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 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 821-828 next last
To: ThinkPlease
"So while it may have been intelligently designed, it doesn't offer any proof that intelligent design might have occurred in the past, which is where evolution explains the origins of life." - ThinkPlease

What about the future? Does Evolution predict such speciation events, or is Intelligent Design more valid?

341 posted on 03/08/2002 12:09:54 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: Lev
"Which sequences are considered correct?" - Lev

Those that create life.

342 posted on 03/08/2002 12:11:45 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: mlo
"Physicist specifically said "natural speciation" other than natural selection, a distinction you ignored. FWIW, if physicist intended to say that showing an alternative natural cause for speciation was sufficient to falsify natural selection, then I don't think I agree with that. But you did not meet his conditions in any case." - mlo

If you are correct, then Physicist offered a non-falsifiable condition (because ID theory predicts non-natural speciation, not natural speciation) for Evolutionary Theory.

Non-falsifiable theories are unscientific and relegated to discussions of fantasies.

Either give me a falsifiable condition for Evolutionary Theory or declare said theory fantasy.

343 posted on 03/08/2002 12:17:26 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Either give me a falsifiable condition for Evolutionary Theory or declare said theory fantasy.

I did. Don't you remember? What was that point I made about you repeating the same things and ignoring what you've been told before?

344 posted on 03/08/2002 12:41:10 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 343 | View Replies]

To: Southack
"Which sequences are considered correct?" - Lev
Those that create life.

Makes sense. Now, the correct sequence in the proof is one particular sequence of letters whereas the correct sequence of chemicals is ANY sequence that creates life. Do you think this distinction can be ignored?
Regards.
Take a look at 336 if you have a min.

345 posted on 03/08/2002 12:57:57 PM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 342 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Lurking ...
346 posted on 03/08/2002 1:16:29 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

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

Huh? Ever hear of chemical evolution?

347 posted on 03/08/2002 1:39:17 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Southack
I've identified a problem :

then the math shows that it can not happen randomly in 17 Billion years of trying. The sequencing of any data over that size must be done by a non-natural process, per the math in said proof.

How do you justify getting from 'cannot happen randomly' to 'non-natural'? It seems to me a more logical conclusion would be 'the natural process wasn't random in the way Watson described'.

348 posted on 03/08/2002 1:56:38 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Lev
"Makes sense. Now, the correct sequence in the proof is one particular sequence of letters whereas the correct sequence of chemicals is ANY sequence that creates life. Do you think this distinction can be ignored?" - Lev

I doubt that upping the quantity of correct sequences by a few Billion (from 1) will appreciably alter the calculated probability, especially if the time limit is contained to the existence of Earth (say, 17 Billion years to be generous).

The math calculation is only trying to hit 41 specific letters in a row. After 96, there is no probability of success. The number of base (A, C, G, and T) combinations in a primitive life form such as an amoebae could easily exceed 600 Million. If we can't get to 96, then we certainly aren't getting to 600 Million sequentially correct datum (naturally, anyway).

This is not a linear equation. Upping our potential "correct answers" by a few Billion won't appreciably change the probability.

On the other hand, if Life can be formed with 96 or fewer base pairs in the proper sequence (or if substantially more than several Billion unique life forms have been observed), then the math would indicate some potential for Life to form naturally.

But 600 Million is a far cry from 96 when one looks at the exponential nature of this equation.

349 posted on 03/08/2002 2:01:07 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 345 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
"How do you justify getting from 'cannot happen randomly' to 'non-natural'? It seems to me a more logical conclusion would be 'the natural process wasn't random in the way Watson described'." - Virginia-American

If you'll review the content of the posts in this thread, you might catch that I've already agreed that the math can be interpreted as saying that Life formed from a non-random process.

350 posted on 03/08/2002 2:03:59 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 348 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Several of us jumped on the non-sequitor at once.
351 posted on 03/08/2002 2:10:15 PM PST by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You say: ...I've already agreed that the math can be interpreted as saying that Life formed from a non-random process.

Right after having said: ...then the math would indicate some potential for Life to form naturally.

You can't have it both ways. This sort of basic logical problem has plagued all your arguments.

352 posted on 03/08/2002 2:16:44 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 350 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You've demonstrated that you cannot prove mathematically that which you don't understand in the first place. To make it easier observe the following:

Evolution is a documented fact

Natural selection is the driver.

There is room to discuss the details just as there is still some discussion about the mechanics of gravity but evolution, like gravity, is a fact.

353 posted on 03/08/2002 2:16:58 PM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods
I predict he responds with, "it's just a theory" :-)
354 posted on 03/08/2002 2:18:08 PM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 353 | View Replies]

To: general_re
"Am I to assume that you have no objection then to evolution or natural selection, and that in fact your issues involve only abiogenesis? "

The focus of my reply was to explain the orginal point made by the author; i.e., that he is referring to a process preceeding natural selection and the improbability of sufficiently complex genetic information appearing at that stage. I thought you misunderstood his point as you were focusing on processes occuring in the context of natural selection; where he wasn't.

As for your broader question above, a theory can be internally consistent, agree with all known observable phenomena, and still be incomplete. An elegant example is General Relativity. While it explains the vast majority of gravitational phenomenon, it fails to describe, for example, what happens to the fundamental metric tensor of G.R. (the meat and potatoes of G.R.) at the center of a black hole: The eigenvalue of the tensor approaches infinity as the singularity is approached, a physically meaningless result. It seems to me that if evolution is supposed to be the theory of genetic change over time, then the theory of evolution is incomplete if it cannot explain the origin of biologically meaningful b.p. sequences. Ergo, I do not have any reason to not believe that the process of natural selection is a reasonable mechanism for explaining some genetic change over time. But I have little or no evidence to convince me that it is sufficient to explain the genetic changes that occured from beginning to the present. So, I'm not sure I agree with your use of the term 'abiogenesis' as I'm not sure you can so safely decouple the emergence of biologically meaningful b.p. sequences from biology. Indeed, a process other than natural selection would have been necessary for that initial sequence, but whatever it was, by definition, it must have had distinctly biological implications in order that it:

1.) Be responsive to the selection pressures that were later levied upon it.

2.) Provide information sufficiently complex to guide the formation of some biological organism (before it existed!).

Your point is valid that we can debate how complex that organism must have been at its' simplest. That would, of course, drive the probability analysis.

I suspect, for the reasons alluded to above and for many other reasons, that evolution is largely correct in some of its' most basic assumptions, but that it fails as a complete theory of genetic change over time. That is, of course, stated with the qualifications of any honest amateur in the subject.

I've reviewed the mathematics the author is using and, formally speaking, his usage is valid. But what isn't clear is his application of it to physical systems. That requires a lot more brain power than math alone but I'll look at it this weekend (could take a while!).
355 posted on 03/08/2002 3:02:25 PM PST by ableChair
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: mlo; muir_redwoods
I predict he responds with, "it's just a theory"

I'll wager ten klahtooe he responds with, "Evolution has been mathematically disproven."

356 posted on 03/08/2002 3:02:28 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 354 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
klahtooe klahtoos
357 posted on 03/08/2002 3:03:47 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 356 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
From "The Gamesters of Triskelion." Original series, season two.
358 posted on 03/08/2002 3:36:06 PM PST by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 357 | View Replies]

To: ableChair
Ah, we are making progress ;)

As for your broader question above, a theory can be internally consistent, agree with all known observable phenomena, and still be incomplete.
...
It seems to me that if evolution is supposed to be the theory of genetic change over time, then the theory of evolution is incomplete if it cannot explain the origin of biologically meaningful b.p. sequences.

Agreed. I do not think that any honest student of evolution would describe the theory as "complete". For instance, although you object to the separate consideration of abiogenesis versus the evolutionary process, it is hardly a secret that the mechanisms and pathways of abiogenesis are not currently well-understood. While the separation of the two is admittedly inelegant from a theoretical standpoint - everyone wants a theory of "everything", after all - it allows one to do other things like examine and trace the development of the diversity of species we have arrayed before us. Yes, that requires a certain amount of bootstrapping away from the discussion of where and how those first self-replicating organisms came about, but as possible mechanisms for such a thing are investigated further, I have little doubt that more compelling theories will arise.

And already, many theories exist as to how biological structures could have arisen from non-biological sources. As a single example, simple amino acids have been discovered riding on comets, so perhaps abiogenesis got something of a head start from otherworldly sources. If this is a subject that interests you, a good place to start would probably be the talk.origins FAQ on the state of abiogenesis. It is fairly open about the current shortcomings of scientific knowledge about this subject, I think, although I am sure that someone who wishes to dispel evolution will be able to provide you with other counterarguments as well. Ultimately, you are, of course, free to evaluate for yourself where you think the bulk of evidence currently lies.

Your point is valid that we can debate how complex that organism must have been at its' simplest. That would, of course, drive the probability analysis.

Exactly - one of the most obvious responses to this type of statistical analysis. They tend to be predicated on the assumption that the first organisms were akin to what we see today, with membranes and cytoplasm and all sorts of complicated internal structures. But if we can imagine a simple naked molecule that is capable of self-replicating by grabbing bits of material from around it, then that will blow this analysis straight out of the water in short order. Membranes, et cetera, are not necessarily a requirement for self-replication in early biotic systems.

I've reviewed the mathematics the author is using and, formally speaking, his usage is valid. But what isn't clear is his application of it to physical systems.

And that is, as I am sure you are aware by now, the crux of objections to this article. I have no problem with the arithmetic on display. What I object to are some of the assumptions that the arithmetic is based on. So, if you're going to spend a weekend with this puppy anyway, you might consider evaluating it in light of this rather general critique of such statistical approaches.

In any case, the field is still wide open, with lots of room for thoughtful questions from interested amateurs like you and I ;)

359 posted on 03/08/2002 7:21:02 PM PST by general_re
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies]

To: Phaedrus
Lev: Dawkins 'cooked' his rules not to prove evolution but to show the difference between a purely random process and a process with a fitness function.

Nonsense.

You are wrong. Here's what Dawkins said:

Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step seleciton and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breading', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after the aeons, what looks like progress towards some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the future and has n o long-term goal.

360 posted on 03/08/2002 7:55:11 PM PST by Lev
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340341-360361-380 ... 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