tree. You will need more than hand clippers to chop it down.

252 posted on 03/07/2002 1:01:33 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 230 | View Replies]

To: cracker
I can show you a physical example, repeatable in any lab in the world and occurring here in the USA on a daily basis, of speciation that occurs non-naturally.

Are you prepared to stand by your claim above that this example will falsify Evolutionary Theory? - Southack

"What? your "example" is NOT a disproof. I did not say that all you had to show was that speciation CAN occur without natural selection. ... Do you even know what falisification means? ... I suggest you try offering evidence that a creator sufficient to have designed and created all living species (and the fossil evidence, etc.) exists." - cracker

So someone must prove that a Creator exists before you'll accept that Evolution can be falsified? - Southack

"NO, someone should present me with evidence of a creator before I'll admit that creationism is a viable explanation. No creator (or designer), no creation (no design). That's your burden.

"Evolution is an independent matter. As I said - they are not mutually exclusive." - cracker

So tell me again why my non-Creator, physical lab example isn't sufficient to falsify Evolution for you...

253 posted on 03/07/2002 1:03:21 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: Southack
So tell me again why my non-Creator, physical lab example isn't sufficient to falsify Evolution for you...

You are so self-evidenly absurd, I find it hard to beleive you are serious.

I suggest you offer a definition of your theory. Until then, you are so much hot air.

254 posted on 03/07/2002 1:08:07 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: cracker
Do birds have chlorophyll? Why not? Again, evolution predicts that they shouldn't.

Evolution predicts nothing of the sort.

If a species of non-plants were discovered with similar redox centers it would in no way challenge evolution.

255 posted on 03/07/2002 1:30:46 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
You didn't know who Watson was. You don't know what ID theory is. You apparently have a limited grasp of the theory of evolution.

What do Watson (not James) and ID have to do with evolution?

You guys are strangely defensive, and very inconsistent to the point of schizophrenia (figuratively of course).

A hundred posts about how this Watson guy's paper is nonsense and how ID is not even a science, yet then you use not knowing about these nonsensical things means I am not familiar with evolution.

Do you know how absurd your comment was?

256 posted on 03/07/2002 1:34:41 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: cracker
You could go on with things that would not disprove evolution.

Now come up with something serious.

The last five years has brought about the greatest increase of biological data in history.

I am talking about the various genome projects.

These data allow us to now examine and test specific hypotheses concerning evolutionary theory and how evolution is reflected in the genomes.

How about some examples from something like this -- doable questions with yes or no answers.

257 posted on 03/07/2002 1:38:28 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
from post 215:
1. An examination of DNA might reveal that gibbons share more in common with fir trees than fruit bats. That would be quite a problem...
258 posted on 03/07/2002 1:42:27 PM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: cracker
So tell me again why my non-Creator, physical lab example isn't sufficient to falsify Evolution for you... - Southack

"You are so self-evidenly absurd, I find it hard to beleive you are serious." - cracker

I see nothing absurd about tangible, scientific lab evidence. You claimed that said evidence was insufficient to falsify Evolutionary Theory. Why?

259 posted on 03/07/2002 1:43:14 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: Lev
1. An examination of DNA might reveal that gibbons share more in common with fir trees than fruit bats. That would be quite a problem...

It would be more than just a problem for evolution.

It would be a problem for all physical sciences as we know them.

Let's be serious.

260 posted on 03/07/2002 1:44:20 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 221-240241-260261-280 ... 821-828 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson