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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 821-828 next last
To: Southack
I see nothing absurd about tangible, scientific lab evidence. You claimed that said evidence was insufficient to falsify Evolutionary Theory. Why?

Maybe you need to explain why HOW it falsifies the theory? What specific aspect of evolution would it disprove?

261 posted on 03/07/2002 1:59:14 PM PST by cracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: cracker
"Maybe you need to explain why HOW it falsifies the theory? What specific aspect of evolution would it disprove?"

My example meets the condition that you gave for falsifying Evolution: speciation via a non Natural Selection process.

262 posted on 03/07/2002 2:02:11 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Lev
E.g. by discovering in one place fossils of organisms that should not have been there according to evolution's predictions.

In theory. But what can happen is by finding them there we realize our assumption that they shouldn't have been there was wrong.

Or our understanding of geology was incomplete and there is an answer for their seemingly being in the wrong place.

263 posted on 03/07/2002 2:02:24 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: cracker
"Evolution is not perfect, but it is the best explanation for the observed evidence. Nothing is as good or better. If you want to disprove it, show that natural selection does not occur, or that it is insufficient to explain the observed evidence, etc." - cracker

If I observe one example where Natural Selection does not explain speciation, is Evolution falsified?

264 posted on 03/07/2002 2:05:08 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]

To: tallhappy
Or our understanding of geology was incomplete and there is an answer for their seemingly being in the wrong place.

Why geology? We are talking about evolution's predictions.

265 posted on 03/07/2002 2:16:02 PM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

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

Why?

266 posted on 03/07/2002 2:17:10 PM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Placemarker.
267 posted on 03/07/2002 2:27:13 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: Lev
Why geology? We are talking about evolution's predictions.

OK, I was talking fossils, but let's say not. We could be wrong about land mass movement and isolated populations were not really isolated.

268 posted on 03/07/2002 2:27:58 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: Lev
Why?

If we cut open a lemur and found chloroplasts, cell walls, and plant pathways it would be impossible.

The fact that the lemur wasn't green would be a big problem for physics.

If you turned on a flashlight, then opened it up and found it was a stereo speaker inside or a bar of soap, that'd be a big problem for physics, not just something that disproved the light or electrical theories.

If you are simply talking about some similarities in sequences between a lemur and tree that statistically are greater than between a bat and a lemur, that would not necessarily be outside of theory.

269 posted on 03/07/2002 2:33:05 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: general_re
Article quote:

Given that it's ludicrous to suggest that a 100 keystroke document could arise by chance, it's well beyond ludicrous to suggest that the genome of the simplest organism could arise by chance in one step.

" Which is why nobody suggests such a thing in the first place "

I'm not sure you understood his point. If that is NOT what is suggested, then HOW do you suggest that the base pair sequence necessary to sustain the simplest, and presumably first, chemical/biological life form originated? His point is that it is mathematically infeasible to imagine one created by chance. If not by chance, where else did it come from? Remember, this is PRIOR to the appearance of natural selection phenomenon.
270 posted on 03/07/2002 3:13:43 PM PST by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Southack
If I observe one example where Natural Selection does not explain speciation, is Evolution falsified?

No.

Just because you observe one cause does not eliminate other causes. This is a very simple logical idea. That you have such problem with it says a lot about your other arguments. You need to think things through better before going online and posting silly thoughts you think are profound.

271 posted on 03/07/2002 3:32:45 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: mlo
If I observe one example where Natural Selection does not explain speciation, is Evolution falsified? - Southack

"No. Just because you observe one cause does not eliminate other causes." - mlo

Then what would falsify Evolution, if not a physical example of non "Natural Selection" speciation?

272 posted on 03/07/2002 3:36:39 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Then what would falsify Evolution, if not a physical example of non "Natural Selection" speciation?

An case of a fossil appearing suddenly with a large number of body features not seen in fossils immediately before or around it. That'd do it, I think.

273 posted on 03/07/2002 3:43:22 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Then what would falsify Evolution, if not a physical example of non "Natural Selection" speciation?

First, consider what predictions can be inferred from evolutionary theory. Then test those predictions.

Here's one, off the top of my head.

Prediction: That DNA sequences along an evolutionary path should show progressive amounts of change. Species near each other on the path should have more similar DNA than species further apart.

Find examples where this is not true and you've falsified this prediction.

274 posted on 03/07/2002 3:45:38 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 272 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"Prediction: That DNA sequences along an evolutionary path should show progressive amounts of change. Species near each other on the path should have more similar DNA than species further apart. Find examples where this is not true and you've falsified this prediction." - mlo

Duck-billed platipus. Genetically-altered pigs carrying organs for human medical use.

275 posted on 03/07/2002 4:04:41 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Southack;PatrickHenry;VadeRetro;
Duck-billed platipus. Genetically-altered pigs carrying organs for human medical use.

Platypus: No. I believe VadeRetro went over this with you Here. Unless you'd like to conduct and provide us with a scientific study showing why this is not the case.

Why do you think genetically altered pigs disprove evolution? Be as complete as possible.

276 posted on 03/07/2002 4:25:49 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: js1138
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.

How is this related? We can't model things like weather because we have insufficient information resolution (never mind lacking the computing power to use it if we did have high resolution information). For the purposes of coding, noise is NOT information. Real analog signals have a noise floor, and therefore it is simple to compute a digitally coded format that will have the same information content. The noise floor determines (roughly) the smallest incremental change in the analog signal that can reliably be construed as information, which is very analogous to bit depth in digital encoding. Remember that digital signals are actually "analog" (in the sense you are using it) as well but are merely interpreted differently. Both analog and digital systems have noise, but it is found in different places and has different characteristics.

Not only is it impractical to make perfect digital representations of complex systems, it is theoretical impossible.

Not theoretically impossible, but generally impractical. What you are missing is that there is no value in making a digital representation of noise; if you really want noise in a digital signal you can add it after the fact (and if it can't be, then it isn't really noise and can be encoded). At a extremely high resolution, "analog" systems are essentially digital anyway.

I prefer digital audio to vinyl, but not to a live performance with acoustic instruments.

This is a meaningless comparison. Digital audio has (typically) between two and five channels to represent a real space that has hundreds of effective channels. For a number of reasons having to do with how humans process sound in space it is impractical to develop perfect reproductions of audio environments. It should be noted that the technology DOES exist to fully record a three-dimensional space and encode it into two channels that preserve the original feel, but the software process is expensive and has to be custom fitted to the individual. Note that the brain only gets two channels, but there is a very complex integration process that converts the hundreds of channels into the two channels that we actually hear in three dimensions. It is that integration process of hundreds of channels that has to be duplicated in software to give a perfectly realistic sense of space. Definitely not something you'll find at your local record store.

277 posted on 03/07/2002 5:00:25 PM PST by tortoise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Nah! DNA studies put the monotremes (that the platypus and echidnas for you creationists) right where the morphological studies put them, on their own branch and less related to those other primitive mammals, the marsupials, than the marsupials are to the placentals. (Look up the words if you don't know them.) ThinkPlease's falsification reads thus:

Species near each other on the path should have more similar DNA than species further apart.

Thus, echidnas should have the nearest DNA to platypi. They do.

Did you really read ThinkPlease's post? You try to make everything go away by chanting "platypus," "gene-spliced pigs," "monkeys typing Shakespeare!" You look like a terrified ingénue branishing a crucifix at a vampire.

278 posted on 03/07/2002 5:08:21 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
You try to make everything go away by chanting "platypus,"


[Plato the Platypus says: "Would someone deliberately design me?"]

279 posted on 03/07/2002 5:25:48 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The elf that designed Plato was fired.

(I know Plato has a sense of humor. Anything that looks like that has to have a sense of humor.)

280 posted on 03/07/2002 5:30:21 PM PST by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 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