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:

[lawdude]

"...a million monkeys typing randomly on a million keyboards for a million years will eventually produce the collected works of Shakespeare."

Sorry but I believe the number was an INFINITE number. As the probability asymtotically approaches 1, it leaves evident the probability that there will be a one letter error in the writings!

[mlo]

Typical of the usual evolution debunking arguments, it doesn't understand evolution, or DNA, enough to do a good job.

Nobody requires DNA formation to be a random process. It is a straw man argument. If it isn't a random process the calculation of odds is pointless.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Simpson's episode.

Monkeys chained to typewriters in basement typing madly away. Mr. Burns walks in takes page from a monkey's typewriter reads "It was the best of times it was the blurst of times." He yells at and smacks monkey who squeals.

[The Shootist]

Funny how Creationists accept, what do they call it, micro-evolution. Especially since micro-evolution is the same thing as Evolution. (btw, "micro-evolution" is a term made up by people who don't know what they are talking about, ie. idiots)

Funny how DNA changes daily. Chemical, biological and radiological stressors have a funny way of changing DNA.

Funny how one species of finch became 36 species of finch in less than 10000 years.

Funny how one species of honey sucker became 26 species of honey sucker, in less than 12000 years.

As far as the math goes its like anything else, garbage in, garbage out.

You can't tell a flat-earther that it is round. Message ends.

[Texas_Jarhead]

So I'm reading this thread and following the comments fairly well. And then I come across yours. You said, "There's no fitness check. If we posit an environment with selective pressures, where a sentence that is more like the final sentence is favored over a sentence that is less like the final product, then we will very, very quickly arrive at the final sentence..." Ok, so the process isn't so random then because some intelligence is aware of the desired outcome and is preserving and building on data from previous attempts. Is that it.

You continue, "The error in the original post is the assumption that every attempt is a fresh attempt, where we throw everything out from the last run and make a random stab in the dark...". If order is derived by chance from nothing then mustn’t we assume that each try is completely unique and in no way connected with any other attempt? Isn’t this very meaning of randomness?

I no statistician or mathematician but how can a process be both random yet retain and build upon previous data?

Thanks in advance and FReepOn

[Doomonyou]

Ah, but they did produce Hamlet.

Ah, but that is not the question.

[Capitalist Eric]

The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... Or change. Once such incantatory phrases as "we see now through a looking glass darkly" and "mysterious are the ways in which He chooses His wonders to perform" are mastered, logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the world's vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious fanatic, it's all on purpose.
---S. King

[Texas_Jarhead]

Postscript.

How can a random process accrue 'data' to achieve some eventual state when said state is supposed to be an unknown? In ‘proof’ above, the monkey does not know what to keep or throw away nor does he realize that there is a desired outcome or understand what that outcome should be.

I'm just trying to accurately relate my query.

[Publius6961]

To limit this to simply 1 million does not convey the thought of what the term 'infinite' means.

Having your mind made up must be awful comforting.
You didn't actually read the whole essay, did you.

(17^9)*(17^9)*(17^9) is hardly equal to a million.

[azhenfud]

bump

[RightWhale]

how can a process be both random yet retain and build upon previous data?

A question for your question:
Is there a random process?

[RightWhale]

that is not the question

That is a concept, self-existent.

[rwb]

I totally agree with your post #3.
The people who argue against evolution have no clue as to how big existence (note: I avoid even the word "universe") is.

In a lottery drawing, everyone complains about losing against improbable odds ... everyone, that is, except the guy who won.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"I believe the saying that an infinite number of monkeys, with an infinite number of typewriters, can in fact recreate any piece of literature (Bible, Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Stephen King, etc.). To limit this to simply 1 million does not convey the thought of what the term 'infinite' means."

"Wait it minute, it looks like this one is onto something: 'To be, or not to be, that is the gezsartenplatz....'"
Bob Newhart - Revenge of the Button Down Mind

[Lurking Libertarian]

You continue, "The error in the original post is the assumption that every attempt is a fresh attempt, where we throw everything out from the last run and make a random stab in the dark...". If order is derived by chance from nothing then mustn’t we assume that each try is completely unique and in no way connected with any other attempt? Isn’t this very meaning of randomness? I no statistician or mathematician but how can a process be both random yet retain and build upon previous data?

Because the theory of evolution is based on two processes: mutation (random) and natural selection (non-random).

You start with a group of organisms. Some number of them have random mutations. Most of those mutations are harmful, so those individuals die-- they don't reproduce. Only a tiny percentage of mutations are beneficial, but the individuals with those mutations survive longer and reproduce more. So the next generation has more individuals with the favorable mutation than the prior generation.

Some percentage of the next generation has mutations. Again, most of the mutations are harmful, but those individuals don't reproduce; the few with favorable mutations do reproduce, and in disproportionate numbers.

Each generation thus keeps the beneficial results, and only the beneficial results, from the previous generation's random mutations; and each set of favorable mutations builds on the prior successes.

[colorado tanker]

"Funny how one species of finch became 36." Was that by government scientists so they could claim each of the 36 were "endangered"?

[Harrison Bergeron]

What was the mathematical probability of William Shakespeare writing the works of William Shakespeare?

[Texas_Jarhead]

No-No, I'm not talking about evolution. I'm talking specifically about the monkey example. Specifically about the points made by general_re.