Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc.

by cofty 63 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Slidin Fast

  Landy, yes that argument is used by creationists but that does not mean it proves creation. If I saw a helicopter and had never seen an aircraft, I would probably be amazed and fearful and would start praying to the nearest tree. In other words, if I don't understand something, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have an explanation. I don't have to bow down and worship some imaginary friend, I just have to work harder to understand.

  The other thing I find humorous about the cellular onboard motor is that it appears in a bacterium like campylobacter. This little critter seems to have only one affect and that is either to kill you or make you wish you were dead. If that is evidence of a creator then I don't want to been his team.

  Kenneth Miller's discussion is very interesting Cofty and I can begin to see beyond the obvious.
• 

  Landy

  Landy, yes that argument is used by creationists but that does not mean it proves creation.

  Sorry - I was referring to Fukitol's mini rant :D

  Yes, I know irreducible complexity would be a reason to rethink evolution, but nothing of that nature has been discovered as yet. If it was, or even the hint if it, the creationists would be shouting it from the rooftops.

  And here's the thing. If ever it was then the scientific establishment would learn from it and redefine the theory. That's the beauty of science - it's evidence driven.

  You couldn't see religious fundamentalism doing that.
  
  
• 

  Simon

  The infinite typewriters writing Shakespeare always makes me think of the Bob Newhart sketch - pity the poor guys who's job it is to check for them actually writing anything.

  Oh boy ... same old ... oh wait, hey, Bob - I think we got something here! I think this might be Shakespeare or something:

  "To be, or not to be, that is the quesdyjfkjdsfjygweifwvblk"

  Of course evolution isn't like that - there is no finished version that things are trying to get to. Just something slightly more viable than the current version to adapt to a possibly changing environment.
• 

  cofty

  how blindingly obvious is it when it takes months of dozens of convoluted explanations to explain your so-called 'fact'? - Fuck It All

  Actually evolution is not obvious at all. It is seriously counter-intuitive.

  It took until 150 years ago to work out how it could have happened. Since then the evidence has just been piling up. The problem is that it is a bit complicated. Once you grasp it, it is amazing but unlike creationism it takes effort to understand.

  A literal Adam and Eve is the cornerstone of JW theology. The evidence for evolution makes the entire body of Watchtower doctrines impossible. Creationism is the one JW teaching that lots of exJWs seem to hang onto the longest. On the other hand the evidence for evolution can be a powerful tool to help some JWs realise that it isn't "the Truth".

  That makes this series of posts a useful addition to the forum. So despite your tantrum I am going to carry on - and on and on....
• 

  ILoveTTATT2

  Now we know who is doing the single "unlike" on this post! Great job Cofty!

  You helped me a while back when I was recently out of the JW's. I had NEVER read anything related to evolution before, and as an engineer, I used to think that ID was a reasonable explanation for things. It does take a lot of effort to understand evolution, but once I started reading the books that you recommended, particularly "The Blind Watchman" by Dawkins, where I believe he mentions this topic of the monkeys, but actually selecting the correct response.
  
  Just a suggestion: If someone doesn't know ANYTHING about evolution, I would suggest that the first book should be "Why Evolution is True". Dawkins was too hard for me to understand, I followed Coyne quite well.
• 

  cofty

  I agree with that suggestion ILUVTTATT2

  Coyne's book is a very accessible introduction to evolution.
• 

  Fisherman

  If evolution is a working system that behaves in a form that scientists can make predictions from, how did the system evolve or form from wishful thinking like everything else in the universe formed?
• 

  cofty

  I have not the slightest clue what you mean Fishy

  How does anything "form from wishful thinking"?

  I'm off to bed. Perhaps you could have another go at phrasing your question.
• 

  Fisherman

  Good Night and thank God you will be able to wake up with your own power.
• 

  hooberus

  From the Opening Post:
  

  "Most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god"

  We have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing Macbeth by pure chance.

  Evolution is not like that.

  The genius of Charles Darwin was in recognising the power of natural selection as an accumulator of small random changes.

  Imagine our 10,000 monkeys randomly typing until one of them by pure chance comes up with "When.."

  At that point all the other pages are scrapped and every monkey is given a copy of this page. We observe some more until another monkey adds "shall.." and so on through thousands of iterations. How long would it take to achieve "When shall we three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain?" Completing the full play now becomes inevitable.

  Evolution is a little bit like that."

  Not really!

  Your example gives perfect selection in one generation with no reduction in population size. In order to acheive perfect selection, you would have to have the 9,999 of the monkeys with the wrong typing be ELIMINATED without typing again. This reduces your population to only 1 typing monkey (the one that typed "When"). One monkey would be extinction. Your example killed the population.

  Even if one monkey could somehow reproduce it would take many years for the population size to increase back to 10,000 again. Such a small population would be very vulnerable to extinction by chance processes.