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

Nutters.org ^ | 28-Jul-2000 | Brett Watson

[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

[PatrickHenry]

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

Which proves that Plato is an evolutionist. There are no creationists with a sense of humor. Seriously, I've never yet encountered a single one. Some are very funny to observe in action around here; but they are never intentionally funny. Sort of like Inspector Clouseau -- except Clouseau somehow manages to solve the case. Creationists are still just blundering around when the curtain comes down.

[VadeRetro]

I know what you mean. Andrew's at his most supercilious just now on a certain other thread. Blue links and chaff all over the radar.

[Capitalist Eric]

Including the possibility that all things will cease to exist?

That depends. I know, a "Clinton-esque" answer, but that's as close as you can accurately get.

Since we can neither create nor destroy matter (exception is nuclear fission, which brings up a whole new discussion), all things will eventually cease to be, at least in a form recognizable to us.

For example, since the body of some famous historical figure- such as Joan of Arc- has long turned to dust, and the organic matter has gone on to be recycled by plant, microscopic organisms, etc, the recycled matter that was at one time Joan of Arc, may be (in some small amount) scattered among many people walking around right now...

Consider, that the Oxygen molecules respirated by Jesus Christ, or Mohammed, or Adolf Hitler... Are still here. They may now be CO2, CO, or even be some of rusty metal on the car I'm restoring...

To say that all things cease to be, is putting too fine a point on it. That they cease to be recognizable, I would say is more likely... But, until we have the ability to completely obliterate particles of matter (ignoring the E=MC^2 issue), there is no possibility of all things "ceasing to be" from a material perspective...

FReegards,

[Southack]

"Why do you think genetically altered pigs disprove evolution?"

1. genetically altered pigs are speciation events
2. genetically altered pigs aren't predicted by Evolutionary Theory
3. genetically altered pigs meet the requirement set forth by at least two posters on this thread for answering their demands to their falsifiability tests (not mine) for Evolution

[Aquinasfan]

But, until we have the ability to completely obliterate particles of matter (ignoring the E=MC^2 issue), there is no possibility of all things "ceasing to be" from a material perspective...

The other problem with an infinite regression of time (or motion in the philosophical sense) is that an actual infinite series cannot exist by definition, since in becoming actual a series ceases to be infinite.

I've read that St. Thomas believed that the universe could be infinitely old, but only if it was co-extensive with its Creator. I'm ignorant of his argument, but I'll take his word for it.

[Southack]

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

"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." - ThinkPlease

Then I refer you back to the example of genetically altered pigs.

[jackbill]

I certainly don't mean to rain on your parade, but I have never heard of "a million monkeys". It was always "an infinite number of monkeys". I'll leave it to you to plug that into your "analysis".

[Southack]

Post #253 seems to be begging for attention...

[Aquinasfan]

If there's some non-zero chance that everything could just wink out of existence at any given moment, then I suppose it's inevitable sooner or later, given an infinite span of time. Of course, if we're really talking about infinite length of time, then sooner or later, things will also inevitably come to exist again, so long as the probability of that is also non-zero ;)

But that would be a case of something coming from nothing, which is an absurdity.

[general_re]

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?

I'm pretty sure I understand his point perfectly. What I am saying is that no competent student of evolution would suggest that the genome for any organism arose in one step. No organism in the sense we know them today ever just popped forth, sui generis, fully formed and ready to roll. Nobody really believes that ever happened. So to "demonstrate" the unlikeliness of that phenomenon is spectacularly useless - you're arguing against something that nobody really believes.

As an analogy, does anyone really need a scientific study, complete with statistical analyses and geographical surveys and mathematical analyses of the physics involved, just to "demonstrate" how unlikely it is that Santa Claus exists? Of course not. What would be the point, since nobody seriously believes in Santa anyway?

So what this article intends to do is provide evidence against evolution via natural selection. What it actually does is provide evidence against a rather serious perversion of evolutionary theory - certainly a form of "evolution" that no serious theorist would accept in the first place.

Around here, we call that a straw-man argument.

Remember, this is PRIOR to the appearance of natural selection phenomenon.

There is no "prior to the appearance of natural selection". There is no such time. Any environment, ANY environment at all, will "reward" organisms that are adapted to it, and "punish" those that are not. If an environment is hot, organisms that are adapted to hot environments will flourish, and those that are not, won't. Or an environment that is cold. Or one that is very wet. Or very dry. And so forth.

I really don't think you can posit an environment where there is no such thing as a trait that is adaptive, or a trait that is dysfunctional. But if you can think of one, I'm interested to hear it.

[general_re]

But that would be a case of something coming from nothing, which is an absurdity.

Possibly. That description might apply equally well to the possibility that things could just suddenly wink out of existence, though. As Capitalist Eric so ably pointed out, around here we believe in the laws of conservation of mass and energy, young man - and that makes both phenomena rather unlikely, I think ;)

But if we're assuming that that phenomenon is possible - that everything could just up and disappear one day - albeit with a vanishingly small probability, why not further assume that the opposite phenomenon is also possible, albeit with some other vanishingly small probability?

With me? If we start off by assuming "anything" is possible, let's not restrict "anything" to only the things that suit us ;)

[Southack]

"No organism in the sense we know them today ever just popped forth, sui generis, fully formed and ready to roll. Nobody really believes that ever happened."

The only evidence which we have in our possession says that all cellular life forms contain DNA.

The central question that the math proof for this thread answers is "How did DNA (or anything else, such as a book) get its data?"

Did the data get there randomly/naturally, without intelligent aid? The math in this thread permits us to calculate that precise probability/improbability (I'm presuming that you actually read the math under discussion).

Or did the data get into the DNA via an Intelligent Intervention (such as we have documented in scores of labs around the U.S. for genetically altered pigs and other animals which are growing organs for human use)?

That's it. This thread is all about whether large amounts of data can sequence itself naturally, or else requires intelligent intervention.

As for Life appearing su generis, rest assured that the first pig to be programmed genetically to grow a fully formed human heart will appear su generis from an American bio lab. Likewise, the first computer program to become sentient could very easily be formed su generis, ready to roll from moment one. That's what happens with Intelligent Design, after all.

As for your claim that "nobody" believes that such Life can form su generis, I direct you to other various Luddites who deny the power of technology. They're the most likely group to agree with your already-disproven assertation, after all...

[ThinkPlease]

Then I refer you back to the example of genetically altered pigs.

Note that I said fossils. Do you think that there fossils of genetically changed pigs that can handle human organs in the wild? Your comments do not satisfy my requirements. Perhaps you should try again.

[ThinkPlease]

1. genetically altered pigs are speciation events

2. genetically altered pigs aren't predicted by Evolutionary Theory

3. genetically altered pigs meet the requirement set forth by at least two posters on this thread for answering their demands to their falsifiability tests (not mine) for Evolution.

I suspect that any true scientific work debunking evolution would require naturally occurring events, i.e. where humans have not performed any genetic engineering to alter the course of nature.

[ableChair]

My earlier comment:

"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?"

" I'm pretty sure I understand his point perfectly. What I am saying is that no competent student of evolution would suggest that the genome for any organism arose in one step. No organism in the sense we know them today ever just popped forth, sui generis, fully formed and ready to roll. Nobody really believes that ever happened. So to "demonstrate" the unlikeliness of that phenomenon is spectacularly useless - you're arguing against something that nobody really believes."

Ummm, where to start? I'm a physicist and not a biologist, so I will admit some ignorance. But as I understand it, the accepted view is that some organism, probably single celled, had to appear first. The authors' point was that even the simplest possible organism would still have an enormously complex genetic structure. His question is: "where does that precise b.p. sequence come from?" [if its' appearance predates natural selection]. This is what I meant by this preceeded natural selection: natural selection, by definition, requires at least two crucial ingredients; selection pressures and containers of genetic information (organisms). Prior to the existence of organims, there was no 'favored' or 'disfavored' selection. As a corollary, and perhaps as a motivation for defining the term 'organism', it seems to me that, at minimum, some form of reproduction/duplication must exist in order for natural selection to occur, by definition. (but not necessarily for 'selection pressures' to exist). Without an organism, discussions of the ability of natural selection to foment biological change over time is a mute point.

So, I find it amazing that you would write that:

"There is no "prior to the appearance of natural selection". There is no such time

Of course there is. Indeed, there is some 10 billion years of physical existence before organisms appeared. This is his whole point. Before organisms existed, what created the specific genetic sequence necessary to sustain that first organism? Pursuant to the original quote to which you referred, the context of the authors' discussion was of the probability of just such a thing occuring; i.e. the probability of a b.p. sequence occuring 'randomly' of sufficient complexity to sustain an n = 1, primitive single celled organism. In other words, he was referring to the very first 'structure' that can be defined as biological. As O'Reilly would say, "where am I wrong here"?

"As an analogy, does anyone really need a scientific study, complete with statistical analyses and geographical surveys and mathematical analyses of the physics involved, just to "demonstrate" how unlikely it is that Santa Claus exists? Of course not. What would be the point, since nobody seriously believes in Santa anyway?"

I'm not sure this statement and the context herein commute, so I'll leave this alone...

" I really don't think you can posit an environment where there is no such thing as a trait that is adaptive, or a trait that is dysfunctional. But if you can think of one, I'm interested to hear it. "

As expounded upon above, yes, I can posit such an environment. Indeed, there are too many to here enumerate, but they exist throughout the universe and across time, including the present. To wit, your claim is fallaciously predicated on the assumption that organisms exist in said environment.

[Doctor Stochastic]

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

There are at least two problems with this comment. First it's directed at the wrong person. Second, you have changed the criteria given. It's not "speciation via non natural selection" rather it's: "Discover and demonstrate a method of natural speciation that does not depend upon natural selection." (nach Physicist)

[Physicist]

I can show you an example in the lab today where speciation is physically occuring and does not depend upon natural selection, yet no Evolutionist would agree that such an example falsifies Darwinism.

Read 212 again. I specified natural speciation. Of course we can force changes now (unnatural speciation), but that doesn't alter the history of life on Earth. There are people now, and there demonstrably weren't people then. You're also welcome to postulate a non-human intelligence as the prehistoric speciation agent, but again, you have to show it at work creating new species.

[Southack]

"Read 212 again. I specified natural speciation. Of course we can force changes now (unnatural speciation), but that doesn't alter the history of life on Earth."

Of course speciation alters the history of Life on Earth. We've got pigs growing organs for humans now. That's very different from what we had on Earth 1,000 years ago.

The whole point of ID is that speciation is not natural, just as the whole point of the math proof for this thread is that very large amounts of data can not (mathematically) self-form naturally.

I gave you an example of speciation that was NOT natural. Said example was also NOT predicted by Evolutionary Theory.

You are now arguing that because said speciation event was not "natural", that it doesn't count. That's the same as saying that no evidence which ID can produce (since ID holds that speciation events are not natural) will satisfy you.

And that means that Evolutionary Theory is NOT falsifiable (to you).

Non-falsifiable theories are not scientific, by definition.

Congratulations. You've just moved Darwinism into fantasy books alongside Flat-Earthers...

[Southack]

"Note that I said fossils. Do you think that there fossils of genetically changed pigs that can handle human organs in the wild? Your comments do not satisfy my requirements. Perhaps you should try again."

Are you claiming that fossils are superior to actual living specimens in regards to verifying theories and providing scientific data?

[Southack]

"I suspect that any true scientific work debunking evolution would require naturally occurring events, i.e. where humans have not performed any genetic engineering to alter the course of nature."

The math in this thread demonstrates that some events will not naturally occur.

Ergo, there must be another answer...