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
Many Experts Quoted on FUBAR State of Evolution
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
Jeffrey Dahmer, noted Evolutionist
Because he was not on the moon.
The guy presents a far better case against his own essay than anything you clowns are going to come up with.
Sigh. So where did the intelligence arise from?
Same place as always, the Christian God, where else? Someday I want to see a Hindu put forth an ID argument, just for variety's sake.
I've heard it repeatedly attributed to Twain.
Of course, that doesn't preclude the possibility that they both said this, or that one ***paraphrased*** the other.
However, with regard to the so-called mathematical "proof", there is no room for debate, among those who study statistics.
FReegards,
This means that there can be NO mathematical "proof," in the way he's attempting to do.
So, given the attempts to ignore this law, the guy is full of BS, and so are you.
CE
The main deterministic law involved in the process of evolution is supposed to be natural selection. Roughly speaking, this is the idea that some organisms are better at surviving and producing offspring than their peers, and the fact that they leave more offspring will mean that their genes will tend to proliferate in future generations. Thus, the winners produce more winners, and the losers tend to fade away. There are lots of arguments that one could have about natural selection, but none of them are particularly relevant to this document. Instead, I take issue with the random part of the mechanism. (I may address the deterministic part in a future monkeys document, though, so stay tuned to Nutters.org!) In order to keep the natural selection part as far out of the picture as possible, let us consider the genesis of the first living cell.
Strawman. Selection pressures were active long before the first cell developed. They acted strongly upon even the first self-replicating chemicals. This is all so much hand-waving bunk.
Monkey math is particularly relevant to theories of chemical evolution
Wrong. The author does not even seem to realize the huge differences between chemistry and typing monkeys: that not all outcomes are equally probable, and that continued chemical reactions favor the formation of complex chemicals - each failed attempt does not put you back to square one.
I like this one:
"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.Also, in all of his writings on morals (set in us by a "Creator") I've never seen this stupid "accountability" line. If any Christian out there is only being a good person because he fears an "accounting," I don't trust that person any more than I would trust Jeff.
1. Where does Watson recognize the fundamental inapplicability of his equal-outcome, start-over-at-scratch-if-you're-even-a-bit-wrong assumption to chemistry?
2. What, no feedback mechanisms?
3. I notice you've given up trying to claim auto junkyards, computer viruses, and genetic biologists as support for your ID hypothesis. Guess you were just wrong, eh?
4. Still waiting, from the first thread, for a coherent theory of ID from you, as well as a new defense of it against Occam's razor. Will you ever stick a thread out until the end?
This program models his suggestion that, were a monkey allowed to type random letters, he would produce a work of Shakespeare very quickly if letters he happened to type in the right places were preserved with each attempt.
"Very quickly"? Highly doubtful.
Who or what intelligence determines the "right places" and who or what intelligence does the preserving?
Dawkins is a clever atheist ideologue, nothing more, and he has risen to prominence because he is an atheist, not because he has anything useful to say about Evolution. He is making an effective argument here for Intelligent Design.
I can do far better than that. I shall now invoke math to prove that I am Marilyn Monroe:
1. All humans are divided into two classes, Marilyn and all others.
2. The number of members of the class of Marilyn is ONE.
3. The number of members of the class of PatrickHenry is ONE.
4. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.
5. One equals one.
6. Ergo ... I am Marilyn Monroe!
So you still haven't read it and don't have any idea what I am talking about either.
It's also instructive to see the reaction to it by those who deny that intelligent design has any part in the creation of life.
One day soon these times will be known as the dark ages.
It looks to me like the author took a pre conceived conclusion and form fitted his calculations to support it. Shame on him. He needs to decide if he is a mathematician or an evangelist.
Not really - empirically verifiable. Here's a Java version of Dawkins's simulation, slightly modified. Stick in a phrase, see how long it takes to generate it by cumulative evolution.
Who or what intelligence determines the "right places" and who or what intelligence does the preserving?
The shortcomings of the analogy are not the shortcomings of evolution - evolution is not goal-driven (teleological), as the Shakespeare example is. However, if you understand that Dawkins is trying to illustrate how adaptive traits are passed on, rather than scrapped - as this article would have us believe - then the analogy is still a useful illustration.
2. The number of members of the class of Marilyn is ONE.
3. The number of members of the class of PatrickHenry is ONE.
4. Things equal to the same thing are equal to each other. 5. One equals one.
6. Ergo ... I am Marilyn Monroe!
Sorry. Incorrect conclusion. You have only proven that the number of members of your class equals that of MM.
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.