Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

Gah iceage, sorry. i was responding to WS-JW's post, but i had a moment of lazeiness and didnt want to search for the original post. Apologies.What is confusing about my post? WS-JW claimed that the ideas learned in quantum theory disproved one of the patterns that evolution exhibits (gradualism). So i responded with a pair of counter examples, the geometry and the thermodynamics examples, and ended by saying that independant scientific fields/systems begin with different givens and so that the same question asked of both systems will yield a different, yet still correct answer.lol the thermodynamics example probobly wasnt the best example, i had meant that (to one not looking at the whole picture) the law that said that all matter seeks its lowest energy level and the tendancies of certain reactions to seek stability in higher energy states would contradict.Lay off the joe, eh? Sorry bout the confusion.

---

This statement is false.