Acme Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 There are also way more atoms than monkeys with typewriters. Also note that one monkey will not influence the other monkey to type specific sequences, something that simple molecules DO. Charges influence and induce other charges. ... Other disabusements of the infinite monkey hypothesis pertain to evolution. Infinite monkey theorem ...A different avenue for exploring the analogy between evolution and an unconstrained monkey lies in the problem that the monkey types only one letter at a time, independently of the other letters. Hugh Petrie argues that a more sophisticated setup is required, in his case not for biological evolution but the evolution of ideas: In order to get the proper analogy, we would have to equip the monkey with a more complex typewriter. It would have to include whole Elizabethan sentences and thoughts. It would have to include Elizabethan beliefs about human action patterns and the causes, Elizabethan morality and science, and linguistic patterns for expressing these. It would probably even have to include an account of the sorts of experiences which shaped Shakespeare's belief structure as a particular example of an Elizabethan. Then, perhaps, we might allow the monkey to play with such a typewriter and produce variants, but the impossibility of obtaining a Shakespearean play is no longer obvious. What is varied really does encapsulate a great deal of already-achieved knowledge.[18] James W. Valentine, while admitting that the classic monkey's task is impossible, finds that there is a worthwhile analogy between written English and the metazoan genome in this other sense: both have "combinatorial, hierarchical structures" that greatly constrain the immense number of combinations at the alphabet level.[19] ... A) Roll a dice 100 times. The probability of rolling 100 sixes is around 6.5 x 10-77, making it rather unlikely. However the probability of all other outcomes is also 6.5 x 10-77. Therefore rolling a dice 100 times and then denying the result could occur by chance after the fact due the the low probability is not compelling. Compound probabilistic events inevitably result in low probability outcomes due to the compound nature of the possible outcomes - however these events result in outcomes. Using post hoc reasoning to deny the probability of the outcome is fallacious. ... A good point and one made at the link I provided. To whit: Improbable things happen ... When talking about the improbable, it's easy to ignore the cases where the event does not happen. People are naturally self-centered and think about their own experience first: from any one individual's point of view, the odds of winning the lottery are minuscule and the odds of finding someone with the same birthday are exactly as you'd expect. But when considered in a more comprehensive and inclusive way, the true odds are revealed. For example, the probability of one particular mutation during evolution may be tiny, but there are billions of mutations happening continuously and being sorted by natural selection. Because of all these chances, that one minute possibility isn't really unlikely at all. It's a certainty. We tend to pay attention to the improbable things that do happen - and never to the improbable things that don't happen and don't defy the odds. This particular cognitive bias is an important aspect of the Black Swan theory of improbable events. We may be staggered by an event with a 1 in a million odds, but completely ignore that at least 999,999 other 1-in-a-million events just happened to have not occurred. This is often boosted by a form of post hoc fallacy that explains the event that happened but discounts the events that don't - analogous to rolling a die but only ever telling someone or acknowledging the roll when it's a 6, indeed the die may be invisible and no one will know it's being rolled until it shows a 6. In short, one-in-a-million events happen all the time. ... Not that I hold any illusion that frox has any intention or motivation to read anything contrary to his/her assertions.
Asimov Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 It is not possible for ardent anti-evolutionists to be open minded. To do so would shake the very foundations of their religious beliefs and there really is no reason to do that.. When overwelming fact favors your opinion it is easier to be open minded. About genes, it is more like they power evolution, not the other way around.Post gene evolution of course. We are actually biological gene factories that crank out genes.They rule.The more competitive the genes, the more genes produced by more and more competitive factories ---- us. If tall produces more babies we get taller.We are of course sentient factories and this does not rule out God or creationism or evolution.. It might conflict with a person's very specific concept of God taught to them all their lifes. You cant fight this, most work their way through it eventually. Its the way they were raised. "It's in the book". Evolution is and has been going on at the prebiotic level.Still happening.The first genes were likely auto-catalytic RNA molecules. Auto-catalytic sets can replicate if separated somewhat like mitosis with little high level organization.Single molecules cant do this but they can if catalysed by others in the set. Random molecular arrangements over many years found a good thing and stuck with it. What if we were visited by ETs and their gene equivalents were sentient and the factories not sentient! They would try to comunicate with our genes of course! Oops! Modern life it self has characteristics of auto-catalytic sets as no one molecule can replicate itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autocatalytic-set
Acme Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) It is not possible for ardent anti-evolutionists to be open minded. To do so would shake the very foundations of their religious beliefs and there really is no reason to do that.. When overwelming fact favors your opinion it is easier to be open minded. ... Apologetics is as useless to a discussion as is close-mindedness. Rational close-mindedness is an oxymoron. Edited August 26, 2015 by Acme
david345 Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) The characters per minute on post #27 are off the chart. You should compete in the world speed typing championship! Edited August 26, 2015 by david345
forex Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) A) Roll a dice 100 times. The probability of rolling 100 sixes is around 6.5 x 10-77, making it rather unlikely. However the probability of all other outcomes is also 6.5 x 10-77. Therefore rolling a dice 100 times and then denying the result could occur by chance after the fact due the the low probability is not compelling. Compound probabilistic events inevitably result in low probability outcomes due to the compound nature of the possible outcomes - however these events result in outcomes. Using post hoc reasoning to deny the probability of the outcome is fallacious. B) Evolution is not a random process. Selection acts on mutation resulting in directionality - doubly making the above calculations irrelevant. A) Sorry, but random outcome of rolling a dice 100 times is called necessity and not probability. If you roll a dice 100 times it is necessary to get some numbers. Probability is the measure of the likeliness of rolling 100 specific numbers that you select before rolling. In the context of biology, probability is the measure of the likeliness that a random DNA shuffling will result in functional protein. Most sequences in protein sequence space have no function, leaving relatively small islands of functionality. Despite the diversity of protein superfamilies, sequence space is extremely sparsely populated by functional proteins. Most random protein sequences have no fold or function. Enzyme superfamilies, therefore, exist as tiny clusters of active proteins in a vast empty space of non-functional sequence. So, in reality your answer is something like this: imagine one person wins the same lottery with the same numbers 100 times in a row. Then, after this pearson and lottery organisers are suspected of manipulating a lottery, they defend themselves by using your type of answer: The probability of getting the same six numbers is extremely low. However the probability of all other outcomes is also extremely low. Using post hoc reasoning(fraud investigation) to deny the probability of the outcome is fallacious. Improbable things happen all the time, because "improbability" is an illusion based on our preconceptions. What do you think, will someone buy this kind of reasoning? But, in the evolution context, we are not talking about winning the same lottery 100 times in a row, but millions and millions times in a row since there are 10^195 possible dipeptides for even a small protein of 150 amino acids, and that is higher than the number of physical events* that could possibly have occurred since the big bang. (* 10^45 is the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur). Probability problem in evolution will not cease to exist because evolution defenders constructed various non sequiturs and misrepresentation of probability, like you did above. Sorry. B) Phrase "Evolution is not a random process" does not help you because natural selection acts only when functional solution/trait/allele/variation/protein/information enters the gene pool . Once this is done natural selection can spread this new solution through the population. Finding functional solution/trait/allele/variation/protein/information in a vast empty space of non-functionality is completely random. I explained that extensively in post #38 . Edited August 26, 2015 by forex -2
studiot Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Now that we know what the concept of solution in biology is, we can turn towards the critical point of this demonstration and show why fundamental assumption behind darwin's theory of evolution is false. This and what follows is fatally flawed by one of the conditions imposed. Here is a mathematical refutation. You have imposed the condition of a single throw of the dice. Evolution is not so constrained. It can take as many trials as it needs to arrive at a solution. Most trials will fail, it only takes one to succeed. Here is a counter example. Some while back a poson for rats was derived using warfarin. These days (some) rats have evolved resistance and the poison is no longer effective against them. There are many rats and many rats make many trials. In the light of your previous silence on my two polite comments on your proposition, I will take failure to properly discuss this point as a deliberate flouting of forum rules and report it as such.
forex Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 (edited) This and what follows is fatally flawed by one of the conditions imposed. Here is a mathematical refutation. You have imposed the condition of a single throw of the dice. Evolution is not so constrained. It can take as many trials as it needs to arrive at a solution. Most trials will fail, it only takes one to succeed. Here is a counter example. Some while back a poson for rats was derived using warfarin. These days (some) rats have evolved resistance and the poison is no longer effective against them. There are many rats and many rats make many trials. In the light of your previous silence on my two polite comments on your proposition, I will take failure to properly discuss this point as a deliberate flouting of forum rules and report it as such. In your previous posts, you didn't make any claim about some aspect of biology I presented in my arguments so that it is possible for me to respond by examining the validity of this claim. I really have neither time nor mental energy to respond to every abstract or non sequitur reply or request on this topic. Concernig the number of trials. 10^80 atoms, at 10^45 per sec for 10^25 sec = 10^150 trials. This is one trial per atom per 10^-45 sec for the thermodynamic lifespan of the observable cosmos. Since there are 10^390 possible dipeptides for a single average protein of 300 amino acids and since less than 10^90 of them exist as clusters of active proteins, even if all physical events that have occurred in the thermodynamic lifespan of the observable cosmos were used to find a single average protein,the probability of finding this single protein is less than a 10^150. This is like winning the same lottery with the same numbers 20 times in a row. Remember, we are talking about one single protein. But, things are even worse. In reality, processes of inanimate nature heads toward a state of minimum total potential energy(equilibrium) and not toward a state necessary to find a functional protein sequences. // The following method to disprove evolution is pretty simple. All cellular systems,processes and structures that enable the cell to live, grow and reproduce are temporaly constrained by the speed of chemical reaction that can takes place in fractions of a second or minute. Complete series of chemical events that take place in a cell leading to its division and replication that produces two daughter cells generally lasts 12 to 24 hours in mammalian tissue. So, how could a proteins that are carriers of this events evolve over the course of many thousands or million years? Metabolic reactions, DNA replication, responding to stimuli, transporting molecules from one location to another.... all involve series of biochemical reactions that are connected by their intermediates - the products of one reaction are the substrates for subsequent reactions, and so on. So it is a continuous process that can not be stoped or freezed in order for evolution to produce some enzyme in some random point in the future. If enzyme is not present in the metabolic pathway when signaled by cell, resulting product will not be produced, cell will lose the ability to complete its cycle and die. So, the effect responsible for the operation of temporarily constrained dynamical system cannot be caused by a temporarily unconstrained process. Edited August 26, 2015 by forex -2
Prometheus Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 ...I really have neither time nor mental energy to respond to every abstract or non sequitur reply or request on this topic. That's rather convenient for you. I'm also awaiting a response, to post 41. You ask for evidence then do not look at it when presented. You join a discussion forum then refuse to discuss points which you find difficult to answer. Why would you do that? If you are have time limitations you not try focusing a thread on just one small aspect, instead of making meandering verbose posts. 2
Strange Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 I really have neither time nor mental energy to respond to every abstract or non sequitur reply or request on this topic. But you do have time to copy and paste type reams of false information from the standard creationist sources. 1
studiot Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 That's rather convenient for you. I'm also awaiting a response, to post 41. You ask for evidence then do not look at it when presented. You join a discussion forum then refuse to discuss points which you find difficult to answer. Why would you do that? If you are have time limitations you not try focusing a thread on just one small aspect, instead of making meandering verbose posts. Thank you prometheus and strange for your support +1 In your previous posts, you didn't make any claim about some aspect of biology One who makes false claims about the words of others automatically forfeits the argument. You will find reference to your biological discussion in posts 10 and 46, if you bothered to read them.
swansont Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 ! Moderator Note I'm not sure why this is in religion, because the topic is evolution — that's science. Except that precious little science is being presented by the OP. Just parroting of standard arguments that have been refuted many times. (and such parroting is probably both a copyright and plagiarism violation, were we to focus on that) Creationism/ID/evolution-is-wrong arguments follow a predictable pattern and we often shut them down quickly, since there is nothing new to be learned. This one, sadly but unsurprisingly, has followed the same pattern. The OP is here to preach, rather than discuss, and that doesn't fit within our rules. There are places where you can do that, but not here.
Recommended Posts