Of Hamlet, Monkeys and Infinity

[PoliticalChic]

9. Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Did I say " less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible"?



b. Ratiometric analysis changed that:

"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution


c. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.


d. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!


As this thread is designed to end any belief that an appeal to "infinity" supports the variety of life on the planet, the ever diminishing window, now considered less than a mere handful of millions of years, puts that view to rest.



Darwin has run out of time!

 

[PoliticalChic]

On that score you also fail. You may question Darwin's theory, but I see nothing that proves anything. Sorry if I put words in your mouth, but it's only logical to assume if you're going to debunk a theory, that you'd be putting forth one of your own. If you don't believe in evolution, what is there besides creationism and intelligent design?

One thing at a time.

Sorry but you don't decide how I'm going to post. If you can't take the heat...

Oh...are you sulking because I ripped you on the childish horsie post you tried to use to defend the fossil record?


I can be nicer if you can be smarter.

 

[rightwinger]

Where do monkeys fit into this?
Right along with 'infinity.'


4. What really convince me was the appeal to 'infinity.' I mean, on the math team and all, once math was part of the 'proof'...I bought it lock, stock and barrel!

That was then....this is now.

This was the argument:
"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare."
Infinite monkey theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Therefore, by extension, with enough time, random events would certainly result in all of the permutations and combinations of life we see today....QED,...evolution!

And upon first hearing that argument.....it seems to make sense.
First hearing......seems to....





But- any person who accepts that argument has no real understanding of mathematics, molecular biology, evolution, or the real world.
And it seems that there are quite a lot of same.




5. There are arguments that seem to make sense, until they are examined in the light of reality. Take "infinity."
Given an infinite number of trials, any outcome that has a non-zero probability, will occur. No matter how unlikely....it will happen.

This is where one should review the definition of a paradox.



The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time, will type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.



On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.




6. What is exposed is the aspect of pure mathematics that makes it, at the very least, disingenuous to use 'infinity' as proof of evolution: it is not reality-based.
It has no connection to the real world.


a. " Now, before one attempts to explain away the obvious problem by inserting the term ‘infinity,’ let’s agree that infinity does not exist in the real world. So, without ‘infinity,’ it follows that everything in the universe is finite, therefore had a beginning….and, an end."
Andrew Parker, "The Genesis Enigma," chapter nine.



I said earlier, 'Upon close inspection, none hold up as "proof" but rather as conjecture, and an appeal to logic.
Philosophy rather than science.'




Meaning that there is no 'infinity explanation' to account for evolution.

You've been snookered again!

A researcher tried to prove the monkeys at a keyboard typing Hamlet theory. He wanted to see if monkeys in fact type randomly at a keyboard and then calculate the probability based on actual test data

He took a bunch of monkeys and put computer keyboards in their cages. He gave up his study when he found out that monkeys mostly would just shit on the keyboards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

In 2003, lecturers and students from the University of Plymouth MediaLab Arts course used a £2,000 grant from the Arts Council to study the literary output of real monkeys. They left a computer keyboard in the enclosure of six Celebes Crested Macaques in Paignton Zoo in Devon in England for a month, with a radio link to broadcast the results on a website.[10]

Not only did the monkeys produce nothing but five total pages[11] largely consisting of the letter S, but the lead male began by bashing the keyboard with a stone, and the monkeys continued by urinating and defecating on it

 

[idb]

Is there a 'random monkeys on typewriters' theory about evolution?
Really?

I've never heard of it.

I think you're misinterpreting a simple analogy, building a strawman out of it and then setting fire to it.

Well done, you successfully disproved a theory that you made up.

 

[Dante]

Monkey see, Monkey do, Monkey shat all over you

 

[konradv]

One thing at a time.

Sorry but you don't decide how I'm going to post. If you can't take the heat...

Oh...are you sulking because I ripped you on the childish horsie post you tried to use to defend the fossil record?

Just trying to put things into terms you might understand.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry but you don't decide how I'm going to post. If you can't take the heat...

Oh...are you sulking because I ripped you on the childish horsie post you tried to use to defend the fossil record?

Just trying to put things into terms you might understand.

I see our interaction has taught you how to needle!

Excellent.

Now, let's return to my teaching you science.


You took your best shot at, as you claimed, "debunking" my revelation that the fossil record is so incomplete and so open to alternative interpretations, that only a simpleton would use same to 'prove' evolution.

And sure enough...a simpleton appeared and did just as I stated!
(That simpleton, of course, is you."



I got quite a chuckle out of your cartoon of the horsies.....

Even in junior high school they choose better 'examples.'


The best part was you admitting my statement about the fossil record.....and then going right back to try and use it.

Dunce.


You have made two major mistakes in this post: First, you digress from your main point. Second, you return to it.

 

[rightwinger]

Somehow, when I read Political Chics threads, I get the impression of a monkey shitting on a keyboard

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somehow, when I read Political Chics threads, I get the impression of a monkey shitting on a keyboard

How often have you posted that you never read them?

Now, caught in a lie, you resort to the sort of junior high school references that characterize most of your thinking.



But....I do have great respect for the elderly....

...so, some sage advice:

At your age... travel everywhere with a pair of cardiac paddles!

One never knows....

 

[rightwinger]

Somehow, when I read Political Chics threads, I get the impression of a monkey shitting on a keyboard

How often have you posted that you never read them?

Now, caught in a lie, you resort to the sort of junior high school references that characterize most of your thinking.



But....I do have great respect for the elderly....

...so, some sage advice:

At your age... travel everywhere with a pair of cardiac paddles!

One never knows....

I recognize shit on a keyboard when I see it

Keep posting Political Chic

 

[JakeStarkey]

Poltical Chic is trying to create an internet blog following, so uses this board has a trial run.

The heavier the criticism, the happier she is because she can feed her hyper crap to her frenzied readers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Poltical Chic is trying to create an internet blog following, so uses this board has a trial run.

The heavier the criticism, the happier she is because she can feed her hyper crap to her frenzied readers.

Why must you persist in making up lies?

Oh...right...because you are a stupid oaf with a lack of character.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Somehow, when I read Political Chics threads, I get the impression of a monkey shitting on a keyboard

How often have you posted that you never read them?

Now, caught in a lie, you resort to the sort of junior high school references that characterize most of your thinking.



But....I do have great respect for the elderly....

...so, some sage advice:

At your age... travel everywhere with a pair of cardiac paddles!

One never knows....

I recognize shit on a keyboard when I see it

Keep posting Political Chic

This devolution of yours into vulgarity.....

...is this the result of your incontinence?

 

[alang1216]

Where do monkeys fit into this?
Right along with 'infinity.'


The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time, will type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.

On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

 

[alang1216]

9. Worse news for Darwin fans:

a. Did I say " less than 40 million years to produce the 'Cambrian explosion' is not possible"?

b. Ratiometric analysis changed that:

"Currently, uranium-lead zircon geochronology is the most powerful method for dating rocks of Cambrian age. ... the Cambrian period began at approximately 544 million years ago ... The resulting compression of Early Cambrian time accentuates the rapidity of both the faunal diversification and subsequent Cambrian turnover.
Bowring, et. al., "Calibrating Rates of Early Cambrian Evolution." Calibrating rates of early Cambrian evolution

c. The explosion itself is now believed to be much shorter than thought, lasting no more than 10 million years, and the main "period of exponential increase of diversification" lasting only 5 to 6 million years. Bowring, Op. Cit.

d. In fact, the former 20 to 40 million year 'window' during this occurred was thought to be far too short a period for the natural, random changes into so many new structures and body organization to have occurred.....
....now, the period has been shortened to lasting only 5 to 6 million years!

As this thread is designed to end any belief that an appeal to "infinity" supports the variety of life on the planet, the ever diminishing window, now considered less than a mere handful of millions of years, puts that view to rest.

Darwin has run out of time!

Your post seems to rely on a mis-read of Bowring (Science Magazine: Sign In). The 5-6 million year figure is only for a pair of stages within the Cambrian. Bowring writes that the first stage lasted "no less than 10 million years".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Where do monkeys fit into this?
Right along with 'infinity.'


The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time, will type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.

On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

 

[alang1216]

Where do monkeys fit into this?
Right along with 'infinity.'

The monkey is sitting in front of a typewriter, randomly hitting keys forever, will, after an unbelievably long time, will type Hamlet and all of Shakespeare's works. That means all the letters, the correct sequence, and every other factor necessary....about 30,000 words, average 5-6 letters each word, or about 150,000 characters the monkey needs to get right....and in the right order.
Now add spaces and punctuation.

On the first try, the probability is one divided by 26 to the 150,000th power. That makes it very, very close to zero.

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

I may be a moron but that is not my position. Evolution is not random and there is no evidence it is directed by any intelligence.

Ever make rock candy? When the sugar solution evaporates the sugar molecules attach themselves to other sugar molecules and form the sugar crystals. The crystals are not random arrangements or they would look like lumps yet no "intelligence" is required to guide the molecules into a regular arrangement. A non-random, natural process, not unlike evolution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm afraid you don't quite understand the theory of evolution. It is NOT random since there is selection pressure required to make it work. Mutations are random, evolution is not.

To correct your monkeys typing story, imagine a monkey actually struck some keys on a typewritter. It's unlikely they'd make much sense. Now imagine you're a selective force and removed any character that didn't match those in Hamlet and the monkey tried again. Again you removed any characters not in Hamlet. The result would be a perfect version of Hamlet in a very short time. Evolution.

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

I may be a moron but that is not my position. Evolution is not random and there is no evidence it is directed by any intelligence.

Ever make rock candy? When the sugar solution evaporates the sugar molecules attach themselves to other sugar molecules and form the sugar crystals. The crystals are not random arrangements or they would look like lumps yet no "intelligence" is required to guide the molecules into a regular arrangement. A non-random, natural process, not unlike evolution.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.



Antonym: planned

 

[alang1216]

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Is that your position?

I may be a moron but that is not my position. Evolution is not random and there is no evidence it is directed by any intelligence.

Ever make rock candy? When the sugar solution evaporates the sugar molecules attach themselves to other sugar molecules and form the sugar crystals. The crystals are not random arrangements or they would look like lumps yet no "intelligence" is required to guide the molecules into a regular arrangement. A non-random, natural process, not unlike evolution.

ran·dom
ˈrandəm/Submit
adjective
1.
made, done, happening, or chosen without method or conscious decision.



Antonym: planned

If I held a ball in my hand and let it go, would it go off in a random direction or would it always fall towards the earth? Is this by planning or design? There is no intelligence associated with gravity and the same is true for evolution.

 

[mamooth]

If it is not random, you moron, than it must be directed by some intelligence.

Your posts are not random, and clearly there's no intelligence behind them.

Hence, you conclusively disprove your own claim.