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 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 821-828 next last
To: Southack
I think the initial thread was more than sufficient.
I still laugh daily at the mental midget who belittled the original thread postulating that it would take many many times the age of the universe to get just one sentence right.

That legend in his own mind petulantly added: but that's not infinite!!
The moron never stopped to consider that if one sentence takes that long, how long the complete works of Shakespeare might take is academic and really a moot (and useless) point.

441 posted on 03/17/2002 11:50:49 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Data is different from chemical reactions. We can have chemicals react all day long, but that doesn't mean that they store data.

Of all the chemical structures in the world, DNA stood alone in storing data until Man came along and created paintings and later writing.

But it wasn't the chemicals that comprised DNA that was unique. Those chemicals are found in plenty of other compounds in which data is NOT stored, in fact. Nor is it the fact that those particular acids and bases reacted or linked with each other, as they do that in other compounds as well.

No, what makes DNA so intriguing is that those chemicals are sequenced in a manner that accurately stores data (and then going beyond the math in this thread, that DNA processes said stored data as well as replicates itself).

And the author's math is entirely valid for calculating the probability of data managing to sequence itself without intelligent intervention.

Since everyone seemed to explain things better than I could I bailed out of this discussion. But since you seem to not get things (and you called me out elsewhere), I thought I'd see if you've learned anything yet.

You haven't.

First. Tell me exactly what data you think is stored in DNA that isn't stored in any other molecule.

Second. Please construct an accurate analogy between the math presented here, and the real world. This is how most science works. Math for math's sake doesn't mean anything most times, even in probability arguments like this one. What is the author trying to model here? What are his assumptions? Are they too simplistic? Is he complete in his analysis? (This research changes how if I change X, or Y?)

All I see here is a statistical argument with no basis in the real world. So, again, what do you think the author is trying to model?

442 posted on 03/17/2002 4:13:26 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 433 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"First. Tell me exactly what data you think is stored in DNA that isn't stored in any other molecule." - ThinkPlease

Data isn't stored inside molecules (at least not for the purposes of this math discussion), but rather, is stored in the sequence of molecules/base pairs (A, C, G, and T) that comprise the double-helix physical structure of DNA.

"All I see here is a statistical argument with no basis in the real world. So, again, what do you think the author is trying to model?" - ThinkPlease

The author is correctly calculating the mathematical probability of useful/desired data sequencing itself in a chaotic, non-intelligent environment.

The author's math is just as applicable to the real world as it is to statistics, so long as we are discussing the sequencing of events or data in either.

So whether we are discussing the probability / improbability of a series of coins all landing with heads face up, a sentence in Shakespeare's Hamlet being generated by monkeys banging on keyboards, or sequencing the data that would distinguish amoebae DNA double-helixes from human DNA double-helixes in a (until that moment) lifeless environment, the math is perfectly valid.

443 posted on 03/17/2002 4:29:39 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Data isn't stored inside molecules (at least not for the purposes of this math discussion), but rather, is stored in the sequence of molecules/base pairs (A, C, G, and T) that comprise the double-helix physical structure of DNA.

So how is this meaningful data? [snip]

The author is correctly calculating the mathematical probability of useful/desired data sequencing itself in a chaotic, non-intelligent environment.

Fine. Can you or the author present me with a reference to any sort of paper/evidence that shows that this is how DNA forms in the wild?

444 posted on 03/17/2002 4:36:17 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 443 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"Neither provides any predictive power when human interference is involved, don't you think? Especially since ID doesn't have any predictions in any case..." - ThinkPlease

No, and had you been paying attention, you might have been clever enough to see that at least one prediction of Intelligent Design was already covered exhaustively.

That prediction, of course, is one of short periods of speciation. One would expect that a designer would introduce a new model rather rapidly, after all.

A century or more ago, Darwinists laughed at ID and said that the fossil record showed long transition periods for speciation events, thus "disproving" ID.

Then more and more fossils were uncovered, all of which showed RAPID speciation events. Evolutionary Theory was then revised. It's replacement theory, Punctuated Equilibria, then predicted short speciation events (just like ID).

Funny how that works...

445 posted on 03/17/2002 4:38:31 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 385 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Then more and more fossils were uncovered, all of which showed RAPID speciation events. Evolutionary Theory was then revised. It's replacement theory, Punctuated Equilibria, then predicted short speciation events (just like ID).

Except that IDists aren't publishing? Why? Could be that they still don't have a scientific theory?

Funny how that works.

446 posted on 03/17/2002 4:42:16 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
The author is correctly calculating the mathematical probability of useful/desired data sequencing itself in a chaotic, non-intelligent environment. - Southack

"Fine. Can you or the author present me with a reference to any sort of paper/evidence that shows that this is how DNA forms in the wild?" - ThinkPlease

Sigh... You've missed the point again. The math is valid for data sequencing itself without intelligent intervention.

Said math has nothing to say about chemicals forming a double-helix physical structure (ala DNA) in the wild (for instance, DNA could be chemically formed that is incapable of sustaining a life form due to a lack of valid data), except when said structure contains valid data stored in its sequence of components.

447 posted on 03/17/2002 4:46:02 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 444 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"Except that IDists aren't publishing? Why? Could be that they still don't have a scientific theory?" - ThinkPlease

Oh please. "Publishing" has nothing to do with whether or not a theory is scientific. You're grasping at straws again.

448 posted on 03/17/2002 4:48:45 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 446 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Sigh... You've missed the point again. The math is valid for data sequencing itself without intelligent intervention.

Then the math says nothing about the physical reality in which we live. That is not how the components of DNA form to create us, nor is that how molecules of organic matter react to form DNA. It's just a pretty way for Watson to show off his Probability skills, but not much else.

Said math has nothing to say about chemicals forming a double-helix physical structure (ala DNA) in the wild (for instance, DNA could be chemically formed that is incapable of sustaining a life form due to a lack of valid data), except when said structure contains valid data stored in its sequence of components.

You are right, it doesn't. And that is why Watson's pontificating is erroneous. Perhaps if he had done some math along those lines, it might be worth something in that respect.

449 posted on 03/17/2002 4:54:40 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 447 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Oh please. "Publishing" has nothing to do with whether or not a theory is scientific. You're grasping at straws again.

A point could be made that every meaningful scientific discovery (i.e one that has one a Nobel Prize) has been published. The discovery of evidence leading to an intelligent designer certainly qualifies in this manner. Why wouldn't you publish?

450 posted on 03/17/2002 4:56:49 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Humm I would rather watch the monkeys than try to wade through that thing again!

"You humans are so arrogant for such a young species!" Q to Picard.

451 posted on 03/17/2002 5:00:25 PM PST by mad_as_he$$
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Oh please. "Publishing" has nothing to do with whether or not a theory is scientific.

But it does put the "theory" out for others to test and pick at, which is the essence of science. If ID cannot stand up to scrutiny, it need not be considered scientific.

452 posted on 03/17/2002 5:11:21 PM PST by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Said math has nothing to say about chemicals forming a double-helix physical structure (ala DNA) in the wild (for instance, DNA could be chemically formed that is incapable of sustaining a life form due to a lack of valid data), except when said structure contains valid data stored in its sequence of components. - Southack

"You are right, it doesn't. And that is why Watson's pontificating is erroneous. Perhaps if he had done some math along those lines, it might be worth something in that respect." - ThinkPlease

No, Watson's math is directly to the point because he is calculating the probability of data sequencing itself without intelligent intervention. He didn't need to do anything along your lines such as prove that chemicals can bond with each other and form structures. We already know that.

But what distinguishes the double-helix of an amoebae from the double-helix of an aardvark? The data stored in the sequence of A, C, G, and T base pairs that comprise those double-helix structures, of course.

How did that data sequence itself? Was it by an unintelligent, "natural" process? That's what the math in this thread directly addresses.

453 posted on 03/17/2002 5:27:35 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 449 | View Replies]

To: Southack
No, Watson's math is directly to the point because he is calculating the probability of data sequencing itself without intelligent intervention. He didn't need to do anything along your lines such as prove that chemicals can bond with each other and form structures. We already know that.

My God, man, are you dense? You've completely misunderstood my point! My point is that unless you can show me that data sequences itself like that in real life, his whole argument isn't anything more than an elaborate exercise in probability. So, does it?

How did that data sequence itself? Was it by an unintelligent, "natural" process? That's what the math in this thread directly addresses.

Please show us the evidence that this is how DNA is sequenced in nature. Which is what I asked you for the first time! A published paper would be preferrable, but I'll take anything else with a complete presentation of the material (such as a talk given at a meeting, or a poster presentation).

454 posted on 03/17/2002 5:39:11 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"My point is that unless you can show me that data sequences itself like that in real life, his whole argument isn't anything more than an elaborate exercise in probability. So, does it?" - ThinkPlease

The math in this thread directly calculates the mathematical probability of data sequencing itself like that in real life without intelligent intervention.

The odds aren't good for that to happen, ever.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that Intelligent processes can sequence data like that in real life...

455 posted on 03/17/2002 5:42:32 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The math in this thread directly calculates the mathematical probability of data sequencing itself like that in real life without intelligent intervention.

You haven't answered my question. Please try again. Let me help you out: Please show us the evidence that this is how DNA is sequenced in nature.

456 posted on 03/17/2002 5:44:40 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"Please show us the evidence that this is how DNA is sequenced in nature." - ThinkPlease

The evidence that we have is in the results of the math in this thread. Essentially there is NO CHANCE that DNA can have its data sequenced naturally (i.e., without intelligent aid).

457 posted on 03/17/2002 5:46:31 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The evidence that we have is in the results of the math in this thread. Essentially there is NO CHANCE that DNA can have its data sequenced naturally (i.e., without intelligent aid)

let me clarify my original question. Can you show where anyone claims that this is how DNA is sequenced in nature? Other than Watson, that is.

458 posted on 03/17/2002 5:48:49 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 457 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
"Can you show where anyone claims that this is how DNA is sequenced in nature?"

You only have two options for sequencing data:
1. via an intelligent process
2. via an unintelligent process.

The math in this thread calculates the probability/improbability of option 2 (i.e., the odds of nature properly sequencing base pairs in DNA to create a sustainable life form, particularly prior to the existence of Life on this planet).

459 posted on 03/17/2002 5:55:07 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 458 | View Replies]

To: Southack
No doing. Usually, in scientific circles, if one has a point, one is very clear to where they are getting their assumptions from. Obviously Watson's assumptions are: "Given a randomly sequenced set of data, I can show that it is nearly impossible to get life from it."

Usually a scientist is very clear where he got his assumptions from, and usually it is another researcher's experiment, where he hypothesizes that a certain process is responsible for data. The scientist is then very clear to point out that he got the process from the other researcher, so that people like you and I don't have these stupid arguments over said assumtptions.

So the question (that I originally misstated, and I apologize) currently stands as follows: Is there any scientist that claims that DNA that results in the creation of the first living being is formed in a manner sequenced from base pairs assembling at random from some (assumed) innumerable pool, or is this an assumption unique to the author?

According to you, the answer appears to be: It is an assumption unique to the author. Unless you can show me otherwise.

Unfortunately, without some sort of analogy to an actual physical process or an approximation there of, this assumption doesn't show any sort of proof of anything, except this specific case, which doesn't appear to have any basis on the real world. Which renders any sort of discussion after it unique to that particular case, and not relavant to the real world.

460 posted on 03/17/2002 6:17:07 PM PST by ThinkPlease
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 459 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 421-440441-460461-480 ... 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