[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."

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...

[gfactor]

But how does a lifeless world "check for fitness" and then decide what to modify for subsequent guesses?

well "checking for fitness" would be reproduction of successful mutations and no or less reproduction of less successfull ones. If the only part of evolution that people doubt is that it has not yet identified what first life looked like, that seems pretty good. creationists will go on believing in the creator, and the scientists will get back to unglorious work. and i'm sure will let people know once they've figured it out.