Posted on 09/10/2009 8:45:31 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[[Technically no. If the DNA of a wolf egg were to have enough simultaneous mutations, it would be a cat.]]
Again- mutations do not add new non species specific informaiton- mutaitons can only alter informaiton lready present- species also have species speciofic paramters which dissallow being manipulated beyond those parameters to keep the species fit and viable- Your wolf will never becoem a cat- the ONLY way to accomplish that would be to add cat DNA- Cat informaiton- laterally transfered- but you’d still have the problem of the species specific metainformaiton.
[[NO. But is it statistically possible? Yes, you just have to add enough zeros.]]
Regardless of how many zeros you add or subtract, it’s still impossible- and still not statistically possible- mutaitons again, do not add information, they only alter species specific informaiton within species specific parameters- and again, we aren’t talking about just one or even a few differences between the two species but billions- and htis is just between two species- Macroevolution demands that billions of differences be somehow ADDED to each individual ‘evolving creature’, and then multiply this by billions of new species- We have absolutely zero evidence showing even a scant few such additions of NEW non species specific informaiton ,and yet apparently, we’re to beleive an astronomical amount of added new non species specific informaiton just occured ‘sometime in the past’ despite all evidence to the contrary- evidence showing species do not tolorate NEW non species specific informaiton beign added- We know from many experiments that mutatiosn do not, can not, add new non species speicific information, and that any ‘changes’ that do occure are simply species specific information changes such as 3 legs isntead of two, but no matter how many mutaitons are throw at hte species, those legs never become arms, never become wings, never become ears etc. Starting from a single cell, there would have to have been trillions of drastic new non species specific infromation added from soemwhere outside the cell, and all without detriment to hte species, and htere would have to be the possibility of creating species specific metainformaiton from scratch, and we know that ifnromation must start at hte metalevel first, and that it works downward in order to structure lower information..
The ball landing on the fence post is again, not a good example of ‘possibility’ of macroevolution for hte reasons specified above- Your ball would have had to evolve from somehtign simple like chemicals during flight, self construct itself, organize it’s own lower informaiton without the help of higher metainformation, and would have to have gained new ‘non species specific info’ in order to be able to create al lthe substructures and elements that make up the ball- again probability and impossibility are much different issues. Your ball, already compelted and functioning as a ball should, and hte fence, already intelligently created, and functioning as it should, do not represent the impossible scenario of ‘evolving’ life
Monkey versus Shakespeare. If you add enough zeros to the probability, not only does the monkey have a probability on typing the complete works without error, the monkey also has a probability for smelting iron, making the typewriter, acting out the plays and writing obnoxious reviews.
Doesn’t make it a real possibility, just one that can be calculated.
"Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's Bulldog") used this technique in Oxford, in 1860, while debating Samuel Wilberforce. He stated that if monkeys randomly strummed typewriter keys for a long enough time, then sooner or later Psalm 23 would be printed out. Huxley used this argument to demonstrate that life could have originated on Earth by chance. (2)
Julian Huxley (1887-1975) repeated this analogy to 'prove' that long periods of time could allow impossible evolution to occur. In his analogy, given enough time, monkeys randomly typing on typewriters could eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. (3)
Stephen Hawking used the monkey story in 1988. He proposed that if there was a horde of typing monkeys, then "very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare's sonnets." (4)
When all these outlandish statements were made "... no evolutionary scientist or mathematician who knew better raised a single objection." (5) So as a result, these statements have convinced many people that 5 billion years is enough time for life to evolve on Earth.
This ruse has been very convincing because most people have difficulty comprehending very small and extremely large numbers.
Just how logical is this monkey story? In simple terms, if every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed) they could not do the job. Even if they typed non-stop for 30 billion years there would not be the slightest chance that one of them would type even a single five word sentence of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place. The probability for them to achieve this is less than one chance in a trillion. (6)
Richard Dawkins also appeals to the monkeys to convince his readers that evolution by natural selection is plausible. He believes that a thousand such monkeys could type Shakespeare's sentence, "Methinks it is like a weasel." However, the probability of them typing this six-word sentence (including spaces), is one chance in 10>39. (7)
It has been calculated that it would be statistically impossible to randomly type even the first 100 characters in Shakespeare's "Hamlet". If the monkeys typed only in lower case, including the 27 spaces in the first 100 characters, the chances are 27100 (ie. one chance in 10>143). (8)
"If each proton in the observable universe were a typing monkey (roughly 1080 in all), and they typed 500 characters per minute (faster than the fastest secretary), around the clock for 20 billion years, then all the monkeys together could make 5x1096 attempts at the characters. It would require an additional 3x1046 such universes to have an even chance at success." (9)
Recently, the reality of this last statement has been so damaging to the support for Darwinian evolution, that many evolutionists have taken up the "additional universes" scenario as a way out. They change the analogy and invent an unimaginably large number of universes that are all full of monkeys. They believe that under these new conditions, sooner or later one of the monkeys will succeed. This is the basis of the Anthropic Principle (see my lecture notes #8, "The Anthropic Principle", for a refutation of this theory).
Returning to the mathematics, Michael Behe estimates the probability of just getting the 30,000 gene pieces required for blood clotting in the right sequence as 10-18. To get the genes plus the clotting activator working together by chance has the probability of 10-36. (13)
Fred Hoyle estimates the following probabilities for chance, random arrangement of amino acids:- (14)
10>19 for a ten amino acid polypeptide
10>20 for a functional enzyme
10>130 for the histone H4 molecule
10>40,000 for all of life's 2,000 enzymes
This last value (10>40,000) shows the probability that a very, very tiny part of evolution could have happened. This probability is more unlikely than the monkey's chance typing (viz 10>143) which have been used to 'prove' evolution.
Bear in mind that Mathematical Zero is 10>50. Any value smaller than this is relegated by mathematicians to the realm of 'never happening'. [LINK]"
Analysing the monkey analogy using information theorems will help to see if the information necessary for life (ie. DNA) could have evolved. Specifically:- (17)
Information Theorem #2 "Information only arises through an intentional, volitional act.";
Information Theorem #11 "A code system is always the result of a mental process - it requires an intelligent origin or inventor.";
and
Information Theorem #16 "If a chain of symbols comprises only a statistical sequence of characters, it does not represent information."
So it turns out that chance, random events cannot create information - which includes DNA (the information storage facility in living things).
If a six word Shakespearian sentence could not be typed in more time than the earth is believed to have existed, How could DNA have evolved by random events? Remember, the DNA in human cells contains approximately 1.5 gigabytes of data, equivalent to the information in 12,000 books. (18)"
To reiterate- "this mathematical analysis of the monkey analogy, the monkeys could not succeed. Therefore, if the monkeys couldn't succeed, the analogy predicts that evolution could not have succeeded." "If every square foot of the earth's surface was covered with monkeys randomly typing on typewriters, at the rate of ten characters per second (about 5 times the realistic speed), typing for 30 billions years nonstop," could not produce even "one compelte sentence of 5 words, of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place of shakespear," then there is absolutely zero chance life could have evolved- the monkey/shakespear argument falls flat on it's face, and is a disingenious argument meant ot deceive (and by the way- the nalogy does NOT state a few monkeys could produce an entire shakespearian work- trillions of monkeys workign nonstop can't even produce one 5 word sentance of 31 characters, with spaces and punctuation in the correct place)
Again, your ball scenario is a probability, life violating scientific laws , and ignoring biological impossibilities is an impossibility- it is not mearly a 'large improbability', it's an IMPOSSIBILITY (Quotes come from site listed in link above
Thanks for making my case. I doubt the stats you've provided above concerning the random generation of 31 characters creating a five word sentance, but its not worth the math because it doesn't really matter. If I divide "1" by a denominator backed by #10 font zeros long enough to stretch from one end of the known universe to the other, that is still a fraction and thus a probability.
I've already stated that certain levels of improbability are unbelievable to me even if they aren't technically impossible. You wish to redifine "impossible" to meet a certain level of improbability. That's fine for you, but math is still math.
[[Thanks for making my case. I doubt the stats you’ve provided above concerning the random generation of 31 characters creating a five word sentance, but its not worth the math because it doesn’t really matter. If I divide “1” by a denominator backed by #10 font zeros long enough to stretch from one end of the known universe to the other, that is still a fraction and thus a probability.]]
Good golly- I guess you missed the part that specifically stated that beyond a certain upper limitation- it’s IMPOSSIBLE- The ‘probability becomes an impossibility
[[I’ve already stated that certain levels of improbability are unbelievable to me even if they aren’t technically impossible.]]
they are both technically, and practically impossible- they are not probabilities- not even remote probabilities- they are impossibilities- the article spells that out clearly
[[You wish to redifine “impossible” to meet a certain level of improbability.]]
Psssst- it’s not me defining the term ‘impossibility’- it’s mathematicians and scientists- you are the one trying to stretch out hte definition of probable to mean ‘even if impossible, it’s still a probability, regardless of how small the probability’- impossible means just that- impossible- not goign to happen- ever-
Impossible:
1. not possible; unable to be, exist, happen, etc.
2. unable to be done, performed, effected, etc.: an impossible assignment.
3. incapable of being true, as a rumor.
4. not to be done, endured, etc., with any degree of reason or propriety: an impossible situation.
5. utterly impracticable: an impossible plan.
Improbable:
1. likely to occur or prove true: He foresaw a probable business loss. He is the probable writer of the article.
2. having more evidence for than against, or evidence that inclines the mind to belief but leaves some room for doubt.
3. affording ground for belief.
Note VERY carefully- there is NO grounds for statign that Macroevlution affords ANYONE ANY grounds for belief when discussing just these statistics
You are claiming that Evolution, statistically, ‘isn’t likely to happen’ (but trying to infer that it ‘could happen, even if a very small chance’) It can not happen- period- Statistically, it is impossible, biologically it is impossible- mutaitons do NOT produce new non species specific informaiton- they can not- it’s not possible (despite many people’s hope that they could)
your ball had a chance of landing upright on the post simpyl because all the elements necessary for htis happening were already inplace and functioning as they were designed to do- there was a probability of it happening, even if small- Macroevolution is a scientific impossibility- a law violating impossibility- Your ball was a law observing act which simply accomplished somethign that was possible- macroevolution is a law violating act that can not occure- ever
I’ve never been comfortable with htese ‘probability’ arguments on statistics because the fact is overlooked that mutaitons CAN NOT produce new non species specific ifnromation- these probability arguments on statistics simply assume mutaitons could produce hte necessary new non species specific information, but it’s biologically impossible- it’s not even an improbable event made impossible by breaching hte upper limits of probability which turn it into an impossible act- mutaitons are not capable of producing new non species specific informaiton- it’s simpyl an impossibility, and nature can not provide hte necessary informaiton and metainformaiton that absolutely MUSt be present FIRST- it’s an impossibility for nature to provide this
While I don’t particularly like the statistic arguments because they ASSUME mutaitons ‘couyld have’ provided the necessary non species specific informaiton depsite much evidence to the contrary, these statistical arguments do however show just how impossible it woudl be EVEN IF mutaitons could provide the absolutely essential non species specific info needed to move a species beyond it’s own kind- and it shows that even if mutaitons could do this, even one ‘chance’ of it happenign just once, is beyond the probability upper limitations, it’s straight into the realm of impossible
You are wrong about probabilities.
Please write another twenty-seven paragraph dissertation on why you are right. If you do that enough, it will (by your calculations) be impossible for me to continue disagreeing with you.
[[You are wrong about probabilities.]]
no sir- imporbable becopmes impossible after the upper limits of probability have been breahced, (and this limit has been mathematically breahced by a very large margin i nthe argument for typing monkeys), and the reasons were explained in my previous post- please do keep insisting that an impossibility is nothign but an ‘imporbability’- if said enough time by you- perhasps someday, if typed enough, it will still be impossible- as I metnioned, even the argument for ‘imporbable’ being impossible ignores the FACT that mutaitons can not procude new non species specific informaiton- it simply ignores this fact and ASSUMES mutaitons could do somethign they simply are incapable of doing-
The entire point of my post appears to be lost on you. i.e. there is a point where everyone will agree that an improbability is a functional if not real impossibility, however, that point will vary from person to person. What one can then infer from my point is that it is therefore the improbability that should be shown, vice arguing the impossibility.
People who believe that matter has always existed or that it suddenly came from nothing without God's hand are unlikely be impressed with your definition of impossible. However, if one can statistically show that an occruence is extremely unlikely to occur on even one planet during the entire life of the known universe, then that to me seems more compelling than arguing that 1/x = impossible.
But I'm willing to accept that changing your mind on this is statistically improbable.
[[So how many times can I flip a coin coming up heads before it becomes absolutely, completely, stupendously impossible for it to come up heads again?]]
Sigh- again, this example misses thep oint- you are equating somehtign already intelligently complete- has two outcomes that could go either way- Macroevolution is a biological impossibility, chemical, and natural- and, even if it didn’t violate these 3 scientific principles, and even if we assume it could have happened, then you’ve got the problem of macroevolution breaching the upper probability limits by a serious amount- and htis is just for one- count-em just one breach happening- multiply that breach- the breach needing to happen trillions of itmes, and we begin to see the magnitude of the impossibility
[[The entire point of my post appears to be lost on you. i.e. there is a point where everyone will agree that an improbability is a functional if not real impossibility,]]
Finally- you admit a probaiblity becoems an impossibility- not ogign ot happen-
[[What one can then infer from my point is that it is therefore the improbability that should be shown, vice arguing the impossibility.]]
Again, speaking about macroeovlution- it is not reasonable to even discuss the ‘improbable, because it’s not an ‘improbability’, it’s an impossibility- plain and simle- it’s an impossibility on several levels- it’s mathematically impossible, EVEN IF we assume macroevolution somehow violated several key scientific principles- then, the icing on the cake- the facts that make it wholly impossible- absolutely impossible, is the fact that it does violate basic scientific chemical, biological and natural laws-..
Your ball scenario has a probability that lies below the threshold of impossibility- Hitting htel ottery does as well- they are possible- macroevolution is not
[[People who believe that matter has always existed or that it suddenly came from nothing without God’s hand are unlikely be impressed with your definition of impossible.]]
Of course not- because whether htey admit it or not- they beleive Naturwe is some thinking, intelligent designer capable of violating scientific principles- al lthey need to ‘support’ their beleif is ‘long ages’ and they don’t understand the magnitutude of the impossibility facing macroevolution- They are welcoem to their beleif, but I take exeption to those same folks then coming out and stating that Creationists are ‘psuedoscientists’ when they themselves put hteir faith in the impossible
[[However, if one can statistically show that an occruence is extremely unlikely to occur on even one planet during the entire life of the known universe, then that to me seems more compelling than arguing that 1/x = impossible.]]
Two points- I’ve not been arguing that its’ ‘extemely unlikely’, it’s IMPOSSIBLE- you simply can’t explain this away, and if people can’t or won’t grasp this- then nothign you or I state will convince them- The articles I posted SHOULD be enough to show just how impossible macroevolution is EVEN IF we are unduly generous and allow Macroevolution the miracle of violating scientific laws- The article I pointed out shows that even if we have billions of universes, billions of planets that could support life, have so many monkeys, typwriterts, paper that they fil levery square inch of these billions of planets, even if we allow them billions of years- they still are NOT goign to able to type even one sentance of shakespear as pointed out i nthe explanation I linked to- This explanation is overly generous though, because in order for it to be even slightly representative of macroevolution- the monkeys would have to al lwait around while nature ‘evolved both typewriters and paper’, and hten they could get busy banging away o nthe keys in order to try to produce even one line of shakespear- to even begin to represent the problem facign macroeovlution.
This hwole “But...but....but.... there ‘is a chance’ argument is a rediculous argument, and an even more rediculous argument is ‘Creationists don’t understand how macroevolution works’ and ‘Macroevolution doesn’t work the way mathematics does- therefore, there’s a better chance it ‘could have’ happened’- These arguments ‘for macroevolution’ are disingenious, and in some cases- blatant deception - Macroevolution is impossible- on several levels- Again- even being generous, and ignoring the scientific impossibilites facing it- assuming macroeovlution somehow beat out htose several impossibilities trillions of times- then we’re faced with the mathematical impossibilities which are so astroomical that there is absolutely NO WAY it is EVER goign to happen- period- Zero chance
You appear to be arguing with yourself, as you can’t comprehend my point.
[[You appear to be arguing with yourself, as you can’t comprehend my point.]]
I comprehended it just fine- you’re arguing that it’s better to show it’s ‘exremely unlikely on any world in any universe’ and that’s exactly what hte artile pointed out- with one key difference- the article points out it’s impossible- not simpyl ‘extremely unlikely’, and another key point is that people don’t even blink when you explain to htem that macvoreolvution VIOLATES several key scientific laws- and they certainly aren’t goign to be convinced by an argument that mathematically, it’s ‘extremely unlikely’ when they don’t even accept the fact that it’s mathematically imposdible
Your argument has develved into a slavage attempt which doesn’t cut hte mustard- arguing that soemthign is ‘extremely unlikely’ isn’t goign to impress nyone that doesn’t even comprehend the concept of impossibility- you are suggesting that people will be more impressed by and grateful of, someone that will give them $10 than they will be with someone who gives them $1,000,000
Argue what you want. You can judge your own effectiveness.
I find the truth works best.
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.