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
Only fools would argue constantly about something they don't have a shred of proof for.
Evolutions are fools and freepers need not waste their time with them. They are irrelevant.
For the math in this thread, when we are dealing with useful data, the information actually does have to sequence itself one after the other to make the final output. Whether we are dealing with monkeys accidentally typing a sentence from Shakespeare, software programs self-forming on your hard drive after a lightning strike, or DNA bases creating a double-helix structure with the proper codes to create Life, the sequence really does matter. Re-order a few 1's and 0's in a softwre program, re-order a few characters in a sentence, or re-order the bases in a gene and the final desired output will no longer be achieved.
"Instead, you need to calculate the odds of mutation N1 happening, *at all*, over a huge number of individuals, across a large number of generations. This is, needless to say, much less unlikely. In fact, over sufficient time, it approaches certainty." - Dan Day
Actually, for what you are proposing, you would need to first calculate the odds of mutation N1 happening at all, then second the odds of life-form with mutation N1 surviving, then propagating, then finally of said mutation N1 appearing succesfully in offspring.
There are lots of observable mutations. Two-headed snakes are one such example, for instance, yet how often do two-headed snakes survive, much less propagate, much less have said mutation successfully appear in their offspring?
A mutation can usually be considered to be a mistake in genetic code copying. Can we see mistakes in said copying after they've occured? Yes. Is that the same as seeing the mutation/mistake propagate? No.
So for the math that you propose above to be valid, one would to need make Additional calculations than the single equation you alluded to above.
Although it would usually go without saying, considering the behavior on this thread it is probably worth pointing out that those additional calculations will greatly lower the probability of such events.
Now, would a lower probability matter in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of time? No.
Do we live in an infinite universe with an infinite amount of time? No.
Which means, of course, that the lower probability matters.
"However, your mistake is in assuming that the "N" mutations have to happen one after the other without fail, bam-bam-bam." - Dan DayFor the math in this thread, when we are dealing with useful data, the information actually does have to sequence itself one after the other to make the final output.
The sequence may matter, but the order in which the parts of the sequence came into being over time do not. The Maro calculation presumed that it did, even if he did not realize that was implicit in his math.
Whether we are dealing with monkeys accidentally typing a sentence from Shakespeare,
Which, for the reasons given earlier, is an utterly ridiculous and erroneous attempted analogy for evolution, or even abiogenesis...
software programs self-forming on your hard drive after a lightning strike,
This analogy is even worse, on a number of counts.
or DNA bases creating a double-helix structure with the proper codes to create Life,
I'm sorry, you're changing the subject. The "P1*P2*P3..." calculation was specifically in reply to an exchange concerning Maro's question about accumulated mutations by individuals in an already reproducing population.
Your clue, even if you chose not to trace the discussion back, should have been the use of the term "mutations", which only make sense in the context of replicating life. Changes in non-living (or pre-living, if you will) material is not mutation (by definition), it's merely chemical changes.
the sequence really does matter.
The sequence may matter, but that still doesn't make Maro's calculation correct. Even for a non-living string of molecules, the odds of it forming are not "P1*P2*P3*P4...", *unless* one is presuming, preposterously, that it formed all at once (instead of via combination or recombination of other parts or earlier arrangements), that it was the *only* "fish in the sea" (i.e., discounting all of the other chemical reactions occurring all over the world), that it had *one* chance to form (i.e., discounting how many years are available for reactions occurring at a rate of X per second), that it was the *only* suitable result which would have led to the condition being discussed, and so on.
It's the absolutely "worst case" scenario calculation. Of *course* it's preposterously large.
Re-order a few 1's and 0's in a softwre program, re-order a few characters in a sentence, or re-order the bases in a gene and the final desired output will no longer be achieved.
The fact that the sequence matters still does not make Maro's calculation the appropriate one for the situation being discussed. It's not. The end product matters, sure, but Maro's calculation erroneously presumes that it has to happen the very first time any N things hapen to combine, without fail.
It's like declaring that getting a Royal Flush in poker is so rare that it'll never happen, because his calculations presume that there will only be one hand dealt, *ever*, to try to get one, while forgetting that each poker player will on average see thousands of hands dealt, *and* there are millions of poker players playing the game, *AND* you can discard and draw a second round of cards each hand to try to turn a partial Royal Flush into a full one. Gosh, that suddenly improves the odds a hell of a lot, doesn't it?
"Instead, you need to calculate the odds of mutation N1 happening, *at all*, over a huge number of individuals, across a large number of generations. This is, needless to say, much less unlikely. In fact, over sufficient time, it approaches certainty." - Dan Day
Actually, for what you are proposing, you would need to first calculate the odds of mutation N1 happening at all, then second the odds of life-form with mutation N1 surviving, then propagating, then finally of said mutation N1 appearing succesfully in offspring.
Of course. But those are all known quantities. A mutation at a particular site in a gamete destined for reproduction is low (I've seen the figures, but don't have them handy at the moment), but not ridiculously so.
The odds of the organism surviving and propagating are pretty good, few organisms have an insanely high mortality rate, and the few that do balance that out having insanely high reproductive rates, which ironically increases the odds of a given mutation happening in an amount to exactly balance out the mortality rate (i.e., double the rate of offspring production to overcome a halved survival rate, and that doubles the chances for mutation N1 happening during reproduction, which balances the lost genes due to morality).
The odds of the mutation appearing in subsequent offspring? The "expected value" is 100%, in a species that is neither growing significantly in population nor declining, although the actual results can vary from zero offspring carrying the gene, to a large number depending on the fecundity of the species. On average, though, the gene will be passed on to one offspring by each parent that carries it.
There are lots of observable mutations. Two-headed snakes are one such example, for instance, yet how often do two-headed snakes survive, much less propagate, much less have said mutation successfully appear in their offspring?
Try to keep up with the discussion, Maro was specifically trying to calculate the odds for a combination of mutations which, and I quote, "make no functional difference". This is quite a different situation from your cheesy example of two-headed snakes, which are obviously a detrimental mutation which inhibits both survival and reproduction.
A mutation can usually be considered to be a mistake in genetic code copying. Can we see mistakes in said copying after they've occured? Yes.
Not always, no. Again, the Maro discussion concerned "neutral" mutations which did not express as anything.
Is that the same as seeing the mutation/mistake propagate? No.
That's a different topic than the one being discussed.
So for the math that you propose above to be valid, one would to need make Additional calculations than the single equation you alluded to above.
I didn't allude to any calculation, I merely pointed out all the things that the Maro calculation had left out which would have vastly increased the odds of the event being discussed. His was a "worst possible case" calculation, which makes it invalid for calculating how often such a result might *actually* occur.
Although it would usually go without saying, considering the behavior on this thread it is probably worth pointing out that those additional calculations will greatly lower the probability of such events.
It would help if you checked the context of a discussion before you decided to nitpick it, most of your points are moot.
Because it's important to cut through the mounds of misconceptions, myth, fallacies, and outright lies that have been spread about evolution. If people are going to make up their minds about a scientific theory, let them do so based on what it *actually* says, and not what they misunderstand it to mean.
Only fools would argue constantly about something they don't have a shred of proof for.
Oh look, there's yet another fallacy based on misunderstanding. I rest my case.
Evolutions are fools and freepers need not waste their time with them. They are irrelevant.
Spoken like a man who speaks from emotion and a closed mind instead of the "proof" he professes to revere. I see no evidence, no argument, no "proof", no support in your post, son. Are you sure you understand what it is?
If you can't actually refute my post, your namecalling only makes it appear that your side of the argument has no ability to actually rebut what I say. I can live with that.
Ok, I'll take a stab at "truthfully addressing post #557": It's a giant load of nonsense.
It, again, performs the classic Creationist fallacy of challenging someone to explain a hypothetical "single step" process which, sadly, bears no real resemblance to any evolutionary claim or process.
It's like asking the odds of a land-dwelling mammal giving birth to a whale in a single reproductive act. The answer is, "well I have to admit that's pretty f***ing unlikely, but since that's not what evolution claims happened, or how, what on earth are you babbling on about?"
Evolution is not goal-oriented. There is no "final desired output". That's why, a number of posts ago, and I'm guessing you simply do not read these posts with comprehension, I stated that software emulating evolution is not like natural selection but more like breeding selection. Even genetic algorithms which try to make the goal open-ended still have to have a function for selection. Such a function does not encompass the open possibilities that life in the natural environment presents.
Sigh. Actually, Post 557 is a post that uses a cryptography analogy to illustrate why an earlier claim that DOS had multiple paths to Windows was in error.
"Evolution is not goal-oriented. There is no "final desired output". That's why, a number of posts ago, and I'm guessing you simply do not read these posts with comprehension, I stated that software emulating evolution is not like natural selection but more like breeding selection." - Nebullis
Sigh. The final desired output is "life". It does us no good to have DNA self-form naturally (i.e. without intelligent intervention) if it never creates life.
Moreover, we haven't been discussing the limited subset of software that is designed to deliberately emulate evolution, as you imply above, but rather, we've been discussing the fact that human software is analogous to DNA coding.
If there is a problem with reading comprehension or intellectual honesty, then that problem resides with person who made such glaring "errors" that require so many point by point rebuttals from me, as illustrated above, by the way.
You'll have to explain to me how the "expected value" for the probability of a mutation being passed to offspring is 100% when you admit that mutations such as two-headed snakes WON'T propagate to their offspring.
I didn't know it was so straightforward! I expect you'll be able to post the fitness function for "life".
No you don't expect that at all. Scientists are still at loggerheads over the definition of Life. Why do you insist upon being so consistently intellectually dishonest as to post that sort of comment? Is your argument really so weak that you have nothing else to offer?
Again, you make another intellectually dishonest statement. I did back up my claim. My first claim was that re-ordering bases in a gene would negate the desired output. You countered that Evolution had no desired output. I then pointed out that if DNA never formed Life (i.e. the desired output), that the issue would be moot.
But more than just that example, I've posted point by point rebuttals to your wild-eyed claims, backed by numerous examples, logic, and analogies.
If you still think that I haven't sufficiently backed up my claims, simply post a specific claim of mine and ask for further substance. I'll deliver it just as I have all along, and then you'll have to go find some new "claim" to make against me...
HHHTHTTTHTTTTTHHTHHHHHHHTTHHHTHTTHTTTHTTHTHHTTHHTT HHTHHHHTHTHTHHTHHTTHTTHTTTTTHTHHHHTTTHTHTTTHHHHTTT THHTHHHTHTHTTHHHHTTHHTHHTHTTTTHHTTHTHHHHHHTTHTHTTH THHTHTHTHTTHHTTHTTHHTTTHTHHTHTHHHTTHTHHHTHHTTHTTHT THHHHHTHHHTTHTTHHHHHTTHHTTTTHHHHHTTTTTTTHTTHHTTTHH THTTTHHHTHHTTTTHHTTTTTTTHTTTTHTHTTTTTTTHTTHHHTTHTT HHTHTHTTHTHHHHTHTTHTTTTTHTTTTHHTHHTTTTHHHTHTTHTTTH THTTHTTHTTHTHHTTHTHHTHTTTTHTTHHHTTTTTHTHTTTHTHTHHH TTHTTTHTHHHTHTTHTTHHHTTHHTHHHHHTTTHHTHTHHTHTTTHHHH HTHHHTTHTTHHTTHTHTHTTTTTTHTHHHTTTTTHTTTTHTTHTHHHTH THHTTTHHHTHTTTTHHHTTTTHHHTTHTHTHTHHHTHTHHHHTTTHHHH HHTTHHHTTHTTHTHTTHHTTTHTTTHTTHTTTTHTTHHHHTTTHHHHTT HTHTTHHTTTTTHHTHTTTHHTHTTHHHTTHHHHHTTHTHTHHTTHTHHH THTHTHTHHHTTTHHTTHHTHTTTTHTTHHTHTTTTHTHHTHTTHTHTHT TTHHTTTTTTHHTTTTHHHHHTTHHTTHHTTTHHHTHHTHHTHTTTTHTT TTTTTHTTHTHTHTTTTTTTTTHHHTTTHHHTHTHHHTTHHHTHTTHHTH TTTHTTHHHTTTTTHTHHTTHHTHTHTHTTTHHHTHHHHHTHHTTHTHTH HTTHTTHHHTHTTTHHTHHHTHHHTHTTHTTTTHTTHTTTHTTHTTHTTH HHTTHHHHHHHHTTTTHHTHHHTHTTHHTTHHHHHTTHHTTTHHTTTHTH THTHHHHHTHTHTHHTTTTHTTHHTTTTTTHTHHHTHHHHHHHTTHTTTTNow, have I got the mode of the disproof right?
No. The mathematical odds of your sequence occuring are 1 in 1. Perhaps you meant to say that the mathematical odds of that sequence re-occurring are 1 in 10^300, but then again you haven't claimed to have tried to duplicate your feat.
Naturally, such a feat does not require divine intervention, merely endless repetition. Nice straw man, though. Most Darwinists are even less transparently intellectually dishonest than that, after all...
Okay. A number of individuals have already pointed out that the assumptions x,y,z...are incorrect and so, the mathematical "proof" is neither here nor there.
Now, you've moved yourself into a position where you make the assumption that no matter what this "proof" means, there is a larger analogy for life-coding DNA and that is software. Presumably, this claim is supposed to imply that since people can design software, and since people are intelligent, all of life is designed by an intelligent force other than nature. Nevermind that this argument is invalid.
Since our full description of biological life or life-coding DNA is no more precise than semantic theories, mathematical simulations of phenomena evidenced from life, such as natural selection or other individual aspects, are but partial approximations of those semantic descriptions.
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.