A Second Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]

Nutters.org ^ | 28-Jul-2000 | Brett Watson

[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

[Southack]

"They were positing the possibility of a stepwise evolutionary path between DOS and Windows (i.e., a path that leads from one to the other through many workable intermediate forms via small incremental changes), you were inexplicably changing the subject entirely to the feasibility of randomly finding one gigantic leap from the first form to the final form, which *disallows* any "stepping stone" modifications like the other person was suggesting." - Dan Day

Nebullis stipulated that she could flip bits from DOS and end up with Windows XP. I then correctly pointed out that to achieve that feat, that she would need both a Key and an Algorithm. Of course, there is no way that she could ever show either the Key or the Algorithm. For one thing, Windows XP was designed by intelligent beings, not naturally evolved. Designs can skip evolutionary steps; Evolution can't. That's post #557 in a nutshell.

[maro]

You are a doofus (sp?). Read the context of the threads. We weren't having a wide-ranging discussion of the probability of ANY beneficial somatic change. We were talking about a PARTICULAR unspecified beneficial somatic change, and whether that change could conceivably have been reached via N small mutations. The point I was making was that bringing NONFUNCTIONAL mutations into the explanation doesn't help the evolutionists' argument, because natural selection by definition cannot operate on NUNFUNCTIONAL mutations. Congratutlations on your high school math. Good work, boy. I have a bachelor's degree in math from Harvard. And you?

[Nebullis]

The point I was making was that bringing NONFUNCTIONAL mutations into the explanation doesn't help the evolutionists' argument, because natural selection by definition cannot operate on NUNFUNCTIONAL mutations.

But, do you see that neutral mutations can enter en masse into the pool of selectable mutations at any time? Your original point was a critique of functional intermediates. This is one way (networks and hierachies are another) in which the demand for functional intermediates is invalidated.

[Nebullis]

Designs can skip evolutionary steps; Evolution can't.

I have just explained how evolution can! Neutral mutations accumulate without functional expression until they are carried into a functional state by other mutations. The hierarchical nature of genetic control networks also ensure that small mutations at the genetic level can lead to vast changes at the selection level.

[Nebullis]

What would you call a wholesale transmission of genes from one organism to another?

[Southack]

Designs can skip evolutionary steps; Evolution can't. - Southack

"I have just explained how evolution can! Neutral mutations accumulate without functional expression until they are carried into a functional state by other mutations." - Nebullis

That's an interesting genetic theory worthy of further consideration, but it hardly applies to the software design of either Windows XP or DOS.

[Southack]

"What would you call a wholesale transmission of genes from one organism to another?"

I'd call it replication, but you could also call it inheritance.

[Nebullis]

I'd call it replication, but you could also call it inheritance.

I meant to add 'lateral' to transmission.

[Nebullis]

That's an interesting genetic theory worthy of further consideration, but it hardly applies to the software design of either Windows XP or DOS.

One more reason the software analogy is too limited.

[Southack]

The software analogy is NOT too limited. I said that your theory of Evolution being able to skip Evolutionary steps was worthy of further consideration, not that it was proven, established fact. Moreover, software could probably be shown to skip evolutionary steps, what with design being inherent in software and all...

[Nebullis]

I said that your theory of Evolution being able to skip Evolutionary steps was worthy of further consideration, not that it was proven, established fact.

Sorry, but neutral mutations are a well-established observation.

[Southack]

Even if that was a proven, true fact, it still wouldn't aid your attack on the software analogy because software can be shown to also skip Evolutionary steps.

[maro]

But when you go to nunfunctional mutations, the price you pay is P1*P2*P3...PN type probabilities. That's why this is not a good argument from your perspective. Let's go back to the software analogy. Let's say you are dubious that there is a path of functioning intermediates between DOS and XP. It doesn't help to say, well, changes to the code could have accumulated in the comment fields of the code, and then gotten "activated" by some sort of bitflip that deletes or moves the flag that demarcates the comments. Changes in the comment field have a probability that looks like P1*P2*P3...PN.

[powderhorn]

To be that incorrect about something so basic as the nature of data, you must truly be out of your league in this discussion...

THORNDIKE BARNHART DICTIONARY: "Data 1. Pl of datum. Things known or granted. facts. 2. Strictly, data is plural, with a little-used singular datum. Its meaning is actually collective and may sometimes stress a group of facts as a unit and so be used with a singular verb. Sometimes, referring to individual facts, data is used with a plural: The actual data of history consists of contemporary facts (sing.). Our task is to analyze when the data have been secured (pl.). The singular verb can be safely used in any but the most formal writing."

[Southack]

Yes, that's really special. You've demonstrated that you can read from a non-technical dictionary and yet still not understand what we're talking about in regards to data.

Your claim above that data is only something that you can print, in the context in which you made that statement, reveals you to be out of your league. Put simply, this debate is over your head.

[Nebullis]

Changes in the comment field have a probability that looks like P1*P2*P3...PN.

In evolution, any change looks like that. I wonder why you differentiate between neutral changes and other changes.

[Southack]

"Try putting the data for A, C, G and T in a computer and print out a life form, then you will have data that reproduces." - powderhorn

Oh brother...

[maro]

No, a non-neutral change, one that affects function, will (or is likely to) be selected for or against to one degree or another. For example, sickle shaped hemoglobin has been selected FOR in Africa, apparently because having this trait helps with malaria. Sickle shaped hemoglobin is selected AGAINST outside the malaria belt. Traits that are selected for or against cannot be said to continue to have the original probability of occurring, PI. This is the core of evolutionary theory. It is a powerful idea, and true--within its narrow domain of changes that can be reached in a small number of bitflips from a prior state of DNA. My argument throughout this thread has been that this theory CANNOT apply (or seems implausible given our current state of knowledge) to changes that require a large number of bitflip changes. In THAT case, it is difficult to see how a path of intermediates could exist and be selected for, culminating in an individual having the trait under discussion.

[Nebullis]

Do you understand that there are more mechanisms of genetic change than single point mutations?

[Nebullis]

One single point mutation may or may not lead to a selectable trait. For practical purposes, the probability of such a single point mutation is the same, regardless of whether it leads to a selectable trait or not.

Have you heard of recombination? Transposable elements?