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 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 821-828 next last
To: Nebullis
"One can generate a series of random DNA oligomers, plug them into a cassette which code for something like a viral coat protein, and the attributes of the virus are changed. You see, it depends entirely on context." - Nebullis

If you meant to say that it depends entirely on content, then I agree. It is the data stored by the unique sequence of bases that matters, just as it is the data that is stored in its proper sequence that distinguishes one computer program from another, or one digital song from another on a DVD or CD-ROM.

581 posted on 04/05/2002 12:26:19 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 580 | View Replies]

To: Southack
It is the data stored by the unique sequence of bases that matters...

No, because a sequence is interpreted differently depending on its context. The simplest example is frame. Any small random sequence, say 3 bases, has functional meaning in the context of neighboring sequences or environmental molecules.

582 posted on 04/05/2002 12:39:40 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 581 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
"No, because a sequence is interpreted differently depending on its context. The simplest example is frame. Any small random sequence, say 3 bases, has functional meaning in the context of neighboring sequences or environmental molecules." - Nebullis

"Context" doesn't negate what I said about data, contrary to your assertation above. One must first have the data before context even comes into play.

A human can be considered to be "context" in a video-game analogy. The data code for the computer program remains the same no matter which human plays the game, no matter what responses said human makes while executing the game program.

But the results of the game can be vastly different based upon that human context.

Nonetheless, it is the data that comprises the program in question that distinguishes one software game from another, NOT the "context" as you insinuate above...

583 posted on 04/05/2002 1:28:13 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 582 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Nonetheless, it is the data that comprises the program in question that distinguishes one software game from another, NOT the "context" as you insinuate above...

That's why I think software is a poor analogy for DNA.

584 posted on 04/05/2002 2:11:44 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 583 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
"That's why I think software is a poor analogy for DNA." - Nebullis

What?! Not only is human software a good analogy for DNA, but DNA is genetic programming!

Gene's are subroutines. Likewise, A, C, G, and T bases are the Base 4 equivilent to human 0's and 1's for our Base 2 (AKA "binary") systems. Re-sequence either and you can get different organisms, features, or programs, respectively.

585 posted on 04/05/2002 2:43:33 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 584 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Genetic programming is an idea borrowed from life. But in real life, context is extremely important for DNA sequence expression. Don't make the mistake of imposing the limitations of the model on real life.
586 posted on 04/05/2002 3:00:54 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 585 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
"Genetic programming is an idea borrowed from life. But in real life, context is extremely important for DNA sequence expression. Don't make the mistake of imposing the limitations of the model on real life."

On the contrary, genetic programming is very real.

With genetic programming, science can create useful organs for humans by growing them in pigs. This is performed via gene-splicing, which copies genetic code for an entire subroutine/gene into the host.

Likewise, human programmers commonly copy complete subroutines from one software program into others.

Context can affect the output results, but it does not invalidate the original data. Please review the video-game analogy above if you are still unclear on the distinction between context and code.

587 posted on 04/05/2002 3:17:57 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 586 | View Replies]

To: Southack
On the contrary, genetic programming is very real.

It's very real but it isn't life. There are still many limitations to genetic programming, even when they can be useful. At most they imitate domestic breeding programs, not natural selection.

With genetic programming, science can create useful organs for humans by growing them in pigs.

This has nothing to do with genetic programming. Genetic engineering is a different concept entirely.

588 posted on 04/05/2002 3:26:16 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 587 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
On the contrary, genetic programming is very real. - Southack

"It's very real but it isn't life." - Nebullis

That's a non-sequitur. Genetic programming is still analogous to other forms of programming, such as human-driven computer software programming, whether either one is "life" or not. Your qualification is beside the point, hence, a non-sequitur.

589 posted on 04/05/2002 3:36:39 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
With genetic programming, science can create useful organs for humans by growing them in pigs. - Southack

"This has nothing to do with genetic programming. Genetic engineering is a different concept entirely." - Nebullis

On the contrary, genetic engineering is merely the science of genetic programming. To genetically engineer new organic behavior, we currently move existing genetic programming from one DNA strand to another in our host.

That's why we have the term "gene-splicing" - because we are "cutting" one segment of DNA code (aka, a "gene") and splicing it into another DNA strand.

590 posted on 04/05/2002 3:41:05 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 588 | View Replies]

To: Southack
That's why we have the term "gene-splicing" - because we are "cutting" one segment of DNA code (aka, a "gene") and splicing it into another DNA strand.

Forms of gene splicing happen spontaneously in nature as well. Small segments of DNA are carried from organism to organism via plasmid or virus and even as simple segments of DNA.

591 posted on 04/05/2002 4:00:23 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 590 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
"Forms of gene splicing happen spontaneously in nature as well. Small segments of DNA are carried from organism to organism via plasmid or virus and even as simple segments of DNA."

Of course, computer viri do likewise.

Hence, yet another of thousands of reasons why the analogy between software programs and DNA code is completely valid.

592 posted on 04/05/2002 5:46:35 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 591 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
Now that we've filtered through some of the initial flotsam, I believe that it's time that you address Post #557.
593 posted on 04/05/2002 5:58:44 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
But if there is no functional difference, there is nothing on which natural selection can get a purchase. Then, the odds that a number of changes N come together are essentially P1*P2*P3...PN, which is going to be a very small number. This is as useless an argument as the introns argument a few posts back. To repeat, evolutionary theory DEPENDS on natural selection to winnow down the odds. That is, evolutuonary theory assumes that small difference 1 makes a functional difference. The odds that any particular individual exhibits difference 1 may be small, so the theory goes, but in a large population the odds are better. Because difference 1 results in a fitter individual, there come to be many individuals with difference 1, of which one has difference 2, which in turn results in a fitter individual, and so on. If the difference MAKES NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE, natural selection CANNOT RESULT IN THE PROLIFERATION OF THAT DIFFERENCE. You evolution guys don't understand your own theory.
594 posted on 04/05/2002 7:01:19 PM PST by maro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 569 | View Replies]

To: maro
If the difference MAKES NO FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE, natural selection CANNOT RESULT IN THE PROLIFERATION OF THAT DIFFERENCE.

It can. The simplest example is codon reduncy. Mutations in two bases will be neutral until, and this is key, until a certain third base is changed, at which time the neutral changes are fixed by selection together with the third change. Similarly, neutral changes can take place in non-functional regions of proteins.

Not everything falls under natural selection. There are other forces and constraints such as physical and developmental, which act on evolution.

595 posted on 04/05/2002 7:25:27 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 594 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Hence, yet another of thousands of reasons why the analogy between software programs and DNA code is completely valid.

It's valid for the points which you and I just mentioned. But just because we can copy parts of nature and get ideas for computers from biology, does not mean that these concepts can be taken as fully representing life. That is, the limitations of software do not apply to life. Life, as a whole, is too complex to model any more precisely than semantically. This does not mean the semantic theories are incorrect. When pieces of the theories are mathematically modeled, they bear out correctly.

596 posted on 04/05/2002 7:36:58 PM PST by Nebullis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 592 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
"When pieces of the theories are mathematically modeled, they bear out correctly." - Nebullis

You do realize that you are posting your new claim about math on a thread that uses math to illustrate that life would have to be capable of forming from a DNA strand of fewer than 96 total codons (for Evolution to be naturally possible), don't you?

For perspective (as to whether or not Evolutionary Theory is supported by math), an amoebae, one of the simplist forms of known life, generally has several hundred Million codons in its DNA.

597 posted on 04/05/2002 8:41:53 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Nebullis
... the analogy between software programs and DNA code is completely valid. - Southack

"It's valid for the points which you and I just mentioned." - Nebullis

So you are now finally agreeing with me that computer software code is a rock solid analogy to DNA code?

598 posted on 04/05/2002 8:49:51 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 596 | View Replies]

To: Jesse
This mathematical exercise may be correct, but the logic is not

Exactly. It's like saying that bats have two ears, therefore monkeys can't fly. Yes, bats have two ears and yes, monkeys can't fly, but there isn't any logical connection between the two statements.

599 posted on 04/06/2002 8:35:56 AM PST by powderhorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 579 | View Replies]

To: powderhorn
If you still don't understand the math and how it applies, perhaps Post 557 will help you gain a little insight...
600 posted on 04/06/2002 10:59:21 AM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 599 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 561-580581-600601-620 ... 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