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:

[Southack]

"It isn't a question of having different numbers. Your premise is wrong. You are calculating the odds of a random process and infering a meaning relating to DNA, but DNA formation isn't a random process. It's a meaningless excercise."

"Random" simply means unaided by any intelligent bias. Are you certain that you want to claim that the first DNA wasn't randomly formed?

[allthingsnew]

Natural selection requres a thing that can replicate itself. The question then becomes what are the odds of that thing arising by chance? To answer this we need to know, among other things, what is the simplest thing that can replicate itself? Francis Crick, who ought to know something about this, says (in his book "LIFE ITSELF") that it would have to be something as complicated as an RNA molocule, and that, says Crick, is so complicated that he personally can't believe that it could have arisen by chance in the relatively-few years available in the history of the Earth. (Crick, by the way, is therefore left to assert that the first replicator came to Earth from outer space.)

I'm not saying (or meaning to say, at any rate) any more than this: Natural selection doesn't help your theory one bit until you have that first replicator, and at least one sure 'nuff expert on the subject says that the first replicator was VERY complicated-- a lot more so, I'll wager, than "To be or not to be."

[Southack]

"I see no mathematical proof in your mathematical proof. My math didn't go beyond fourth semester calculus and linear algebra, but I'm pretty sure that not even (17^9)*(17^9)*(17^9)... quite qualifies as infinity or even the known number of cell divisions since the beginning of creation."

You must not have read the article that headlines this thread. It makes no claim about infinity. That claim is yours, not mine.

[woollyone]

IIRC, Sir Hoyle calculated ~10^80.

[aruanan]

In light of this, I find it impossible to believe that "chance" had anything to do with the process that created life.

Keep in mind also that if life arose by chance on earth, the chances that it arose anywhere else is the square of the chance that it arose by chance on earth. The chance that intelligent life arose in 1000 different systems throughout the universe is the chance that it arose by chance on earth raised to the 1000 power. Of course, people have realized for a long time that chance isn't going to work. Besides chance, you need a mechanism, the operational output of which is measured in terms of chance. Chance can't bring a mechanism into being any more than accounting can cause money to come to exist in a bank (C. S. Lewis made a similar point in Miracles when he said that "the laws of nature" can't be appealed to as the cause of nature because you have to have nature first before you can have anything such as natural laws). Because of these insurmountable difficulties there have been two main approaches to solving the problem. One approach is the leap of faith approach and to say, as Julian Huxley did, that the appearance and development of life on earth through evolutionary means is clearly impossible but that the only alternative, special creation, is unthinkable. This is also seen in the "It must have happened because we are here" so-called argument. The other approach is the other leap of faith approach and to say that since it is impossible for life to have arisen on Earth by chance (much less anywhere else) that spontaneous generation followed by evolution of life is an inherent property in the universe and, therefore, is quite likely. There is a significant percentage of people, though, who keep on with the monkey-typing-Shakespeare myth.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The universe, as incrediably vast as it is, is FAR to brief and tiny for life to have arisen by chance. You DO NOT have an infinite number to work with. The numbers you have are huge, but are as nothing compared to the scope of the problem. As for the crowd who insists "but it is not random, their are rules", I say this- If rules, then a Rulemaker.

Actually, I agree with you-- and with Darwin. As a Jew, I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. As a thinking person, I see loads of evidence that Darwinian evolution has been working, at least since the beginnings of life on this planet, to create new species. Darwinian evolution wouldn't work if not for the laws of chemistry and physics; and I believe that God created those rules.

My bottom line is that God made us, and evolution was His tool.

[mlo]

"Random" simply means unaided by any intelligent bias.

No, that is NOT what random means. Sure, the word is often used by creationists as if it meant that, but they are wrong.

This is very simple. DNA formation, and evolution, are not random processes. Calculations of any odds based on randomness have no bearing on evolution or DNA.

[EternalHope]

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.

I see.

What is infinity divided by infinity?

[Dakmar]

but if you took that monkey who wrote Hamlet-what are the odds he'd continue to write Romeo and Juliet?

Given an infinite amount of time, it's impossible that the monkey wouldn't write Romeo and Juliet. Keep in mind here, the key word is infinite.

[Southack]

"Random" simply means unaided by any intelligent bias. "No, that is NOT what random means." - mlo

Then what does "random" mean in your world?

[RightWhale]

Cosmologist Alan Guth says there could be an infinite number of universes, which is to say, some indefinite number bigger than 10^80. The funny thing about that is, though, this universe might be the only one containing monkeys.

[jennyp]

Natural selection requres a thing that can replicate itself. The question then becomes what are the odds of that thing arising by chance? To answer this we need to know, among other things, what is the simplest thing that can replicate itself?

Good point. However, the smallest known replicator is a 32-mer peptide. The smallest RNA replicators aren't too much longer. (I don't know how long exactly.) Meanwhile, random peptides & RNA strands will grow on mineral surfaces (acting as catalysts to raise the growing chains above the chemical "noise") up to 55 units long in a couple weeks. So the real odds of reaching the simplest replicator are much higher than those creationist numbers try to paint it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Natural selection requres a thing that can replicate itself.

Agreed.

The question then becomes what are the odds of that thing arising by chance? To answer this we need to know, among other things, what is the simplest thing that can replicate itself? Francis Crick, who ought to know something about this, says (in his book "LIFE ITSELF") that it would have to be something as complicated as an RNA molocule, and that, says Crick, is so complicated that he personally can't believe that it could have arisen by chance in the relatively-few years available in the history of the Earth. (Crick, by the way, is therefore left to assert that the first replicator came to Earth from outer space.)

There are two possible answers, neither of which would shock me. (I don't believe we have sufficient data to make an informed choice at this time.) One is that God created the first self-replicating molecule, and let evolution work from there. This is actually the position Darwin took on the last page of The Origin of Species. The second possible answer is that self-replicators are not as complex as Crick thought, and form naturally as a result of chemical bonding. This doesn't eliminate God, either, it only moves His direct intervention back a step, to when he designed the laws of chemistry.

[Lev]

Hey, this is a math thread. If you don't like the numbers in the article, then feel free to post your own calculations for the self-formation of the first DNA.

The math looks correct for the million monkeys problem. But, DNA self-formation is a very different problem. A more similar problem would look like this:
1. prepare the input components
2. run a 'round' of reactions
3. REMOVE all results of 'failed' attempts
4. goto 2.

See the difference? Feedback rings a bell maybe?

[gjenkins]

How many molecules are in this 32-mer peptide? Is there a model/pisture of it somewhere?

[gfactor]

So you're saying this accident called evolution somehow learned from its mistakes?

more accurate would be that it forgets its mistakes and works on its successes....

[Southack]

"See the difference? Feedback rings a bell maybe?"

"Feedback" implies intelligent intervention into the process. Is that how you want to say that the first DNA can into being?

[Naked Lunch]

Bump. Good laugh in #10

[Southack]

"See the difference? Feedback rings a bell maybe?"

"Feedback" implies intelligent intervention into the process. Is that how you want to say that the first DNA came into being?