Replies

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.

That's how it works in this example. It's not a perfect evolutionary analogy, because our example here is working towards a specific goal - a particular sentence - whereas evolution via natural selection doesn't really have a goal in mind.

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?

Let's walk through it. First, we need an environment. And to experience some sort of evolutionary process, our environment has to have selective pressures - that is, some traits will be more helpful for survival, and some will be less helpful, and some will be downright dangerous for creatures that have them. Imagine a dysfunctional creature that drowns every time it rains, and you'll see what I mean.

So, for this little thought experiment, we want an environment consisting of a chains of letters, 41 letters long. And we further want an environment where chains that are more like the final product have an advantage over chains that don't. And the chains that aren't much like the final product will have a disadvantage, and will die and go away.

So, we start with a random string of letters created by spinning the big genetics wheel. Now, as this is a random process, the odds that we'll get the final product right at the start are pretty damn long, as this article rushes to assure us. But the odds are, that we'll get a string of letters out that has at least one or two letters in the right place.

Now we have a chain that has a slight resemblance to the final product. These few letters in the right place are an adaptive trait - they are preferentially replicated in the next generation. What that means is that those letters are (almost) automatically replicated in the next generation - after all, if they weren't, the offspring would die, right?

So, come the next generation, we have a chain where a few letters are already in place, and since that's an adaptive trait, those letters get passed on to the offspring - the next chain. And then we spin the big genetics wheel yet again, but not for all letters - some letters are passed on from the parents. So we spin and generate random letters in place of the non-adaptive letters. And we find that one or two of the new letters are in the right place, in addition to the one or two that we had from the last generation.

Keep this up, and after a few generations. you'll have the final sentence. And it won't take trillions and trilions of years, either. If you programmed a computer to do it for you, you'd have the final product in probably less than 60 generations, and almost certainly less than 100.

It is a random process, but some random products are more successfull than others. That's what I'm talking about, and that's why this article is dead wrong. Period.

How can a random process accrue 'data' to achieve some eventual state when said state is supposed to be an unknown?

Well, that's where the "million monkeys" analogy breaks down ;)

There's no selective pressure in monkeys typing randomly, so there's no reason for them to eventually produce "Hamlet." If we imagine a selective pressure - e.g., we reward monkeys that can produce things a little bit like "Hamlet", and shoot the monkeys that type gibberish, we'd have a selective pressure. And then we up the bar a little bit by rewarding the few monkeys that can produce something somewhat like "Hamlet," and shooting the monkeys that only produce stuff a little bit like "Hamlet." And then we up the bar again by rewarding monkeys that produce stuff that's a lot like "Hamlet" and shooting all the lesser monkeys.

Keep that up for a while, and you'll get "Hamlet" out of a monkey soon enough ;)

Thanks for your response. However, I guess I was unable to elucidate my query sufficiently. I think I have a decent understanding of evolution via natural selection but I'm not understanding the whole concept of a prescribed 'final product' as it were. So let's try this. I'm from another world and don't breathe air, a step through my worm hole and suddenly I'm trapped on Earth. Now, I have pressure on me to adapt to breathe are right. The question is, how. How do I breathe air.

This question, in my mind, is akin to how do monkeys produce a line from Hamlet. How... I know I need to adapt but the 'final product', the facilitator of the answer to how is a function of random chance, no? I try this, I try that, and I keep on trying until I can breathe or I die. The 'final product' or the mechanism by which I can breathe is a total and complete unknown. I have no direction and there is nothing controlling the development of the 'how' adaptation. Therefore, based upon the probabilities provided by the monkey 'proof' it would seem a statistical impossibility that my random How adaptations could produce a suitable 'final product' or goal even when set in massive quantitative scenarios.

It seems, your explanation is fine if at the beginning of the process the aforementioned 'final product' or goal is known. But if the 'final product' is not known then developing it by random shots in the dark would seem impossible. You can't retain beneficial data when you don't have a clue if the data is beneficial. And determining the data's value is predicated upon knowning the final outcome in advance. Where am I going wrong here (and don't say by reading this thread)?

Well, that's where the "million monkeys" analogy breaks down ;)

There's no selective pressure in monkeys typing randomly, so there's no reason for them to eventually produce "Hamlet." If we imagine a selective pressure - e.g., we reward monkeys that can produce things a little bit like "Hamlet", and shoot the monkeys that type gibberish, we'd have a selective pressure. And then we up the bar a little bit by rewarding the few monkeys that can produce something somewhat like "Hamlet," and shooting the monkeys that only produce stuff a little bit like "Hamlet." And then we up the bar again by rewarding monkeys that produce stuff that's a lot like "Hamlet" and shooting all the lesser monkeys. Keep that up for a while, and you'll get "Hamlet" out of a monkey soon enough ;)

Total BS - The only thing that you would have suceeded in doing is possibly shooting a monkey that would have produced Hamlet, had you not shot it. The monkey has no idea what it typed the last time, and hence there is no reason for it to leave a couple of letters in the right space. Just like nature.

Keep that up for a while, and you'll get "Hamlet" out of a monkey soon enough ;)

No the numbers show that you will run out of monkeys(or bullets).

But the odds are, that we'll get a string of letters out that has at least one or two letters in the right place.

What are those odds?

There's no selective pressure in monkeys typing randomly, so there's no reason for them to eventually produce "Hamlet." If we imagine a selective pressure - e.g., we reward monkeys that can produce things a little bit like "Hamlet", and shoot the monkeys that type gibberish, we'd have a selective pressure. And then we up the bar a little bit by rewarding the few monkeys that can produce something somewhat like "Hamlet," and shooting the monkeys that only produce stuff a little bit like "Hamlet." And then we up the bar again by rewarding monkeys that produce stuff that's a lot like "Hamlet" and shooting all the lesser monkeys

In your selective pressure example, the people shooting the monkeys know what the eventual outcome is going to be. In actuality, if one is to believe evolutionary theory, the eventual outcome isn't known.