A Tiny Mathematical Proof Against Evolution [AKA - Million Monkeys Can't Type Shakespeare]

Nutters.org ^ | 13-Dec-1995 | Brett Watson

[Southack]

There is a recurring claim among a certain group which goes along the lines of "software programs can self-form on their own if you leave enough computers on long enough" or "DNA will self-form given enough time" or even that a million monkeys typing randomly on a million keyboards for a million years will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare.

This mathematical proof goes a short distance toward showing in math what Nobel Prize winner Illya Prigogine first said in 1987 (see Order Out of Chaos), that the maximum possible "order" self-forming randomly in any system is the most improbable.

This particular math proof deals with the organized data in only the very first sentence of Hamlet self-forming. After one examines this proof, it should be readily apparent that even more complex forms of order, such as a short story, computer program, or DNA for a fox, are vastly more improbable.

So without further adue, here's the math:

[js1138]

placemarker

[Southack]

"the problem with this analogy is that it only makes one attempt -- ie, there is no re-evaluation -- to use the parlance of genetic algoriths, no fitness function. that is a key part of the iteration: make random guesses, check for fitness, modify highest fitting etc... I'd like to see what the chances are if these monkeys had some appropriate fitness function. something based on an english dictionary." - gfactor

"YOu are, of course correct, but this is too complicated for the automaton that wrote this article." - TopQuark

I disagree.

Making random guesses is fine. I can accept that a lifeless, pre-bio world can make random "guesses" by default. But how does a lifeless world "check for fitness" and then decide what to modify for subsequent guesses? Would we expect to see the monkeys read the english dictionary that you propose any more than we would expect the pre-DNA world to design a fitness check and decide what to modify for subsequent guesses?

The math in the proof for this thread is targeting the ability of data to sequence itself naturally, without intelligent intervention. Injecting a dictionary into such an analogy would seem a bit contrary to that goal...

[Trickyguy]

Are we talking about African or European monkeys? And what is it's typing speed velocity?

Maybe evolution works on the "Sparrow Principle."

[Southack]

Just to be clear, a "fitness test" implies intelligent intervention.

Whether you are talking about the intelligently-derived dictionary for the monkeys or whether you are talking about a "process" that can determine which DNA guesses are worth building upon (as opposed to never trying again), you are getting AWAY from the pure mathematical odds of random chance due to the intelligence in such "fitness check" processes.

Of course, that's the whole point of the math for this thread: to demonstrate that something MORE than mere random chance must be in play, that a "fitness check" or other form of intelligent intervention is REQUIRED.

Re-read the math in the article. It's all there. Left unsaid is only what the math means.

[VadeRetro]

Nothing fails to impress me the way quote-mining Gould does. Sorry!

He spent a lot of time arguing with people that didn't accept punctuated equilibrium. He called them "NeoDarwinists" and said a lot of things about how they were still looking for gradual (as in very gradual) transitions.

I am not impressed with the subsequent quote-mining by creationists and neither was he.

You see, Punctuated Equilibrium is a Darwinian Theory.

[VadeRetro]

You claim that inability to imagine plausible evolutionary scenarios is not a problem for evolution; Gould claimed that it was.

OK, he makes a passing mention of inability to imagine something as a problem. Just for one thing, I think he's talking about people who are really trying to imagine how something did happen, not how it couldn't have. For another, Dawkins is still right. "Evolution is smarter than you are."

[js1138]

Just to be clear, a "fitness test" implies intelligent intervention.

Why is there no speculation about intelligent design of chemical elements -- they manage to evolve in discreet jumps from hydrogen through uranium and beyond? Imagine, if you can, the sheer improbibility of exactly the right combination of temperature and density occurring at exactly the right places and times -- in the vastness of the universe -- to transmute elements into "higher" elements.

If you can imagine a universe in which chemical evolution occurs, what intrinsic property of existence forbids biological evolution?

[Southack]

"Why is there no speculation about intelligent design of chemical elements"

Well, for one thing, there is no such speculation because we CAN replicate chemical component processes in the lab, something that we can't quite yet manage for DNA formation and animation.

[js1138]

Well, for one thing, there is no such speculation because we CAN replicate chemical component processes in the lab, something that we can't quite yet manage for DNA formation and animation.

And if, in 20 or 50 years, we can, what position will you retreat to?

I might add that I've been watching this retreat since about 1970. Back then the official position of scientific creationism was that mutations are impossible because DNA always replicates perfectly. If you don't believe me, you should find a good library that archives periodicals, and look up a magazine called "The Plain Truth".

The only argument that creationsism and ID have going for them is the argument from improbality. Not exactly a rock.

[Southack]

"And if, in 20 or 50 years, we can, what position will you retreat to?"

Why would you call it a "retreat"?

If Man can create Life in the lab, it will be a great advance, not a "retreat".

The issue, however, will be whether or not we can show that Life requires intelligent intervention, or if life can be created in a certain environment without any intelligent aid.

However, this debate won't be that advanced until AFTER man can first create Life in the lab.

We aren't completely there yet, and you are jumping to too many conclusions.

[nightdriver]

"DNA will self-form given enough time" or even that a million monkeys typing randomly on a million keyboards for a million years will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare.

I heard that it was approximately the same probability as the Encylopoedia Britanica being produced by an explosion in a print shop!

[Southack]

No approximation is needed. The math for this thread shows the SPECIFIC odds of the first sentence of Shakespeare's Hamlet forming naturally (i.e. without intelligent intervention).

Likewise, the specific odds for the natural formation of the DNA programming for each gene can be calculated.

And that's why Darwinists don't like to talk about math...

[js1138]

I'm not jumping to conclusions. I'm speculating based on history -- something every imaginative person does. There are evos on this thread who wish to avoid abiogensis because it is speculative rather than "scientific". I have no such qualms. I've watched biology for at least 40 years and have only been surprised when advances arrived sooner than expected.

Prior to the periodic table, chemistry was a mess, literally and figuratively. The table simplified things by organizing a vast and unruly body of knowledge into a manageable size. The genome has surprized everyone by organizing billions of bits of information into tens of thousands of words. Just as the elements are "islands" of stability, life will be found to involve islands of chemical stability. (This is speculation, of course, but I will stand by it as my prediction.)

[js1138]

The math for this thread shows the SPECIFIC odds of the first sentence of Shakespeare's Hamlet forming naturally (i.e. without intelligent intervention).

Selection can be natural as well as artificial. I suppose that concept continues to elude you.

[Southack]

"life will be found to involve islands of chemical stability. (This is speculation, of course, but I will stand by it as my prediction.)"

Your speculation would be more believable if we were living back before we knew the DNA data content of genes (i.e. long before the genome was mapped).

Data is something that does not depend upon chemical stability, rather, it depends upon the sequential ordering of stable chemicals.

Rearrange the DNA data in a gene and you will change the output form, even though the chemical compounds involved will be just as stable as before.

Ergo, the sequence of the data is more important than the stability of the chemicals.

[Southack]

"Selection can be natural as well as artificial. I suppose that concept continues to elude you."

Once again, you "suppose" incorrectly.

The math for this very thread deals with that very issue, and I'm the one who started this thread.

[js1138]

Rearrange the DNA data in a gene and you will change the output form, even though the chemical compounds involved will be just as stable as before.

Evolution and selection can occur at different physical levels. The lowest level I'm familiar with is the transmutaion of elements in stars. Next would be chemical evolution of molecules, ala Stanley Miller. If you deny that this can lead to RNA or DNA, that's your position, your speculation about the history of the Earth.

But if it can happen, then we have the possibility of self-replication.

Without knowing the history of earth in detail, anything said about the probabilities of this happening is speculation.

[Southack]

"Without knowing the history of earth in detail, anything said about the probabilities of this happening is speculation."

That's incorrect. The specific math involved in calculating probabilities is not speculation.