Posted on 02/19/2002 2:59:38 PM PST by Cameron
It is DATA "self-forming", not chemicals that are in question. Whether the data that we are looking for is the first sentence of Hamlet or the first gene in DNA, Watson's math applies equally.
What do you know, I found the More monkeys document. You are right. (Write it down, guys.)
I don't know that he has properly estimated the number of instances of "monkeys" in the universe, however. What is the current estimate of the Drake equation, for example?
I also do not accept other parts of the document, but that will have to wait until I get home from work to explain fully.
And how many years do we have between the formation of the universe and the first sentence in Shakespeare being written? Certainly not 10^25 years...
Except,
1. Nobody suggests that DNA emerged fully formed - it was proceded by an age of RNA-based chemistry.
2. Pre-RNA molecules/structures would still have to be self-replicating, thus introducing a variety of selection pressures that woudl accelerate the rate of information retention for re-use in a subsequent iteration.
3. How much "data" is contained in a self-replicating compound? Is it more or less than in a sentence of Hamlet? Your Hamlet string has behind it a whole language, with idiom and abstract meaning, embeded in a complex cultural context. The compound only needs to specify how to make a copy of itself.
Nobody has asserted otherwise. You simply misunderstood tortoises' original argument, and thus were wrong.
This is another of your "Out of Context" replies inconsistent with conditions of the test (i.e., monkey and computer already in existence). You persist in obeying Southack's Rule that prohibits discussing selection and randomness together. You try to avoid the crux of the matter by pretending that you don't understand that selection exists in nature (Southack Rule #1). I don't expect you to admit that if you added almost any selection method to the monkey typing experiment that the probability associated with producing any given text would dramatically change (Southack Rule #4).
"If you think that such software can self-form in a natural, unaided, non-intelligent environment, then I suggest that you either show an example of such an event or go back and view the math listed in the link that I conveniently provided for you in Post #310. Once you understand the math, you'll see that your claim is invalid and in error." -- Southack
The software doesn't have to self form, it is assumed to exist once you postulate a monkey typing away on a computer. If you are going to assume a monkey with a computer to accomplish a lie with statistics, I can certainly assume a simple selection algorithm and some visual recognition software to set things right.
The math is easy. It's the assumptions and omissions of your monkey model that I object to. In point of fact your experiment illustrates nothing with respect to the probability that order occurs naturally because it assiduously avoids selection. I fix that for you and all you can do is invoke the meaningless "intelligence" cannard in your typical knee-jerk fashion. Why not stop and think for a moment about what you've read before you resort to one of your rules.
I never bothered to catalog Gore3000's rules because he seemed to have one crucial mandate in every post -- never use any scientific jargon correctly. This made it almost impossible to argue with him because you never knew quite what he meant to say except that he was always certainly wrong. Fixing his nomenclature mistakes took all the effort I could muster but that still left him safely in possession of whatever conceptual errors permanently clouded his thinking.
Proves I'm pretty fast and sloppy with my posts myself.
FWIW, you certainly are no gore3000. I'm sure you're relieved.
Ecstatic!
I repeated the 10 rules for southhack's argument style, and then, to maintain the numerical sequence, I added a rule zero, which involved an anatomically difficult positioning of the head into a very dark location.
I don't know that he has properly estimated the number of instances of "monkeys" in the universe, however. What is the current estimate of the Drake equation, for example? I also do not accept other parts of the document, but that will have to wait until I get home from work to explain fully." - ThinkPlease
Man, you've been at work for a WHILE now!
The last response is to you here.
My second to last response you should read is here.
Just in case you've forgotten.
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.