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 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 821-828 next last
To: mlo
"DNA formation was not random, it was a self-organizing process." - mlo

Show me an example of that happening or else admit that your claim is an unsubstantiated opinion instead of "science".

No example = Opinion.

401 posted on 03/13/2002 1:23:13 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 399 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Oh please. You've just lowered yourself to claiming that arguing semantics will show to the core of an argument's misapplication.

When someone bases his arguments on math and calls it a proof, I expect a proof somewhere in there. It may be semantics, but it's pretty serious semantics that show a lack of knowledge.

402 posted on 03/14/2002 12:22:14 AM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 395 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You friend has NEVER gotten "good DNA" from a chaotic environment.

Yes he has. DNA wants to combine in more and more complex, life creating forms, just as water wants to go downhill.

So your poor friend is maintaining a position that he/she can't support with either evidence (e.g., good DNA self-forming in a chaotic environment) or with math (as this thread demonstrates).

I told you in the beginning I was going with valid argument from authority. I'm sure I can ask him for a point-for-point rebuttal, but I doubt he has the time to properly tear apart this paper. I'm not sure he could do it through the tears of laughter.

You just had a math Ph.D. working in the field of bioengineering indirectly tell you the math is "balony" (spelling; he's not American). Get me another of equivalent authority to challenge please. Do I have to call up some acquaintances at EMBL (European Molecular Biology Laboratory) too? I don't know their individual beliefs, and I'm sure most are religious, but I'm pretty sure what the answers will be.

403 posted on 03/14/2002 12:29:54 AM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 398 | View Replies]

To: Southack
2. No one has ever documented a single case of DNA self-organizing without the aid of intelligence (or existing life).

He says it'll do it easily in a test tube. He suggested reading 'The Molecular Biology of the Cell' by Alberts et al. and said it could be understood by anyone with a good science background.

404 posted on 03/14/2002 12:33:19 AM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 400 | View Replies]

To: Quila
2. No one has ever documented a single case of DNA self-organizing without the aid of intelligence (or existing life). - Southack

"He says it'll do it easily in a test tube. He suggested reading 'The Molecular Biology of the Cell' by Alberts et al. and said it could be understood by anyone with a good science background." - Quila

It won't. He's probably confused existing DNA replicating in a test tube with my requirement above, but the difference is enormous. No one doubts that DNA works. What's in doubt is DNA self-forming by pouring acids and bases into a test tube.

BEFORE life existed on this planet, what had to happen in order for DNA to form for the very first time? Your poor academic friend would have us believe that DNA has always been around and can just self-form in a test tube. It hasn't and it can't. It had to FIRST form from unorganized elemental compounds in a chaotic, undirected environment (or else needed Intelligent Intervention).

405 posted on 03/14/2002 7:55:52 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 404 | View Replies]

To: Quila
"You just had a math Ph.D. working in the field of bioengineering indirectly tell you the math is "balony" (spelling; he's not American)." - Quila

In math, one doesn't call names to gain credibility. If your friend actually thinks that the math is flawed, then your friend needs to demonstrate with math where the flaw resides.

Your friend will fail.

406 posted on 03/14/2002 7:58:29 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Quila
"When someone bases his arguments on math and calls it a proof, I expect a proof somewhere in there. It may be semantics, but it's pretty serious semantics that show a lack of knowledge." - Quila

That's a logically flawed conclusion. A semantic problem does not demonstrate a lack of knowledge, and arguing over semantics certainly doesn't prove such a claim, either.

407 posted on 03/14/2002 8:00:24 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 402 | View Replies]

To: Quila
You friend has NEVER gotten "good DNA" from a chaotic environment. - Southack

"Yes he has. DNA wants to combine in more and more complex, life creating forms, just as water wants to go downhill." - Quila

Your "friend" is making an interesting claim that implies he is currently creating Life in the lab (something that would win the Nobel Prize and cause a major worldwide publicity frenzy).

Methinks he's quoting his beliefs, not his lab results...

408 posted on 03/14/2002 8:06:22 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Southack
That's a logically flawed conclusion. A semantic problem does not demonstrate a lack of knowledge, and arguing over semantics certainly doesn't prove such a claim, either.

It's kind of like when Gore was trying to play himself off as this technically savvy guy and was meeting with the Cisco people. He mentioned that one of the important products they make is a (as pronounced) "rooter." I've worked with network people for years and I've never heard it called that. It may have been only semantics (technically, his pronunciation is in the dictionary), but it showed a basic lack of working knowledge on his part of today's networking.

409 posted on 03/14/2002 10:17:18 PM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 407 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Don't forget that this person is not American, and is pretty much outside this whole debate. Did you think the rest of the world has this science vs. religion problem too? Their societies have been through the dark ages when religion ruled science, and have gotten over it long ago.

He's just stating what he knows from a cold call, kind of a disinterested referee on the subject.

410 posted on 03/15/2002 12:20:17 AM PST by Quila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Southack
When you get around to it, post #381 could use your attention.
411 posted on 03/15/2002 9:50:39 AM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 408 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
"The article also makes the (invalid) assumption that each trial takes place in a historical vaccuum; that for each consecutive trial, one sequence is exactly as likely to occur as any other sequence. Feedback mechanisms inherent in natural systems produce a bias that this mathematical model does not address." - Condorman

That's not what the author said. The original scenario that he proposed had data being generated chaoticly. As that data was generated, the author calculated the probability/improbability of 41 characters sequencing in the correct order in any part of that entire data stream. Thus, for the desired result, there is no "historical vaccum" because the entire history of the data is being examined by the math.

As for your comment on "feedback systems", you've got two large hurdles to overcome: First, you have to show that a particular feedback system was in place prior to the very first life form becoming animated, and Second, you've got to demonstrate that such a feedback mechanism could actually change the probability / improbability of useful data self-forming from a chaotic environment.

Frankly, I doubt that either of those two hurdles could be overcome, and even if they were properly managed, would probably not alter the final mathematical result substantially.

Someone also made the flawed comment that the math didn't account for data forming in groups, and then those groups joining with each other, but that too is addressed in the math. To wit: whether you flip four coins at once or one coin at a time, the odds of getting all heads remains precisely the same. So too with data self-forming from a chaotic environment

412 posted on 03/15/2002 11:18:04 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 381 | View Replies]

To: Quila
"It may have been only semantics (technically, his pronunciation is in the dictionary), but it showed a basic lack of working knowledge on his part of today's networking." - Quila

No, his mispronunciation did not demonstrate a lack of knowledge, per se. I once hired a Russian programmer who, like Gore, mispronounced various technical terms. Had I drawn the illogical conclusion that you drew above, he wouldn't have even been hired, yet he was sharper than many, many technical people in my company.

413 posted on 03/15/2002 11:23:11 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Quila
"He's just stating what he knows from a cold call, kind of a disinterested referee on the subject." - Quila

Then he only managed to demonstrate that his education was wasted. Contrary to your statement, I'm confident in refuting his wild-eyed claim that DNA can easily form from pouring acids and bases into a test tube, and I'm confident in refuting his claim that he has created life from inanimate matter in his lab, too. Whether either of you even realize that those are the ramifications of his claims (because he/you did not use those same words as I just used) is still left to some (though not much) doubt, however.

As for his claim that the math is baloney and has been refuted, I'm confident in ridiculing your friend's ability to mathematically disprove the math of this thread.

And you say he has a Math Ph.d?! Apparently they hand such worthless pieces of paper out to just about anyone these days.

Bring on the math! Either you (or your friend) needs to attack the math in this thread (or run back to whatever University will protect you from the reality of your lack of knowledge).

414 posted on 03/15/2002 11:31:03 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Southack
[SCENE: Int. Tent. Spotlight trained on a lone figure in the center ring]

[Condorman prepares to leap two large hurdles in a single bound.]

The crowd goes quiet, a lone child cries and is quickly hushed.

[Drumroll..........]

Condorman: "I give you, The Periodic Table of Elements!!"

[Cymbal crash, trumpet salute]: Ta-da!

The crowd: Whistle, clap, cheer

Condorman: "Thank you, thank you!"

[alarum, fanfare, exunt]

415 posted on 03/15/2002 12:09:17 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
I'm afraid that the cymbol wasn't the only thing that crashed while you were attempting to clear those two hurdles...
416 posted on 03/15/2002 12:18:26 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 415 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You really need to get a life. This argument is without end as it is without valid proofs. In other words.

WHO CARESsheesh

417 posted on 03/15/2002 12:18:34 PM PST by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lawdude
"This argument is without end as it is without valid proofs."

Rubbish. Read the title. The math in this thread is a valid proof of the probability / improbability under discussion.

If you can't even read the title, much less the article, then don't bother posting around here.

418 posted on 03/15/2002 12:21:24 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 417 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Well that's true as far as your example. But let's say that you flip two coins. Then I flip two coins. Then your boss Bob walks up and flips two coins. Then my good friend Gopal and his wife Jennifer each flip two coins.

You now have 5 sets of 2 coin flips. What is the probability that at least two of those sets are both heads-heads and we can link them up to form a chain of 4 coin flips, each of which is heads? You might also like to consider that last week I flipped a pair of heads, and that set is still available for incorporation.

The math in your article cannot account for such an occurence. It assumes not only that the target chain forms AT ONCE with no intermediate steps, but also that each failed trial is discarded immediately. That is incontrovertible, my friend.

419 posted on 03/15/2002 12:44:46 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 412 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Okaaayyyy... Let me know how that turns out for you, then...

420 posted on 03/15/2002 12:50:06 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 416 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 381-400401-420421-440 ... 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