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

Nutters.org ^ | 13-Dec-1995 | Brett Watson

[Southack]

"DNA works by ordinary chemistry, there's no magic "breath of life" that has to be added to it when its environment contains the appropriate chemicals." - Dan Day

Nonsense!

Name those "appropriate chemicals" if that's really the case - southack

"Here you go, Sparky: DNA Polymerase I, DNA Polymerase III, DNA topoisomerase I, DNA Ligase, RNA primase, DNA Single-Stranded Binding proteins, and dNTPs." - Dan Day

Didn't you just claim that there is no magic breath of life to animating DNA?

Surely even you realizes that merely adding DNA Polymerase I, DNA Polymerase III, DNA topoisomerase I, DNA Ligase, RNA primase, DNA Single-Stranded Binding proteins, and dNTPs to currently inanimate DNA will FAIL to animate it.

All of the appropriate chemicals may be there, yet the dead guy remains dead and buried (or even, dead and in the lab).

[Southack]

""Demonstrating probabilities" is nothing but playing with a calculator if you don't have a valid model for the process you're trying to learn something about."

Rubbish. Where to start?

As for "demonstrating probabilities", the author is accurately conveying the scope and scale of the problem. Conveying the vastness of a problem has value, regardless of your denials to the contrary.

Furthermore, the author's mathematical model IS perfectly valid for his simile.

[Southack]

The alternative sequences are far too small in number to substantially alter the probabilities as stated in the math for this thread. Whether you have one valid sequence in 10^41 or 20,000,000 valid sequences, your mathematical probability for randomly hitting any of them is still essentially 0. - Southack

"... there are roughly 1 x 10^49 potential nucleotide chains, so that a fair number of efficent RNA ligases (about 1 x 10^34) could be produced in a year..." - Dan Day

Although I already debunked your RNA angle (above in this thread) when I called your bluff by asking you to produce a non-DNA life-form, it's probably worth repeating that RNA is not under discussion.

We're talking about DNA (unless, of course, you can provide a non-DNA life form on hand in our scientific evidence stockpile).

Moreover, we're talking about the SEQUENCE of base pairs in DNA, and more specificly, we're talking about the mathematical probability of such sequences occuring without intelligent intervention.

Hence, the math for this thread (to at least illustrate the vastness of the scope and scale of the problem, as well as the low, essentially zero probability of such an occurance).

[Dan Day]

"Hint: You're an ignoramus."

I've been pretty tolerant of your name-calling so far, but at some point you are going to have to clean up your act (or get banned).

And your repeatedly implying that I'm a liar doesn't count?

More and more, I'm becoming convinced that you're merely a common troll.

I stand by my statement -- if you can loftily declare that it's "nonsense" that DNA works by ordinary chemistry, and that it's (you allege) impossible to name the chemicals that cause it to work, then yes, you are indeed an ignoramus, because it does, and the compounds by which it works are taught in first-year genetics classes.

Moreover, your name-calling distracts from the subject at hand, and it also reduces your already-low credibility.

*laugh*

Whatever helps you sleep at night, troll.

[Southack]

"I stand by my statement -- if you can loftily declare that it's "nonsense" that DNA works by ordinary chemistry, and that it's (you allege) impossible to name the chemicals that cause it to work, then yes, you are indeed an ignoramus, because it does, and the compounds by which it works are taught in first-year genetics classes."

First, you have again mischaracterized my position. I did NOT claim that DNA fails to work by ordinary chemistry. All that I have done is to show that we haven't been able to prove how inanimate DNA matter becomes animated.

Adding the compounds to which you allude (above) to inanimate DNA will NOT yet animate DNA (unless, of course, those compounds are part of an already animated organism).

Contrary to your allusions, we in science do not yet know the trigger to animate DNA via any entirely inanimate chemical process.

Yet you claim that there is no breath of life, as if you had any valid way of knowing one way or the other.

Telling...

[Dan Day]

Didn't you just claim that there is no magic breath of life to animating DNA?

Yes indeedy.

Surely even you realizes that merely adding DNA Polymerase I, DNA Polymerase III, DNA topoisomerase I, DNA Ligase, RNA primase, DNA Single-Stranded Binding proteins, and dNTPs to currently inanimate DNA will FAIL to animate it.

They will, actually. Try to learn some basic biology.

All of the appropriate chemicals may be there, yet the dead guy remains dead and buried (or even, dead and in the lab).

*What* "dead guy"? Where'd you pull the corpse from suddenly, out of your hat?

Ah, another troll trick, I get it.

Speaking of basic biology, son, the trick in reanimating the dead isn't in "animating the DNA" -- that part's easy. It's in simultaneously restarting all the high-level bodily functions which have a high degree of interdependency, and repairing whatever damage caused the guy to croak in the first place and the damage that lack of oxygen and nutrients has had on the corpse since then (and in extreme cases, the damage caused by post-mortem bacteria, maggots, rats, etc.).

So feel free to keep your dead corpse Straw Men in your close, please, it has no bearing on the operation of DNA itself

Oh, to hell with it. Begone, troll, you bore me. At this stage you're clearly just prancing for the lurkers, trying to distract attention from your tattered position. I'm off to find someone more intellectually honest and capable to converse with.

If you truly want to learn something, Freepmail me. I'm no longer going to help you dodge, dance, and weave for the crowd. Science is a matter of ideas, not posturing.

[Southack]

"Science is a matter of ideas, not posturing."

Science is an investigation of facts.

As for posturing, I'm not the one calling names such as troll, ignoramus, and *ss, so it's pretty clear who is doing the posturing (and the fleeing).

But don't fret, I'll still be around to debunk again and again you when you work up the courage to come back.

[Southack]

Surely even you realizes that merely adding DNA Polymerase I, DNA Polymerase III, DNA topoisomerase I, DNA Ligase, RNA primase, DNA Single-Stranded Binding proteins, and dNTPs to currently inanimate DNA will FAIL to animate it. - Southack

"They will, actually. Try to learn some basic biology." - Dan Day

Hey everybody, Dan Day has created Life in the lab!

Quick, we better give him his Noble Prize!

< /MOCKING >

[HamiltonJay]

Your rants get less and less substance and more amd more archane. I can only assume you are attempting to argue that evolution is tyranny... which is inately ludicrous.

As I said before, Evolution is not in conflict with religion, and even the Pope and vatican have stated that the theory of evolution is not in conflict with the Catholic faith. Now, I can take your barely parsible diatribes, or I can take the announcments of men who have dedicated their lives to theology, its practice and its study.

Science is not an enemy of religion, science attempts to answer the "HOW" it never attempts to answer the why. The most famous scientist in modern times Albert Einstein spent the better part of his life trying to find the unifying theory, because in his own words "I do not believe God plays dice with the Universe." Hardly the stand of atheistic tyranny.

[ThinkPlease]

Moreover, your name-calling distracts from the subject at hand, and it also reduces your already-low credibility.

And your inability to deal with an valid scientific argument doesn't reduce yours? Stop dancing and just admit you are wrong. Scientists do it all the time, so it's not a badge of shame.

Mathematics can sometimes a good tool to interpret the universe, but one has to remember that your mathematics (and especially in stats and probability) is only as good as your assumptions. Halton Arp is still paying for using the wrong tool for the job, and he will never have the prestige he once did, because he was too stubborn to admin he was wrong. Don't be an Arp.

[Southack]

"And your inability to deal with an valid scientific argument doesn't reduce yours? Stop dancing and just admit you are wrong. Scientists do it all the time, so it's not a badge of shame."

Would you be so kind as to show specificly WHERE I am wrong in this thread?

[Dan Day]

Sigh -- this bit of nonsense was just too good to pass up. *Then* I'm moving on...

Although I already debunked your RNA angle (above in this thread) when I called your bluff by asking you to produce a non-DNA life-form,

Wow, several fallacies in a single sentence, I'm impressed.

1. It wasn't a bluff.

2. My point in no way rested on a claim that there is RNA-based life, you're off on Mars again.

3. There *IS* RNA-based life, if you knew even a tiny fraction of what you *ought* to know before you try to discuss biology you'd already know this (thus my early observation that you're an ignoramus). Ever heard of a virus, son? All but a few unusual viruses are RNA-based.

4. Even if there *was* no RNA-based life, it wouldn't "debunk" anything about my earlier point, since it wasn't based on the existence (or lack) of RNA-based life.

Sheesh. *This* is the sort of "hello, anybody home?" stuff that makes it not worth talking to you anymore. At each post, you go running off in twelve different directions, most of them irrelevant and/or nonsensical.

it's probably worth repeating that RNA is not under discussion.

Several responses seem appropriate here:

1. No s**t, glad you could figure that all out on your own.

2. Where, exactly, do you think I said that it was?

3. RNA and DNA are extremely similar, and observations about one are most often applicable to the other. Information about RNA is not out of place in a DNA discussion.

4. Maybe it *should* be under discussion. I provided you with several references, none of which you've bothered to read, obviously. You keep fixating on "DNA" as the first replicator, but this means that you're about 40 years out of date. There's been an enormous amount of research on this topic in the past decade or two, and you're ignorant of all of it. RNA-precursors to DNA were most likely a stepping stone to DNA, and you'd *KNOW* that if you bothered to READ THE BLOODY LITERATURE so that you could being to have a *BASIC* grasp of the stuff you keep going on and on about.

The first prerequisite to talking about science is to KNOW some. And sitting in your room counting monkeys is just not cutting it.

We're talking about DNA (unless, of course, you can provide a non-DNA life form on hand in our scientific evidence stockpile).

Done that, watched you fail to read it, watched you continue in your ignorance despite repeated attempts on my part to get you to read the stuff you sorely need to learn about if you want to be able to hold up your end of the conversation.

Giving up on you. Bye.

Moreover, we're talking about the SEQUENCE of base pairs in DNA, and more specificly, we're talking about the mathematical probability of such sequences occuring without intelligent intervention.

Hey, what are the odds on those nutty Wright brothers making a 747 as their first shot, eh?

Life started from more humble beginnings than full DNA. Reams of information about that is in the references I linked for you, which you chose not to read. You're calculating the wrong thing. It's that simple.

You haven't a clue, and you haven't shown any signs of being open to acquiring one.

Enjoy your scientific illiteracy.

[Southack]

"There *IS* RNA-based life, if you knew even a tiny fraction of what you *ought* to know before you try to discuss biology you'd already know this (thus my early observation that you're an ignoramus). Ever heard of a virus, son? All but a few unusual viruses are RNA-based."

Oh please. RNA-based Viri do NOT self-replicate, they require a DNA-based host. By definition, you physically can NOT have a non-self-replicating RNA life form FIRST if it depends upon a DNA-based life form already existing in order to replicate.

Like I said, unless you can provide an RNA based life form, more specificly, an RNA-based life form that can self-replicate, then there is no compelling reason to debate RNA in regards to abiogenesis.

[ThinkPlease]

Dan, love your arguments, you are blowing this guy out of the water. He's so disorganized, he's gotta use the shotgun approach to try to hit you...maybe if he uses 5 or 10 more responses per post, one might actually make sense (either that or you'll just get sick of dealing with all of the sub-threads, one of the two). Really. Whenever you have something substantive, he's got three responses, all of them extremely irrelevant. I wonder what would happen if you used a monkeys argument, statistically, do you think he'd respond, "Well, duh! Monkeys can't type!"?

Furrfu!

[ThinkPlease]

Would you be so kind as to show specificly WHERE I am wrong in this thread?

Sure. Post 1. HTH.

[Bob J]

TONIGHT! 6pm PDT/9pm EDT Unspun With AnnaZ and Mercuria
An interview with MICHELE MALKIN!

Click HERE to listen LIVE!

Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!

Click HERE for RadioFR Archives!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

[Southack]

It might contribute just a little bit more to this debate if, instead of attacking my character, you'd simply substantiate your earlier claim that I was wrong.

All that you need to do is to show where, specificly, I was wrong on this thread (and then be prepared to defend your claim).

But if you can't or won't be more specific about your charge, and if all that you can do is to attack my character, then surely you can hardly expect to be taken seriously.

So tell me, where was I wrong, specificly?

[Southack]

Fair enough. What was I specificly wrong about in Post #1?

You can articulate your claim, can't you? I mean, you didn't just make it up out of whole cloth, right?

[f.Christian]

Probably most everything you were taught you learned w/o understanding---start thinking!

[Boiler Plate]

You're reaching again. DNA works by ordinary chemistry, there's no magic "breath of life" that has to be added to it when its environment contains the appropriate chemicals.

Apparantly you havem't quite kept up with science my friend as we have now discovered with the completion of the Human Genome Mapping that there is much more to this DNA than previously known. As it turns out RNA plays a much greater role in reproduction than previosly thought. RNA does not simply make an exact copy of the DNA sections it is copying, the RNA actually manipulates the code depending on where it is going to be used. How and why have yet to be explained, but the bottom line is DNA, RNA and the reprodution cycle is much more complex than anyone imagined and your statement that it is a simple matter of chemistry is an unbelievable understatement.