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
Ah, yet more intellectual dishonesty from Nebullis, who demonstrates in post after post that she isn't going to debate the substance of her opponent's argument...
That's an incorrect and flawed premise, so it follows that your conclusion from said premise is likewise in error.
The math in this thread is valid for data sequencing itself naturally (i.e., without any form of intelligent aid). You can apply said math, with minimal changes as appropriate, to a vast variety of elements and situations that contain or construct data (e.g. CD-ROMs holding software programs, DNA strands holding genetic code for a specific life form, paper pages that hold quotes from Shakespeare, etc.).
Furthermore, a careful, thoughtful, intelligent reading and understanding of the math involved in the article fo this thread would reveal to most intelligent readers that Evolution is entirely possible naturally, should life be capable of being formed with 96 or fewer sequential bases in a DNA structure.
Math is math. It doesn't hold an undeserved political or social bias. Your problem probably stems from your predisposed idea that Evolution is the answer, and no doubt such a preconceived notion has a very difficult task accepting that simple math can reveal just how improbable that answer might be. Life with 96 or fewer codons?! An amoebae requires Millions of such codons!
Nonetheless, your preconcieved notions are hardly disproofs of math.
Human software coding is a perfectly valid analogy to genetic DNA programming. That statement of fact stands on its own (although I've certainly posted numerous supporting posts to you as you've tried to deny that fact).
Does that mean that just because software and DNA can be programmed, that Life had to have been created by an intelligent designer? No, and only a serious logical misreading of that fact would result in such a juvenile conclusion. What it does mean is that it is very likely that an intelligent designer could create life, but to confuse "could create" with "did create" is to make an unsupportable leap of logic, and that unsupportable leap is probably why you claimed that the argument was "invalid" (above), in error.
Can't you live with that? Why not make that assumption and go on from there?
Nope. I was trying to capture the essense of the "disproof" in another application. The calculation in the article is of the occurrence (not the re-occurrence) of some given sequence, is it not? The flaw in both cases is the same - some particular sequence isn't the interesting thing.
No. The mathematical odds of your sequence occuring are 1 in 1.
No, what's 100% is some sequence occurring. The likelihood of my sequence is, as I stated, virtually infinitesimal.
PS. I don't think I'm being intellectually dishonest at all, simply pointing out at least one flaw in the reasoning of the article. There are others.
That's incorrect. The math for this thread specifically deals with the probability/improbability of Shakespeare's first sentence of Hamlet "To be or not to be, that is the question" re-occuring based upon various random output.
Likewise, the math can be applied to any desired result (for data, at least). If your desired result is to show the probability/improbability of bases and acids combining naturally (i.e., without intelligent aid) to create the desired result of a life form, then the math applies.
The flaw is therefore not in the examples above, but rather with your assumptions and conclusions.
"No, what's 100% is some sequence occurring. The likelihood of my sequence is, as I stated, virtually infinitesimal." - edsheppa
That's incorrect. Your sequence has already occurred. The probability for that event occurring is therefor 1 in 1.
No. At most you can say is that the probability for that event having occurred is 1. Edsheppa is right.
But consider this line in the conclusion.
In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life.It seems clear to me that he's talking about the occurence of life and not its reoccurrence. What else could he mean by "created life?" I mean if he were talking about the re-occurrence of it, he'd have said re-created, not so?
Further, his analogy is clearly to the probability that some specific amino acid sequence as if that were the only outcome we could classify as "life."
Finally, as has been pointed out many times, no one to my knowledge thinks that "monkeys typing" is a good model for the origin of life. Feel free to ask though if any evo on these threads thinks differently. I don't.
I guess I wasn't clear. I was talking of the prior probability of that sequence having occurred. It is about 1 in 10^300.
Yes, his editorial comment appears to be talking about the first occurance of life. Watson's math, however, is valid for calculating the probability / improbability of (with slight adjustments as necessary) any data sequencing itself naturally into any desired output (e.g. one of billions of possible valid life forms).
"Further, his analogy is clearly to the probability that some specific amino acid sequence as if that were the only outcome we could classify as "life." - edsheppa
He actually dealt with that issue, as did multiple posts in this and the previous math thread. Billions of possible "correct" DNA sequences (i.e. for any valid life form) do not alter the mathematical probability / improbability result appreciably. Consider that 10^9 valid possible life forms is a neglible percentage of 10^290 potential DNA combinations. With that consideration in mind, the fact that the author used a single English sentence and "1" potential correct outcome should illustrate that his numbers erred on the side of Evolutionary Theory as much as could be practical.
"Finally, as has been pointed out many times, no one to my knowledge thinks that "monkeys typing" is a good model for the origin of life. Feel free to ask though if any evo on these threads thinks differently. I don't." - edsheppa
The analogy that the author suggested could be replaced by numerous other analogies wherein data was generated without intelligent direction, and the math for all such analogies would still be correct.
After all, the author is showing the probability / improbability for data sequencing itself naturally. The analogy used for such an illustration of the concept is hardly a matter worthy of concern (but hey, if that's all that you've got, then I guess some people will go with it).
It's not like you flipped your coin millions of times until you saw that particular (and no other) sequence to post it to me. You simply flipped your coin 1,000 times and sent the results to me. The odds of your result appearing, since you had no pre-concieved notion of what it would be, are 1 in 1.
The odds of that sequence re-appearing, may very well approach 1 in 10^300. What you are trying to do is to claim that BOTH the sequence appearing and re-appearing are slim. That's simply not the case. Flip your coin and you are going to get an output that you can send me. The odds of that output appearing are 1 in 1 until you pre-specify your output condition, wherein the odds then move towards your 1 in 10^300 figure (presuming that your math is valid, which for this particular concept hardly matters).
Put another way, the odds are 1 in 1 that you will have an output to send to me if you flip a coin a thousand times. The odds that a pre-determined particular sequence will appear, however, will approach your 1 in 10^300 figure.
Aren't you being a bit disingenuous? Don't you consider his conclusion to be the real point?
Billions of possible "correct" DNA sequences (i.e. for any valid life form) do not alter the mathematical probability / improbability result appreciably.
Who said anything about billions? What if it's not 10^9 out of 10^290 but rather 10^280 out of 10^290? The value of that parameter does significantly affect the likelihood.
...without intelligent direction...
Do you consider a selection function to be intelligent direction?
Which is precisely my point. The author has selected a particular sequence and shown that that particular sequence is very unlikely to occur, just as I did. It therefore doesn't support his conclusion.
I may be attributing this quote to the wrong person, but I believe it was the famous British statesman, Benjamin Disraeli, who said that there were "three types of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Whenever I see "mathematical proofs" for or against anything, I always take them with a grain of salt.
I thought that quote was from Mark Twain, but regardless.
Most laymen, and perhaps many mathematicians as well, do not seem to realize that mathematics is a branch of logic which is only as good as the assumptions (clearly stated, or merely assumed or implied) from which it starts. Change the assumptions, and the logic - or the math - goes off in totally divergent directions. Contra what you would think ("one and one make two"), once math has departed mere counting and goes off in entirely theoretical directions, it has very little to say about the real world.
Ergo, some mathematician stating that he has "proof" against evolution carries about as much weight as a lawyer, clergyman, logician, theologian, or philosopher saying he has similar "proof" drawn from his own area of expertise. It's all so much sound and fury signifying nothing.
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.