02 Apr 11
I was thinking about if you have enough monkeys typing on type writers you would
at some point in time come up with the works of Shakespeare. I know some here
may not agree with that, others may. Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? I know the card trick part of the
theory that suggests good mutations stay bad ones go, does tilt it slightly, but
if you think about it, random mutations also destroy previously good work too so
nothing should be thought of as "good" everything should always be fair game for
change, and change again, and this isn't even thinking about the enviroment that
life finds itself in either also changing so that what was once thought of as good
could be turned into something bad.
Kelly
http://www.probabilitytheory.info/content/item/7-monkeys-typing-shakespeare-or-even-just-the-word-hamlet
"If there are 50 keys on the typewriter, the probability of the monkey getting Shakespeare correct is raised to the power of the number of characters, letters and spaces, in Shakespeare plus the adjustments of the typewriter needed for capitals and punctuation. On this basis the chance of the monkey typing the word 'Hamlet' correctly is one in 15,625,000,000, so to quote the probability of him typing the complete works involves a large number indeed. It may be theoretically possible, but it would probably be a project that would last to the end of the universe. By then monkey's may have evolved enough to find better use for their time."
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry i've read that twice and still don't know what you're talking about.
I was thinking about if you have enough monkeys typing on type writers you would
at some point in time come up with the works of Shakespeare. I know some here
may not agree with that, others may. Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? I know the card trick part of the
theory that suggests good mutations st ...[text shortened]... e universe. By then monkey's may have evolved enough to find better use for their time."
02 Apr 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayAre you assuming its always the case that all children of some creature get an equal share of advantageous mutations and not so advantageous mutations such that they cancel each other out so to speak!?
I was thinking about if you have enough monkeys typing on type writers you would
at some point in time come up with the works of Shakespeare. I know some here
may not agree with that, others may. Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? I know the card trick part of the
theory that suggests good mutations st e universe. By then monkey's may have evolved enough to find better use for their time."
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by Proper KnobWell think of it this way, DNA is nothing but a work of bio words like the words of
Sorry i've read that twice and still don't know what you're talking about.
any book. We can look at the odds of each piece being put together properly as
we can letters for a name or word in a book. Once we know those odds for each
strand of DNA as we can a letter on a type writer than the odds of each piece being
stung together properly can be calculated out, so at some point we can by looking
at what has to happen, and what has to be avoided figured out. What are the odds of
life actually doing what everyone who believes in evolution suggest was done?
Pick the smallest starting point in biology that had to be been done first, what was
the number of variables that had to have happened in the just getting the makeup
of life started? We can say that was the first addition of a book, how many things
had to be done just right, what were the odds of those occurring that way? From
there we can start looking at the numbers and look at the odds to see if this theory
is actually feasible or not here. If we don’t know these numbers, than why do people
think it could or would happen?
I suppose we can avoid leaving out the odds of all the material being in the right place
and the odds of things like temperatures being conducive and so on just to keep the
numbers small. Since this isn't supposed to be a matter of faith and belief, we
should be able to know this, if is a matter of faith and believe, than it is no different
than me saying, "God did it. "
Kelly
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by AgergRandom mutations means random mutations nothing about that is going to be done
Are you assuming its always the case that all children of some creature get an equal share of advantageous mutations and not so advantageous mutations such that they cancel each other out so to speak!?
to give anything either an advantage or take one away. It will simply occur and the
life forms that get them will have to deal with then by moving forward, maintain, or
die off. Nothing about the word random suggests anything has to be equal or not.
Kelly
02 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI do wonder about this guys odds on the name of Shakespeare correct? Since
I was thinking about if you have enough monkeys typing on type writers you would
at some point in time come up with the works of Shakespeare. I know some here
may not agree with that, others may. Anyone thought about the odds of human
life actually springing up by random mutations? I know the card trick part of the
theory that suggests good mutations st e universe. By then monkey's may have evolved enough to find better use for their time."
in order to type the letter "S" in uppercase both the shift key, or the Caps lock
key had to have been pressed as the letter "s" was, than either the Caps lock
key has to have been hit again or the shift key has to been released. This means
that for each key strock should we also have to look at, (The odds of more than
one key being hit at the same time) then when that does occur the odds on getting
something that could produce the proper upper case letter? The more I think about
just getter that one letter typed properly, I'm not sure his numbers are not high
enough, because that has to be done for each letter of each word wouldn't it?
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayThe monkey analogy is a good one but it might make more sense to talk about them writing a computer program, because a program would encode directions and data that generate a particular output, in a way analogous to DNA encoding directions and data (the genotype) to "generate" a particular organism (the phenotype.)
Well think of it this way, DNA is nothing but a work of bio words like the words of
any book. We can look at the odds of each piece being put together properly as
we can letters for a name or word in a book. Once we know those odds for each
strand of DNA as we can a letter on a type writer than the odds of each piece being
stung together properly can be ...[text shortened]... a matter of faith and believe, than it is no different
than me saying, "God did it. "
Kelly
The probability discussion would be improved by realizing that it is too specific to specify that the end product has to be Shakespeare. If they typed another comparable body of great writing, even one we have never seen before, it would be just as remarkable. This expands the probability of a remarkable result by orders of magnitude, even though it happening on day 1 is still tiny.
But here is another factor to be considered. If there were enough monkeys and enough time, it would be quite improbable that Shakespeare's works would NOT be reproduced. Given more and more of both resources, the probability increases gradually, until it is overwhelming.
And that's the evolution fan's answer. Obviously we are here. It happened. There must have been enough monkeys, and enough time, for it to happen somewhere, and here is (one place) where it happened.
02 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJaySo (simplifying things) if creatures (Alice and Bobby, to give them names) directly spawn Annie (A), Billy (B), Casey (C), Dotty (D), Ernie (E), Freddie (F), Gilly (G), and Harry (H); and supposing Annie and Billy got most of the good genes whilst all but Harry got some spread of the good and not so good genes (and Harry got mostly bad genes), my first question is:
Random mutations means random mutations nothing about that is going to be done
to give anything either an advantage or take one away. It will simply occur and the
life forms that get them will have to deal with then by moving forward, maintain, or
die off. Nothing about the word random suggests anything has to be equal or not.
Kelly
What's more likely:
a) Either of Annie and Billy spawn the most children throughout their lifetime
b) Harry spawns the most children throughout his lifetime
c) Any of Casey, Dotty, Ernie, Freddie, or Gilly spawn the most children throughout their lifetime
?
02 Apr 11
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe first error you made in your OP, was to pick Shakespeare. Even assuming that a human being came about via purely random typing on a type writer, you should have done your calculation not for Shakespeare, not for all books in existence, but for any possible book. Now redo your calculation and I think you will find quite a big difference. However, you will still find it pretty improbable for all books over a certain length.
Well think of it this way, DNA is nothing but a work of bio words like the words of
any book.
What are the odds of life actually doing what everyone who believes in evolution suggest was done?
This is your second error. Nobody who understands evolution, would even suggest that this is what happened.
I believe that people have written programs that use evolutions processes and monkeys, and have proven that even something as unique as Shakespeare can be produced in a remarkably short space of time.
Does anyone have a link for this?
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by JS357No, there is no obvious it happened due to evolution because we are here!
The monkey analogy is a good one but it might make more sense to talk about them writing a computer program, because a program would encode directions and data that generate a particular output, in a way analogous to DNA encoding directions and data (the genotype) to "generate" a particular organism (the phenotype.)
The probability discussion would be impro ...[text shortened]... ys, and enough time, for it to happen somewhere, and here is (one place) where it happened.
We are here why is the question, saying I believe this, and it must be true because
we are here is circular is it not? You either have faith in something you cannot
prove you have something you can prove. I can say that animals mate with their
own kind, is that evidence God did it according to scripture?
Overcoming numbers is something we can look at and our beliefs can be data
driven, if the numbers do not support one belief even if that belief has other parts
that may be true does it matter? If for example we can do the numbers on words
being written randomly, and we see that it is too much to overcome, but we see words
being written, shouldn’t we assume it was done by design? If seeing words suggests
we have something not random occurring then let’s look at these numbers with
Occam’s razor in mind, if something intelligent is required to string together words
with purpose, why do we entertain it could be done randomly?
Words are nothing but letters being strung together so that information is conveyed,
so in the biological world the information is that which setups the work to be done
properly. That information if it cannot be produced randomly due to the odds are so
stacked against each piece being put together properly, then those strung together
properly, and then held together properly over time we should concluded much more
than random mutations with natural selection are at work in life.
Kelly
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'd like to see that link too, if was done I'd like to see how it was.
The first error you made in your OP, was to pick Shakespeare. Even assuming that a human being came about via purely random typing on a type writer, you should have done your calculation not for Shakespeare, not for all books in existence, but for any possible book. Now redo your calculation and I think you will find quite a big difference. However, you w ...[text shortened]... kespeare can be produced in a remarkably short space of time.
Does anyone have a link for this?
Kelly
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat are the odds of life actually doing what everyone who believes in evolution suggest was done?
The first error you made in your OP, was to pick Shakespeare. Even assuming that a human being came about via purely random typing on a type writer, you should have done your calculation not for Shakespeare, not for all books in existence, but for any possible book. Now redo your calculation and I think you will find quite a big difference. However, you w ...[text shortened]... kespeare can be produced in a remarkably short space of time.
Does anyone have a link for this?
This is your second error. Nobody who understands evolution, would even suggest that this is what happened.
You can lay out the process, because even with random mutations a process is
required. What do you think had to happen first, what had to be strung together
randomly through natural selection? How many pieces had to fall into place and
stay there even though it was in a constant state of flux due to random mutations?
Kelly
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy the conclusion?
Words are nothing but letters being strung together so that information is conveyed,
so in the biological world the information is that which setups the work to be done
properly. That information if it cannot be produced randomly due to the odds are so
stacked against each piece being put together properly, then those strung together
properly, and then ...[text shortened]... ld concluded much more
than random mutations with natural selection are at work in life.
Kelly
Why are you saying: If it cant happen by pure randomness then it cant happen by randomness and selection? It just doesn't follow.
It is the selection that makes it possible, yet you seem to simply ignore it.
If I sit behind the monkeys and press 'Backspace' every time they make a mistake, then they will finish Shakespere in a mater of days. And I don't mean the word, I mean the complete works! That is how much difference selection can make.
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm saying we can run the numbers if we know what has to happen providing we
Why the conclusion?
Why are you saying: If it cant happen by pure randomness then it cant happen by randomness and selection? It just doesn't follow.
It is the selection that makes it possible, yet you seem to simply ignore it.
If I sit behind the monkeys and press 'Backspace' every time they make a mistake, then they will finish Shakespere in a mate ...[text shortened]... 't mean the word, I mean the complete works! That is how much difference selection can make.
have all the material at hand, which in itself is problematic. Since we can run the
numbers for the first piece and every piece after that and the numbers show that
even if you are in a favorable enviroment the odds are still stacked against you
why believe it?
If the numbers are so bad it comes highly unlikely than why would you feel getting
random changes through mutations the way things evolved through natual
selection? If it is more likely that getting all the parts together to function had
to be done by design with a purpose, why would you think randomness had
anything at all to do with it, except to justify a belief there isn't a creator?
Kelly
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
02 Apr 11
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, there is much more than randomness going on. Carbon forms 4 tetrahedral single bonds. That makes the DNA helix backbone a structure that carbon can form. That's like giving the monkeys a rule that sentences start with a capital letter and end with ., !, or ?. This does not rule out design. My thinking is that science is silent on the question of design, and only says, if it were designed, this is how it looks like it was designed."
No, there is no obvious it happened due to evolution because we are here!
We are here why is the question, saying I believe this, and it must be true because
we are here is circular is it not? You either have faith in something you cannot
prove you have something you can prove. I can say that animals mate with their
own kind, is that evidence God did i ...[text shortened]... ld concluded much more
than random mutations with natural selection are at work in life.
Kelly