|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code | |||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
WS-JW writes: Evolution hasn't been proven at all. Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible. Things go in leaps, theres no gradual move into another species. people who learn this evolution fairy tale in school hanve to unlearn it when they come to do quantum theory. Then they realise that 2 + 2 does not equal 5. Holy Leaping Glaciers Batman! Thanks I just sprayed my morning coffee all over my monitor! That has to the funniest thing I have ever come across here. Thanks WS-JW, that was pure genius. This remark belongs in a hall of fame somewhere. I did submit it to the website "Funies Say the Darnest Things". Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1276 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
It was only a matter of time. Putting so much effort into combatting creo nonsense has finally taken its toll on our esteemed leader.
I now open the floor for nominations for a new Admin. Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
In your opening message, you wrote:
Heres another example on why life is impossible without God: Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book. When challenged to name a few of those books, you replied:
And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them. I've read that book. No, Dawkins doesn't say what you claim. On pages 46 and 47 (1st ed., Norton, 1987), Dawkins does examine the typing-monkey analogy and simplifies its task immensely to simply producing a 28-letter sentence, a single line from Shakespeare, "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". He starts that section stating:
quote: Then he calculates the probability of producing such a sentence and concludes:
quote: In my own research, in which I worked with a much more probably example of a 26-letter sequence, I calculated that for just one chance in a million of succeeding, we have to make something to the order of 10 to the 27th attempts! To put this into some perspective, assume we have a computer that can make one million attempts per second (a very generous assumption at the time, in 1989). That translates to 31,556,926 million attempts per year. At this rate, it would take about 195 trillion years to earn that one-in-a-million chance -- nearly 10,000 times longer than the universe's estimated age of 20 billion years! So we see that, rather than promoting the idea of producing a book through random typing,Dawkins had merely cited that analogy, which originated with somebody else, so that he could put it to the test and show that it fails that test. He engaged in that discussion to illustrate "single-step selection" in which (from page 45) "the entities selected or sorted ... are sorted once and for all". Each attempt is an all-or-nothing roll which starts from scratch each and every time. In that same paragraph on page 45, he describes "cumulative selection" in which:
quote: In other words, cumulative selection is descriptive of how life does it, whereas single-step selection is not. And if single-step selection is not descriptive of how life does it, then what possible relevance could it have for evolution? Back on page 47, after completing his discussion of the probabilities of single-step selection, Dawkins then examines the performance of cumulative selection through a BASIC program, which completes the job while he was out having lunch. He rewrote it in Pascal, which ran much faster (BASIC was an interpretive language back in those days). Because he had never published his code, many of his readers wrote their own programs to test his claims; that class of program became known as "Weasels", because of Dawkins' target string. I had written my own, which I called MONKEY (see below). Dawkins was clearly promoting the idea of cumulative selection, not single-step selection as you so falsely claim he was. Since you are claiming to be familiar with that book, you should have already known at the time of making your claim that he doesn't say what you claim. So why are you making a false claim? Why are you lying to us? And you still need to tell us what some of those books are that "state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book." You claim that there are "Alot [sic]", which means many more than just one. Name them! The one that you did name turns out to not state what you claimed; you had lied about that. So when you name the others, please don't lie this time. As I said, when I wrote my own weasel program, which I called MONKEY, I was so impressed with and skeptical of its amazing performance that I performed a mathematical analysis of the probabilities involved; it turns out that cumulative selection makes success nearly inevitable. I had originally posted it on CompuServe back in 1989 and have since then HTML'ized it and posted it at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/mprobs.html. Since you are so familiar with quantum mechanics, the math on that page should be very simple for you to follow. Also, my page on MONKEY is at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/cre_ev/monkey.html, which also links you to my source code as well as to a page listing several other weasel programs. ----------------- OK, let's cut the bull and drop the pretenses. You never read "Blind Watchmaker", did you? You have no idea what you're talking about, do you? You read some creationist or "intelligent design" malarcky and that's all you "know", isn't it? OK, then, what's your source? Where did you get that claim of "Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book." from? Obviously, that source named "Blind Watchmaker" -- you probably had never even heard of it before, right? -- as one of these "a lot of evolution books". What did your source tell you that Dawkins had stated? Seriously, state your creationist/ID source and quote from it regarding "The Blind Watchmaker". Now, what that means is that you were not deliberately lying to us, but rather you were using a source that had lied to you. If you want to fight against evolution, then you need to learn what evolution is and what the associated sciences are. You can't trust creationist and ID materials, because they are lying to you, as you have just discovered. ------------------------- BTW, you should read the Wikipedia article, "Infinite monkey theorem", at Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia. Despite its long history, the modern usage was to statistical mechanics, not to evolution. It was a mistaken attribution of the idea in 1931 to Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog", that connected it to evolution, even though it does not apply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kalimero Member (Idle past 2465 days) Posts: 251 From: Israel Joined: |
And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them.
I think Dawkins was trying to make the point that natural selection is a non-random process by giving the shakespeare typing monkey analogy "new life". If I remember correctly he took that analogy and added a new rule: any letter that is "beneficial" the the shakespeare story (a letter that actually fits) stays there, and that way you can get the book in much less time.
evolution claims the first primitive cell... if there are such things as "primitive" cells.
You didnt finish the sentence (I think). Anyway, evolution doesn't say whats "primitive" (the way your using it).
Never does he mention where the computer came from.
Irrelevant.
And why ever they say that natural selection seperates the good from the bad I don't know... in science you find the good stuff breaks down ever so quickly and the bad bits you can't get rid of.
I don't quite follow...can you give an example? (remember, we are talking about living things... you know, things that replicate)
The idea that different sexes arose by chance...
wrong.
...that by eating a few potatoes a woman can churn out a baby...
wrong.
...with all the info on how to do so on the size of a pin head. The sperm....
wrong.
...a brain that does a supreme diagnosis of whats wrong if you get a cut or something like that.
wrong.
Well anything that can't be repeated, is not science.
wrong. I'm sorry... there is nothing I can say here. Please open a textbook. I know this forum is supposed to be educational, but there's a limit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5948 Joined: Member Rating: 5.5 |
A side question: If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker? So what does physical strength have to do with being "better"? For that matter, what does being "better" have to do with evolution? You're stuck on "Ladder of Life" thinking, which is a false and very mistaken view of evolution. Evolution is about adaptation, for which the criteria depend on the environment. As others have mentioned, building up muscle bulk for greater physical strength can be costly and so could be maladaptive in certain environments. Then in message 15 you stated:
Stronger IS better in every aspect of life, even for us making the things we need to make to do things for which we lack the strength to do alone. There's the key. "... to do alone." Two things we evolved that compensate for lesser physical strength are that we do things smarter and we do things together. And believe you me, that is the much better way to do things. I served on active duty shortly after women were integrated into the military -- "They're not WAF's; they're airmen!" Women naturally have less upper-body strength than men do. Watch a man work and watch a woman doing the same task. A lot of times, the guy will muscle his way through a task, whereas the woman will make full use of the tools at her disposal. And when they'd lift something, the guy could just muscle his way through, whereas the woman would position herself more carefully and more closely observe proper life techniques of keeping the back straight, lifting with the legs, etc. The woman, because she can't fall back on physical strength, would always work smarter; the guy would also work smart, but he didn't always have to. Another difference we would observe would be in the "two-man lifts". Some objects were designated as a "two-man lift" because they were deemed too heavy or awkward for one man to lift by himself. Some guys would do a "two-man lift" by himself because he was strong enough to get away with it. A woman would invariably get somebody to help her; ie would observe the "two-man lift" protocol. Which brings us to that key, "... to do alone." We don't work alone, do we? We work in groups, form teams. We communicate and organize and plan and tackle projects of all sizes. And we complete those projects, ranging from moving a piece of furniture to building the pyramids and beyond, because we work together. --------------------- WS-JW, you obviously don't have a clue about evolution. Which is a really big problem for you, since you obviously want to oppose and fight evolution. But how can you possibly do that if you don't know anything about evolution? To quote Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):
quote: WS-JW, you are ignorant of the enemy and you are ignorant of yourself. You are in certain peril. To quote Steve Rauch, a former young-earth-creationist:
quote: Carl Drews, an evangelical Christian who had to leave his fundamentalist church because the pastor endorse "lying for the Lord", told of the creation science class he had to attend and in which most of the others were there for ammo to use in proselytizing, not knowing that (as Steve Rauch put it) they were loading up with blanks.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.theistic-evolution.com/mystory.html Even the creationist site, Answers in Genesis, warned against using false arguments in "What about Carl Baugh?" (No webpage found at provided URL: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/whatbau.htm -- posted off-site, but I check with AiG and they did confirm the article's authenticity):
quote: And then there's St. Augustine, in his "De Genese ad litteram":
quote: WS-JW, if you really want to fight against evolution, then you need to learn what evolution is. You need to study it and understand it. Thoroughly. And you need to learn the associated science as thoroughly as you can. You cannot do this from creationist or ID sources, because they lie to you about evolution and about science. Until you have done this, all that your efforts can accomplish would be to do further damage to your cause. Is that really what you want to do?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
quote: Ahh. on a totally unrelated topic to the thread, here ur just plain worng. Different systems in mathamatics can be contradictory and still both be true because of the information surrounding their statements, a perfect example is planer geometry vs non-euclidean geometry. A triangle in planar geomerty has 180 degrees, a triangle in non-euclidean geometry can have 360. Both are correct answers, the only thing that is different is the poslutates that both systems begin with. In short, you are very, very, saddeningly wrong. One of the laws of thermodynamics state that matter always seeks a lower energy level while another says that all reactions tend towards an increase in entropy (chaos and disorganization, can be implied as higher energy). Theyre both right. You are not. This statement is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6033 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them. Read it more carefully next time. Dawkins' ENTIRE POINT is that "random typing" is an incorrect, insufficient, and misguided metaphor for evolutionary change, and lacks at least two necessary features: replication and selection. I can't believe you actually read the book, and missed this. No doubt you're relying on second-hand accounts of what Dawkins said. Edited by Zhimbo, : format fix.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
quote: nevertheless it is still a sound concept and can still be used as an explination (albiet a wrong one according to dawkins) for evolution. Mathamatically, statistically, and logically a monkey can type out shakespere eventually, provided he lives long enough and actually types. hey i dont believe it in referance to evolution. Im just defending the math This statement is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Zhimbo Member (Idle past 6033 days) Posts: 571 From: New Hampshire, USA Joined: |
Well, yeah - it just doesn't have the power of natural selection for evolution is the point Dawkins is making.
But I don't think you can actually do the math for monkeys, if we want to get really pedantic. The problem is that monkeys are non-random typers, and I don't think their typing style is sufficiently characterized to do that math. They tend to hit nearby clusters of keys on a QWERTY keyboard, for example. Also, they'll poop on the keyboards, mucking them up. At this point, Shakespeare probably becomes impossible, although the complete "Mission Earth" series by L. Ron Hubbard is still easily in reach. Edited by Zhimbo, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Damouse Member (Idle past 4926 days) Posts: 215 From: Brookfield, Wisconsin Joined: |
aright fine, so we'll add "Must only hit one key at a time in a random fashion" to the caveats.
Its just a thought experiment, i dont think anyone will try it out any time soon. Though poop resistant keyboards is definatly an idea! to the patent-machine! This statement is false.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3619 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
WS-JW: Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book. But you get a creationist OP much faster.
You tell that to a Chinese person and they won't understand. —‘
Like cat means pussy etc. Where? Where? _____ Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Just what the hell are you saying!?!
Damouse writes: In short, you are very, very, saddeningly wrong. Uh just where am I wrong? Can you explain how thermodynamics (or geometry for that matter) relates to anything that is being mentioned? BTW are you in competition with WS-WJ for ridiculous statements...
Damouse writes:
One of the laws of thermodynamics state that matter always seeks a lower energy level while another says that all reactions tend towards an increase in entropy (chaos and disorganization, can be implied as higher energy). Theyre both right. Care to explain what "chaos and disorganization, can be implied as higher energy" relates to your prior claim or proves that I am saddeningly wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
iceage writes: Just what the hell are you saying!?! Steady, Iceage! Is that a nervous twitch I see in your avatar's bulging eye? Damouse was plainly not responding to you, despite your name in the "Reply to" field. An honest mistake, I think. As you can see, the quote is one of WS-JW's. I suspect Damouse and you are on the same side, so relax. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Well I am on my 5th cup of joe this morning!!!
I did consider that he was mis-replying, however his comment still didn't make any sense. I always get a bit twitchy when someone misapplies buzzwords to prove or disprove something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I agree, Damouse's comments didn't make much sense.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024