no one seems to grasp the importance of this little news story.

We know from repeated scientific testing and observation that the level of order in the universe steadily decreases over time, and the level of energy steadily decreases. These are fundimental laws of physics that cannot be denied.

But life does not follow these rules. Living things combine raw elements and simple chemicals and energy, to form more complex structures and living organism.

There is no random element when it comes to entropy and entrophy. Its not that some atoms combine to form more complex structures and some are broken down to their lower states. We know this for a fact. Put iron oxide in a jar and let it sit there for a thousand years, and you are not going to find any 1 inch quarter-twenty bolts in there when you open it - all you will find is rust.

Science cant explain life - the attempt to plea to 'given enough time' is a shallow attempt to draw a box in the middle of the flowchart, labeled 'a miracle happens here'.

Sitting a million monkeys down at keyboards is not a random trial - because monkeys are not random creatures - they have specific needs and desires, and typeing on keyboards is not one of them.

Infinity (or a million years) cannot change this. If they break the keyboards on day one, then nothing will ever be typed. They certainly will not repair the keyboards and get them functional again, for the same reason they did not type on them on day one.

Nature is NOT random either. entropy and entrophy are caused by random motion of atoms, but their RESULT is not random - you simply do not end up with order and complexity from chaos.

The only thing able to create order and complexity is life itself - so to say that life itself came from randomness is nonsense.

And even if you did somehow manage to get the elements all ligned up just right, to form the chemical composition of a cell, it would still be a dead cell.

And please dont tell me that electricity will bring it to life! life is not electricity. Frankenstein was fiction.

People in this thread accuse me of oversimplifying the complexity of science and nature, by appealing to God to handle the details.

How is the theory of evolution any different. Replaceing God with 'given enough time' is still calling on something to happen that is not possible within the known laws of physics.

BTW - the different methods that have been used to measure the speed of light definately show a change. Its only because we now use a atomic clock to measure the speed of light that no change is apparent, as the speed of light changes, the atomic clock changes in lockstep.

But other atomic 'constants' have absolutely been measured over long periods of time, and they are changing - Planck's constant for one. They are all dependant on the speed of light, and they are all changing in proportion.

one last thing - 'life finds a way' is a statement of faith in something you cant comprehend or explain - translation 'a miracle happens here'

but even that is of no help to you. Life cannot find a way when it doenst exist yet. Random matter and energy cant find a way to create life.

[This message has been edited by Ken Wittlief (edited 05-12-2003).]

I believe that the monkeys/apes/etc. are all playing dumb so we won't catch on that secretly, they all plan on talking over mankind and the world!

But don't you folks worry...I'm on to their little ploy.

------------------

"The PRE10DR"
AIM: JeffSocha

ken: What if they break the keyboards on day one?!?!? It's not to be taken that literally.. it's just a theory broken down into laymens terms.. And to say that that doesn't hold any water... I think it holds more water than the typical argument of "God works in mysterious ways"

Ken, respectfully, your the one who is not getting it.

As has been said to you several times already, the Monkey/Typewriter/Infinity thing has nothing to do with the process of evolution.

Not now, not then, not ever; not in any universe, dimension, or altered state of reality.

It was, has always been, will always be about the laws of probability, which state, that if something can happen, it eventually will happen.

It does not support, nor has it ever been used, to prove that man evolved from apes.

Now, before this argument continues any further, please not carefully what I just said. Nowhere in my reply is there any statement that says that evolution is a fact. I am merely pointing out that the Monkey's on a Typewriter thingee has nothing to do with evolution.

------------------
Ed Dana
88 Coupe.

NO "C" [speed of light[in a vacume]] is a constant, it does not change, and never ever will!!!!!
you are mixing reports of laser tricks inside a crystial to slow light or stop it.
that is two very different things!!!!

as are the following statements just WRONG TOGETHER, rules for the universe and life on a planet are NOT THE SAME your are mixing two very different ideas and time scales here

"" We know from repeated scientific testing and observation that the level of order in the universe steadily decreases over time, and the level of energy steadily decreases. These are fundimental laws of physics that cannot be denied.

But life does not follow these rules. Living things combine raw elements and simple chemicals and energy, to form more complex structures and living organism.""

here your mixing micro[very small] with macro[very large scales] THINGS SIMPLY DONOT WORK THAT WAY !! sorry.
and short term events like life with the long term ideas of disorder of the whole universe!!

quantum flux shoots holes in your basic statment, things just pop into being, and or pop out again in a random mannor, on a small scale there is no increace in disorder, and on a large scale planets form, systems become ordered, life grows ever more complex without the need of a god or faith to start or guide them only over a very very long time period does entropy happen not on the time scale of life on earth or even the life of a galixcy!!

"" Sitting a million monkeys down at keyboards is not a random trial - because monkeys are not random creatures - they have specific needs and desires, and typeing on keyboards is not one of them.""

back to this again???
it is NOT A PROOF OF ANYTHING, and not a part of any theroy of evolution.
btw apes can use keyboard to talk

""one last thing - 'life finds a way' is a statement of faith in something you cant comprehend or explain - translation 'a miracle happens here'

but even that is of no help to you. Life cannot find a way when it doenst exist yet. Random matter and energy cant find a way to create life.""

sorry but proof is IT DID HAPPEN, and we are here!!!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

I understand that it was not necessary for monkeys to type out all the works of Shakespere BEFORE evolution could happen

(duh!)

the monkey/keyboard example was used by evolutionists to give an example of the given-enough-time concept

or as you put it, if it can happen, then eventually it will happen.

But probability is not the end of the story. There is a point reached, once the probability is low enough, that the likelyhood of an event becomes absurd.

Someone correct me if I give the wrong number here, but the number of possible combinations of elements that make up the simmplist DNA structures is around 1E360.

Thats a 1 with 360 zeros after it.

If the universe is 17 billion years old, thats only 5.36E17 seconds since the beginning of the universe

so if you have some DNA generation machine somewhere, trying all possible combinations for the last 17 billion years, trying once every second then it still has about 5E343 combinations to try before it has even cycled through them all once.

THAT is the whole point. Evolutionist who beg to time for all answers have no concept of how complex even the simplist life forms are, compaired to the life of the universe.

You might possibly content that life was created by random chance if the universe was infinitely old - if it all recycled over and over - then you can claim infinity is on your side.

But all our observations indicate that the universe is not infinite in age, size, amount of matter, energy.

So now that the monkey/keyboard illustration has been shown to be nonsense, please, someone give us another example of how order and complexity can be generated in direct violation of the laws of constantly increasing disorder and constantly reducing energy concentration?

Probability only indicates the likelyhood that a specific event will happen at any given time. There is no guarentee that if something can happen, then it will happen.

I have no idea where you got that one from?!

what? WHere has the monkey typewriter thing been proven as nonsense? Cause they had a couple of monkeys bang away on a keyboard for a few months?!

"" Someone correct me if I give the wrong number here, but the number of possible combinations of elements that make up the simmplist DNA structures is around 1E360.

Thats a 1 with 360 zeros after it.

If the universe is 17 billion years old, thats only 5.36E17 seconds since the beginning of the universe"""

thats for all POSSABLE COMBINATIONS or every one, NOT the few simple ones needed to start life, there never was or will be any need to try them all, just ONE THAT WORKED is all that was needed to start life!!!
both LUCK and random chance DONOT CARE ABOUT how long the odds are!!!!!

yes we are a long shot, on many levels, that a star went super-novi at the right time to seed the earth with the right mix of stuff, that earth is just the right distance from the sun for water to be liquid, and many other random chances to line up just right, in the right order, or no life, or life is wiped out befor we start, but so what IT DID HAPPEN and we are here
so cut the BS fairytales and deal with the facts, not the christian revisionest spin but the real facts

BTW in a few years DNA willbe MORE readable and we will know FOR SURE WHAT EVO-ED in to what when and who is desended from what, as it is all in the DNA records, we just have to learn to read them!!!!!!!!

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

its humorous to see how many people are dealing with this little experiment in england, and acting out the phases of grieving!

denial
anger
bargaining...

when you guys make it to acceptance drop us a note. maybe then we can have a rational discussion :c)

theory of evolution on a practial level:
"Officer, its my car, I swear - and I can prove it - Im driving it, see?! the car is here, Im here, thats proves it mine!"

Ken: Instead of trying to disprove evolution, how about you try to prove creation?

Creation on a practical level:

"We were made by a big invisible man in the sky.. He then took my rib out, and made a woman.. Don't ask me how.. God works in mysterious ways"

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: the monkey/keyboard example was used by evolutionists to give an example of the given-enough-time concept

Used only by stupid evolutionists, Ken. Not by reputable ones...

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Probability only indicates the likelyhood that a specific event will happen at any given time. There is no guarentee that if something can happen, then it will happen. I have no idea where you got that one from?!

Given sufficient time, if something can happen, it will happen. This is basic probability. The only proviso here is: sufficient time. So, you are correct, there is no guarantee that something will happen, if sufficient time is not allowed.

But this still has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution states that, through the processe of genetic recombination, life forms will change. Or more correctly, death and genetics allow a species to adapt to changes in its environment.

There is no probability here. Species can and do change. This is process and it uses consistent, scientific and repeatable rules.

Your argument is still a non-sequitor: the disproving of the monkey/keyboard analogy on technical merits does not disprove the process of evolution.

That man evolved from apes, is still to be proven. That species change over time, is a demonstratable fact.

And the process of banging on a keyboard has no relationship whatsoever to the process of genetic recombination.

Pure and simple.

------------------
Ed Dana
88 Coupe.

the theory of evolution has a page one - where life 'evolved' out of non living chemicals

there is no point in having critters evolving into new species, if you still have to depend on another life form to produce the first cell on earth

are you saying that evolutionist have divorced themselves from life spontainiously springing into existance?

Did they tear out the first page of their own theory? the rest is pretty pointless wtihout it.

Ken: I don't see you proving creation?

i see your point how life couldnt spring from non living things but evolution is true for the fact that species variation is demonstratable we just havent figured out how life came from nonlife BUT AT LEAST SCIENCE IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT all i ever got from any churchie is "god made it that way. beleive it!" and besides no reputable scientist EVER said ANYTHING was fact science is all theory, science is always left open to be disproved. if you dont agree with darwins theory then disprove it with a theory that stands as long as his yes you me us might be able to come up with a really good "well what about this" point against it but sooner or later someone will find contrary to our point. thats why darwins theory is still around. He never said anything was FACT he merely made a suggestion that has withstood the test of time. on the other hand churchies took a good idea and said THIS IS FACT then when it starts to crumble around them they violently and irationally defend themselves because they already made an unneccessary commitment to an idea. hundreds and even thousands of years ago religon ruled the world as time passes it slowly loses its grip.

------------------
85 LT4 GT
Custom Everything
in progress

[This message has been edited by GT-X (edited 05-13-2003).]

What's the matter GT, have a little insomnia do ya? lol

nah this is my usual hours im a second shifter by choice after work i stay up and do things then sleep till its time to wake up and go to work just like a first shifter only later

Tyler

Remember the guy who figured out the Earth revolves around the Sun, and therefore proved that the Earth was not the centre of the Universe? The church killed him!!!

My point? - You can't trust what the Church say!!!

If you were God's representative on Earth you would be well annoyed at your boss for allowing you to make such a faux pas; killing a renowned scientist only to later turn round and accept his theory.

Religion is not a way of advancing humanity as a race, and it sure as hell had nothing to do with creation!!!!

I like this guy's approach. He views science as something that should be persued to develop a better understanding of religion.

http://www.geraldschroeder.com/classroom.html

There's some interesting reading in his articles on that site...

GT-X - what are you talking about?!

why are you so hung up on words and semantics? whether Darwin called his ideas a theory or a fact, he was stating this is what he believed happened

and where you think we came from has a profound effect on how you conduct your life.

Where in the bible does it say the earth is the center of the universe?! Who says the catholic church is Gods representitive on earth? (beside themselves?) David Korey said he was Jesus Christ. Dont confuse your relationship with God with someone else's claims to a monopoly on it.

BTW - where have I said anything in this thread promoting any other idea or belief. Im only pointing out that the scholars and professors who teach evolution and spontainious life, act as if they are incredibly wise and knowledgable

and when one of their illustrations got put to the test, the monkeys made a complete FOOL OF THEM!

Cant you just see some stodgy professor, the first time he came up with this monkey/keyboard analogy - if he had the nerve to actully setup his own proposed experiment, telling his students:

"Now the monkeys will sit and type on the keyboards, and most of what they type will be gibberish, but the laws of probability tell us that here and there they will type complete words

and if we have enough monkeys, and give them enough time, eventually they will type out the compete works of Shakesphere.

Now my lab assistant will open the panel and the monkeys will see the keyboards for the first time, and begin typing.

[panel opens. Monkeys eye the new keyboards with interest. One grabs a rock! ....]

"being wise in their own eyes, they have become fools."

also, how has religion 'lost its grip' and had its world come crumbling down?! I dont know the exact figures, but around 90% of the people on this earth believe in God in one form or another.

warning! i'm going to be RUDE again.

ok, ken, dont be coy. spell it out for us poor deluded typing chimps. what do you suggest instead of evolution?

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Where in the bible does it say the earth is the center of the universe?! Who says the catholic church is Gods representitive on earth? (beside themselves?)

The Petrine Primacy is proof that the Catholic church is God's church on earth. Oh, and your rhetoric clearly outlines your position and agenda.

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: the theory of evolution has a page one - where life 'evolved' out of non living chemicals there is no point in having critters evolving into new species, if you still have to depend on another life form to produce the first cell on earth are you saying that evolutionist have divorced themselves from life spontainiously springing into existance? Did they tear out the first page of their own theory? the rest is pretty pointless wtihout it.

Listen, Ken. The only argument I have raised with you is that the Monkey/Typewriter analogie has nothing to do with Evolution and everything to do with the Laws of Probability.

I've pointed out that it is a story/parable/analogy used to illustrate the laws of probability.

It was never meant to be technically correct. It was meant to demonstrate a belief. It was never meant to support evolution. It was meant to support the laws of probability.

How many times do I have to say this?

So, how does attacking a parable on its technical merits disprove Evolution when it is intended to support Probability?

This is equivilant to using the Story of Icarus to argue that flight is not possible. The parable of Icarus was about hubris and had little to do with flight.

------------------
Ed Dana
88 Coupe.

quote Originally posted by JohnnyK: I don't see you proving creation?

Damn it Johnny. It's in the Bible. It says so. Read!

Okay, you are all missing a very big point.

A million monkeys typing on a million typewriters for a million years...

It says nothing about a million computers. Therefore the entire experiment is invalid.

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: Where in the bible does it say the earth is the center of the universe?! .

I don't know I haven't ever read the POS it might not , but if you take the time to re-read what I put you will realise I never said it was written in the bible. but it doesn't change the fact that the statment I made was true.

"Dont confuse your relationship with God with someone else's claims to a monopoly on it."

I have no relationship with God, I am just a sack'o cells powered by electricity when I die that is the end - no more - zilcho - finito. Is this why people are religious, so they can go through life with less fear of death? It's the only plausable explanation I can come up with.

kids grow out of believing in the bogie monster, santa, tooth fairy - why not GOD!!!!

[This message has been edited by Carlc (edited 05-13-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Carlc (edited 05-13-2003).]

oh and religion is losing its grip. where it was once a fundamental pillar of all government and civilization its now just a sideline, a nice story for the kids.

oh and 90% of our current population is FAR less than 100% of the population back when religion ruled,

Did everyone get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?!

[when I do that I have a really bad day - my bed is next to a window]

I say getting out of bed is wrong - well it is when you have to go to work anyway

Ken the grip of religious fools has been steadyly pried off our throughts, only a few years ago, they were able to kill atheists just for being unbelivers, then later they tryed to make them unimployable, same as the belivers in your evil fairytale do today to gays, but that evil is ending too NOW slowly sure, with much kicking and screaming by your belivers and their parters in power like the unelected court appointed BUSH who is finding much oppsition to his FAITH BASED BS PLANS even in his own party!!!!!!
church attendance is DOWN as is membership both here in the land of the "free" and world wide too
as more people do see the truth, and relize the LIES churchies use to terrorize them
and with a total of way over a billion killed christian-state-church-terror makes the moslems look like amatures at terror.

btw we are only in de-nile about your missuse of facts, and willnot allow you to spread LIES to support your fairytales, sorry if thats rude, but not nears as rude as christian-state-terror that BUSH wants as LAWS

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

the theory of evolution depends on the theories of probabilites for life to spontainiously spring into existance.

and the monkey illustration was the classic example used to convince people that all things are possible given-enough-time.

But the laws of probability do NOT prove that anything that can happen WILL happen if given-enough-time. Get out your statistics and probability text books - its NOT IN THERE!

the probability theories fail to support evolution for two reasons:

1. when things happen at random, the probability only indicates the likelyhood of the outcome at each occurance. When something happens at random it has no knowledge of what transpired on previous trials. If the odds are 1:1000 and you try it 999 times, then the odds on this trial are not 1:1 -they are still 1:1000. There is no guarentee that the one event you are looking for will EVER happen, no matter how long you wait.

2. the monkey/keyboard illustration was meant to be an obvious example of randomness - but as I pointed out in previous posts, the laws of physics are not randon. In spite of RayBs assertions, matter collecting into planets and suns is not order out of chaos - its matter falling to a lower energy state. Lumping matter all together in one big pile is not creating order - its still a collection of random elements, except now they are all in a smaller location with less energy than they possesed before they collided and fused.

BTW - many of you seem to be more interested in religion than I am - you are the ones who keep bringing it up, not me!

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: the theory of evolution depends on the theories of probabilites for life to spontainiously spring into existance. and the monkey illustration was the classic example used to convince people that all things are possible given-enough-time.

Yes, Ken. Very true. But it is not a theory, it is an analogy.

Theories are used to support a scientific belief. Theories contain scientific facts that support an, as yet, unproven scientific fact. Theories pass or fail depending on how well their facts stand up to scrutiny.

The Monkey thing is an analogy, not a theory. Analogies are used to simplify a complicated argument by bluring facts and making the issue easier to understand.

So, naturally, when an analogy is tested as if it were a scientific theory, it's gonna fail.

Finally, probability is a moot point when it comes to arguing Evolution. Life clearly exists, regardless of the means, because we wouldn't be here arguing about it otherwise.

------------------
Ed Dana
88 Coupe.

First of all, this is not my area of expertise, so if I over-simplify something, bear with me.

I never held the million monkeys theory as the backbone to the evolution theory. Honestly, until this thread came up, I never knew it was even associated with the evolutionary thoery. Also, quite honestly, I'm not ready to throw out the theory just because a monkey took a dump on a keyboard.

Ken, I've probably disagreed with a lot of what you say in this field. However, I have respected the way you argue your points. This thread however, you seem to be arguing a fallacy of logic.

carlc: Thats exactly why people believe in religion.. THey need something else to hold onto.. What they've lost their grip on, I couldn't tell you.. Faith in themselves, so they need a 'higher power'... Scared of death.. Who knows..

This is great. I love to just sit back and read threads like this...but I don't have an opinion to offer.

ok Gridlock - what fallicy am I committing in my logic?

the monkey illustration was an analogy - ok lets all agree to that.

The reality of the analogy is that you end up with nothing - shakespear never happens.

so if life happens LIKE Shakespear happens, then spontainious life never happens! - the person who thought he was so clever with his monkey analogy now has his example twisted back on himself.

When I worked at GE Aerospace, they were involved in the star wars defense initiative. They put out a PR campain that showed a spider sitting in the middle of its web in a beautiful garden.

Opponents of the SDI program said it could be used as a weapon. To counter that idea, this PR poster said "the Strategic Defense Program will defend the people of the United States, just like the web defends the spider from its preditors"

When I read it I laughed and laughed. A spider web is used to catch and hold the spiders prey - its not defensive, its a lethal trap!

Is that what they were trying to say? were they admitting that SDI was really an offensive weapon system.

Get it? anyone understand? the analogy was wrong. the Monkey/keyboard analogy IS wrong - since the people who thought monkeys are going to sit around and do what they think they should do - they were wrong about that

their own analogy would indicate they dont know WTH they are talking about - they are also wrong in their thinking that atoms and chemicals and energy are going to sit around and arrange themselves into living organisms - because the evolutionists WANT them to!

Almost on the 3rd page of this thread - doenst anyone see the beautiful irony in the news report on the top of page one? the monkeys made the evolutionist look like fools. The monkeys they claim to have evolved from.

And BTW - evolution BETWEEN species has never been observed or instigated. To take the observable fact that species mutate within their own kind, and extend that to conclude that species mutate from one to another is the logical fallicy of generalization - going from the specific to the general - extending something that happens within a restricted range to conclude it must therefore happen on a broader range.

I thought the whole notion of monkeys typing in the first place was kind of a dumb analogy.
I see your point, Ken.
"fallAcy", not "fallIcy"

And who would have thought that all the monkeys that have been here have been able to type as well as post cognitive, related thoughts here in this thread.

I've suddenly got an uncontrollable urge to go out and search for bananas and fling poop at passer by's to my little cage called an office...

quote Originally posted by Ken Wittlief: their own analogy would indicate they dont know WTH they are talking about - they are also wrong in their thinking that atoms and chemicals and energy are going to sit around and arrange themselves into living organisms - because the evolutionists WANT them to!

This is why your logic is incorrect, Ken.

First off, it isn't evolutionists who have to explain the Origin of Life. They are only concerned about how life changes after it begun.

It is the Biologists (Molecular Biologists, specifically) whose job it is to explain the Life's Origins. And they would not be using analogies to do so. They would be using Scientific Theorums.

Theorums like: http://www.resa.net/nasa/origins_life.htm#stanley

quote Abiotic Production of Organic Molecules The classic experiment demonstrating the mechanisms by which inorganic elements could combine to form the precursors of organic chemicals was the 1950 experiment by Stanley Miller. He undertook experiments designed to find out how lightning--reproduced by repeated electric discharges--might have affected the primitive earth atmosphere. He discharged an electric spark into a mixture thought to resemble the primordial composition of the atmosphere. In a water receptacle, designed to model an ancient ocean, amino acids appeared. Amino acids are widely regarded as the building blocks of life. [...] Based on Early Earth Environment This organism is referred to as the Universal or Common Ancestor. It would have had the following characteristics because of the environment in which it evolved: * it would have been anaerobic * it would have been hyperthermophilic and halophilic * it would have been a chemolithoautotroph, obtaining both energy and carbon from inorganic sources, using H2 or reduced sulfur compounds as electron donors and CO2 or oxidized sulfur as electron acceptors to provide energy and fixing CO2 as their carbon source. (Chemolithoheterotrophs would have evolved later in this scenario as "opportunistic" consumers of organic matter formed by autotrophic producers. There is also a hypothesis that the first living organism was heterotrophic but this could only have been true if the prebrotic broth contained significant concentrations of abiotically produced organic molecules, which is not likely, especially from the point of view of continuous supply.)

Note that they are not talking about probabilities here. They are talking about known facts and attempting to formulate an explanation that they can some day prove and make into a known fact.

Nowhere will you find any references to Monkeys and Typewriters. Instead you will find solid reproducable scientific facts used to support scientific beliefs.

Any reputable Evolutionist is not going to argue about the Origins of Life. That is not his job. His job is to explain how life moved from simple organisms billions of years ago to complex organisms today. That is what Evolution concerns itself with.

So, I say again, whoever it is that is using the Monkey analogy to explain the Origins of Life is simply not credible.

No biologist engaged in the endeavor would risk his reputation so haphazardly.

------------------
Ed Dana
88 Coupe.