tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post2598263252022165148..comments2023-11-09T02:43:59.293-08:00Comments on Christian Medical Comment: Why Richard Dawkins’ typing monkey theorem is a load of nonsensePeter Saundershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-34653772347711554082014-12-08T12:44:28.069-08:002014-12-08T12:44:28.069-08:00According to Dawkins, Natural Selection operates o...According to Dawkins, Natural Selection operates on the variations of life that occur after random mutations (chance errors) produce those variations. This article does not attack Natural Selection (something that happens independent of Dawkin's theory of how variation occurs). According to Dawkins, those variations are random. Randomness is measured using probability, therefore the mathematics (not religion or faith) strongly disagree with Dawkin's position.SeeOnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09803763881180696654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-21316809843703922312014-05-07T09:28:23.674-07:002014-05-07T09:28:23.674-07:00Good pointGood pointAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16338625368112095150noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-64501515754734935582014-02-08T03:12:23.694-08:002014-02-08T03:12:23.694-08:00http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8789894...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8789894/Monkeys-at-typewriters-close-to-reproducing-Shakespeare.html<br /><br />Here is a closer look at monkeys producing Shakespearean sonnets. Apparently they were successful in achieving this because "small" useful parts they produced were plucked out or selected. <br /><br />Applying the same analogy to Darwinism, there seems to be a definitive process of natural selection which does all the sorting. But this process deemed as "survival of the fittest" betrays any full fledged explanation of human phenomena. Human mind with all its morals,senses and everything is a much more complex thing and needs something more than just a "survival" process. I won't jump to a God directly but there is a need for biologists to look in another direction if there are to tackle the increasing number of questions. <br /><br />Faisal Shamashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00512924740348983573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-6211296697404918432014-02-07T08:45:59.733-08:002014-02-07T08:45:59.733-08:00You do realize that his entire method is completel...You do realize that his entire method is completely flawed, right? He wasn't doing even close to what the actual challenge is.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03015421692781287844noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-69174234132819096452013-07-28T06:21:26.620-07:002013-07-28T06:21:26.620-07:00Why is Nothing + God = Everything more satisfying?...Why is Nothing + God = Everything more satisfying? You are still left with What caused God, who cannot be examined, so you are left at a dead end when looking for answers. The thing is, every previously unexplainable dead end in science, has been explained with a rational and logical scientific answer. All these answers build on what has been previously known, pushing the "need" for God further and further into the background. And quite frankly, at the point that it was undeniable that the Earth is Billions of years old and was not created in one week a few thousand years ago, the bible stopped being able to be taken seriously. It is wrong, in the opening chapters of the first book. Nothing that happens after that can be taken as fact.Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-44463268091609978512013-07-28T06:11:05.802-07:002013-07-28T06:11:05.802-07:00http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/302http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/302Shane Fletcherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05391497666468281728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-22366221638409083162013-07-23T15:41:42.362-07:002013-07-23T15:41:42.362-07:00"If you took the entire universe and converte..."If you took the entire universe and converted it to computer chips (..) You will never get a sonnet by chance"<br /><br />Actually, apparently it's already been done:<br /><br />http://www.jesse-anderson.com/2011/10/a-few-million-monkeys-randomly-recreate-every-work-of-shakespeare/<br /><br />Sincerely, a born-again ChristianSlowBrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06154938070496981256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-11161953594292102092013-06-18T06:24:13.966-07:002013-06-18T06:24:13.966-07:00i am aware of a world renowned specialist in human...i am aware of a world renowned specialist in human genetics who does not believe in macro evolution. Among his reasons is the fact that having treated and discovered a vast number of genetic flaws he has NEVER found one that is beneficial. The chances of such an event happening is so remote that itmay be disregarded.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08417127318151094035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-87631467757424345592013-05-05T03:17:24.743-07:002013-05-05T03:17:24.743-07:00I readily admit I am no philosopher, no geneticist...I readily admit I am no philosopher, no geneticist and no scientist of any sort but as I read these posts and others like these, I am struck by something I heard a few years ago. Evolutionists use the terms "chance" and "necessity" as though they were active causal forces which bear on matter in processes to move from simplicity to complexity. This strikes me as impossible.<br /><br />To my simple mind "chance and necessity" are only adjectives. They are descriptors not prescriptors. These words only have meaning when they describe a thing other than themselves. "Chance" is no more an active causal force than is either "Blue" or "Large". One would be thought an imbecile to say that "Blue" caused this or that. Similarly, to say that "chance" causes anything is hopelessly ridiculous. Even more so when coupled with "necessity" or "it fits". WHOSE need? WHAT does it fit? Chance's, Blue's?<br /><br />I have also never encountered a satisfactory natural explanation for "everything from nothing". As I understand it in broad terms the theory looks like this: "Nothing + Big Bang = Everything." Am I missing something here???Awestruckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07130259295249061559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-20106128714020079182013-03-02T15:12:41.612-08:002013-03-02T15:12:41.612-08:00Brent, You are entirely wrong. As postulated Evolu...Brent, You are entirely wrong. As postulated Evolution is a random process because it relies on the random events to generate traits, the random events that generate the environment and the random events that place the subject in that environment. Martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11485138043858836382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-27088247445363634212013-02-07T07:20:56.779-08:002013-02-07T07:20:56.779-08:00I think all of you actually need to go read the so...I think all of you actually need to go read the source. Evolution is NOT a random process, and the analogy does not suggest so. Although the genetic mutations that occur (one source of variation) are indeed random, the process of natural selection is precisely not random. The continuation of the monkey analogy assumes this. Dawkins does not suggest the monkeys would hammer out the works of Shakespeare. In fact, Blind Watchmaker follows much of the same mathematical logic that is followed here. The rest of the analogy and its explanation quite clearly express this. Go read it.Brentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-79142519675418188492012-12-31T15:21:33.558-08:002012-12-31T15:21:33.558-08:00It's one thing to copy something, I.e. reprodu...It's one thing to copy something, I.e. reproducing words by accident. But Shakespeare never produced anything by accident, his works had meaning and intention, something missing from the monkey business!!!Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-42863910786700227132012-09-21T05:22:58.091-07:002012-09-21T05:22:58.091-07:00Saunders: "Dawkins' use of this analogy t...Saunders: "Dawkins' use of this analogy to show how meaningful DNA sequences might develop purely by chance and necessity is fundamentally flawed because he introduces into it a selection process involving retention of 'correct' letters, a 'language' and a 'target phrase'. "<br /><br />It's funny that serious scientists haven't pointed out this fundamental flaw. Nor has Dawkins admitted as such. <br /><br />Only an ignoramus like Saunders thinks there are flaws in it.<br /><br />For those who actually want to learn something: "correct letters" are those letters, i.e., characteristics of the organism that is evolving, that are favoured by the environment. "Language" is not the spoken language but physical, natural mechanisms. The "target phrase" is a misnomer. Evolution has no target - humans and other organisms ended up the way they are because they contain successful, "fit for purpose" genes and Dawkins was at pains to point out that the analogy he developed indeed uses a "directed" evolution to which natural selection does not apply.<br /><br />Saunders: you are a liar or an idiot.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-73481877026660182272012-09-21T05:16:36.988-07:002012-09-21T05:16:36.988-07:00Saunders: "The great tragedy is that Dawkins ...Saunders: "The great tragedy is that Dawkins and ... appear[s] to lack Flew's ability to see this "<br /><br />I see that Saunders had not responded to my pointing out how christians abused Flew in his old age.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-25852645766870193342012-09-21T05:14:06.017-07:002012-09-21T05:14:06.017-07:00The proper context of the infinite monkey theorem ...The proper context of the infinite monkey theorem is of course the "Boeing 747 in a junkyard" argument from Fred Hoyle. Hoyle likened the chance of complex life arising to the chance of a hurricane blowing through a junkyard and assembling a 747 intact.<br /><br />Schroeders' analysis would of course support that thinking.<br /><br />But Dawkins' analogy was written after Hoyle's argument and was constructed to expose just how natural selection overcomes low probability events.<br /><br />That's right. Dawkins constructed an analogy to expose just how Hoyle's and Schroeders arguments when applied to evolution and natural selection are just rubbish.<br /><br />And Saunders has put the horse before the cart.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-1522157158981360732012-09-21T05:07:47.136-07:002012-09-21T05:07:47.136-07:00I see Saunders continues to ignore what has been p...I see Saunders continues to ignore what has been pointed out to him that he is mistaken in using Schroeders´ analysis to debunk Dawkins´ `Methinks it is a weasel` analogy.<br /><br />In point 2 of his post on 19th September at, he thinks that the argument that Schroeder is wrong is being advanced and says that no reasons are given! <br /><br />Can´t Saunders read?<br /><br />I have pointed out to him on two occasions that Schroeder's analysis DOES NOT APPLY to Dawkins's analogy and I have explained why and given him a simply analogy to explain it.<br /><br />Schroeder is probably not wrong. It's just that his analogy does not apply to what Dawkins wrote.<br /><br />Saunders continues to embarass and disgrace himself by not understanding that the his central argument - the subject of the post - does nothing to refute what Dawkins wrote.<br /><br />Saunders, if he had a shred of decency, should retract his position and apologise for misleading his readers.Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-52533443019901179312012-09-21T03:06:46.319-07:002012-09-21T03:06:46.319-07:00"As for John Lennox, he is funny and uses big..."As for John Lennox, he is funny and uses big words, but he has a very poor grasp of science, philosophy and history. "God's Undertaker" is an embarrassment."<br /><br />Here endeth the lesson.<br /><br />And I agree, he is funny, although Dawkins failed to see the funny side during their debates when Lennox didn't have to try very hard to make HIM look like the one with a poor grasp of science (or indeed philosophy, history or Dawkins' chosen specialist subject: religionology)... now that was an embarrassment. Your criticism of Lennox (a Mathematician and a Philosopher of Science) is by extension a criticism of Dawkins who, with due respect to the monkeys, hasn't convinced me that he knows what he's talking about - although I'm not a Geneticist.<br /><br />Seriously though, when you stop saying silly things, I'll stop saying silly things. Deal?Paulhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08433353855828550566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-10291944384561693912012-09-19T03:36:52.813-07:002012-09-19T03:36:52.813-07:00Shane you seem to have advanced three arguments he...Shane you seem to have advanced three arguments here:<br /><br />1. You are a geneticist and you work with DNA mutations every day (the appeal to authority). So are many others who do not share your views about biological complexity being the blind product of chance and necessity alone.<br /><br />2. Schroeder and I are catastrophically wrong (no reasons given). Please explain why.<br /><br />3. Read Dawkins book. Another lazy appeal to authority. Why not try to explain his position to readers here and let them make their own judgement. You can't just denounce views not agreeing with your own without giving reasons. Show me the flaws in my argument.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-81924286067226109112012-09-19T03:21:34.714-07:002012-09-19T03:21:34.714-07:00Tragic misrepresentation there, Peter. Charitably ...Tragic misrepresentation there, Peter. Charitably I'll suggest you simply don't understand the argument and have not read "The Blind Watchmaker". If you had, you would know that Dawkins points out the failure of the monkey model, its inapplicability to the issue of origins, and how information can actually arise given selection. You would not be the first to disingenuously misrepresent the issue, which is why I suggest your readers check out what Dawkins ACTUALLY says in The Blind Watchmaker, rather than accepting the word of a monkey like yourself banging away uncomprehendingly on a keyboard.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064454267395375567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-30823584398163228162012-09-19T02:01:34.243-07:002012-09-19T02:01:34.243-07:00Dawkins' use of this analogy to show how meani...Dawkins' use of this analogy to show how meaningful DNA sequences might develop purely by chance and necessity is fundamentally flawed because he introduces into it a selection process involving retention of 'correct' letters, a 'language' and a 'target phrase'. <br /><br />But these things require the involvement of an intelligent mind in order to yield results within the given time frame. <br /><br />The great tragedy is that Dawkins and his adoring followers appear to lack Flew's ability to see this or his courage and integrity in being willing to follow the argument to its conclusion.Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-6215891098406875522012-09-19T00:41:35.165-07:002012-09-19T00:41:35.165-07:00Well, I'm a geneticist and I work with DNA and...Well, I'm a geneticist and I work with DNA and mutations every day. Shroeder's analysis and Peter's hamfisted effort at an apology for it are catastrophically wrong. Dawkins does not employ the "infinite monkey" as an argument - indeed, he shows it's inadequacy. "The Blind Watchmaker" is not an expensive or difficult book. Buy it, read it, learn something.<br />As for John Lennox, he is funny and uses big words, but he has a very poor grasp of science, philosophy and history. "God's Undertaker" is an embarrassment.Shanehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11064454267395375567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-64930638585911597342012-09-14T09:35:37.644-07:002012-09-14T09:35:37.644-07:00Peter Saunders writes:
"I'm afraid biolo...Peter Saunders writes:<br /><br />"I'm afraid biology is just not like that. Change one critical base pair in the DNA code resulting in one different amino acid and your protein will not function at all."<br /><br />That's not usually the case. Most mutations are neutral. But, sure, it's often the case that a mutation will more likely be deleterious in effect than beneficial.<br /><br />Now, Peter, can you see how this in fact illustrates Dawkins' point and refutes your claim that natural selection is a "random" process? If you understood evolutionary theory, you would.Faizal Alihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00937075798809265805noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-49327096921914323302012-09-14T00:53:06.958-07:002012-09-14T00:53:06.958-07:00"I only apologise for mistakes and I'm af..."I only apologise for mistakes and I'm afraid that Dawkins has hoodwinked you."<br /><br />You should really apologise then for the mistake of using Schroeder's analysis - a probability assessment - on Dawkins' analogy which uses a selection element to overcome the problems of low possibilities. If I have five dice and I must continually use all five to throw five sixes in one throw, it will indeed take me - on probability - a long time. If I am allowed to leave any six that appears on each throw and use the remaining dice to build up my five sixes, it will take considerably less time. You've used the first method to rubbish the high possibility of the second method.<br /><br />Admit it. Go on, be a good christian and admit you are mistaken and apologise to your readers.<br /><br />"He would have us believe that each letter as it appears is 'selected'."<br /><br />Yes, that is the idea. The idea that you failed to understand when you applied Schroeder's analysis which lacks any element of selection. And whether you think Dawkins' analogy accounts for complexity arising from non-complexity is irrelevant. You have erroneously and falsely rubbished someone's work. You should acknowledge this, withdraw your position, apologise and if you want to, have another go, using suitable analysis, to dismantle Dawkins' analogy. <br /><br />"And yet he also wants us to believe that blind chance does this selecting .." <br /><br />I think you have some sort of reading and intelligibility problem. "Blind chance does this selecting"? ARE YOU SERIOUS? How can you possibly infer this stupidity from anything that anyone has ever written? Now try to understand some basic Darwinism: "Blind" chance delivers the mutation, the trial, the new letter that the monkey has typed. The first part. Natural selection - WHICH IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN CHANCE OR RANDOM - does the selecting and delivers the complexity and the fitness. How can "blind chance do[es] the selecting"?!!!!! You don't even comprehend what you are trying to rubbish.<br />Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-86407587612262992872012-09-14T00:52:33.183-07:002012-09-14T00:52:33.183-07:00Oh for heaven's sake ...Oh for heaven's sake ...Galactorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07918879026128556588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2654455663519806899.post-56959331562889930752012-09-13T14:31:35.997-07:002012-09-13T14:31:35.997-07:00I only apologise for mistakes and I'm afraid t...I only apologise for mistakes and I'm afraid that Dawkins has hoodwinked you.<br /><br />He would have us believe that each letter as it appears is 'selected'.<br /><br />And yet he also wants us to believe that blind chance does this selecting, that blind chance can read, that blind chance understands the language and that blind chance knows and recognises the target phrase and every step towards it.<br /><br />But these kinds of processes require an intelligent mind. <br /><br />Or are you suggesting that each string of letters, each nonsense sentence on the way to the target phrase has a meaning that confers some kind of adapative advantage which results in its 'natural selection'? <br /><br />I'm afraid biology is just not like that. Change one critical base pair in the DNA code resulting in one different amino acid and your protein will not function at all. <br /><br />It is indeed astonishing that Dawkins is unable to see that he has actually introduced into his analogy an intelligent mind, the very thing he is trying to disprove.<br /><br />Chance and necessity alone cannot produce specified complexity. It takes design, and design requires an intelligent mind. Peter Saundershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17222354018504253042noreply@blogger.com