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

Nutters.org ^ | 28-Jul-2000 | Brett Watson

[maro]

If the set A of which we are trying to determine P(A) were so clearcut as the set of all five playing cards constituting a poker hand, we would not be having this discussion. I submit that we now know far too little to know what A is, even in sketch form. So the only thing we can "compute" (at least in concept) is the probability of one river crossing, to refer to my metaphor. Having some idea what that probability is (on average, under stipulated assumptions), we can reason backwards and determine what the size of A must be (or be like in orders of magnitude) for the evolutionary hypothesis to be true. I would adjust your poker analogy by saying that the poker hand the probability of which we are trying to get a fix on is also an unknown. In those circumstances, the best we could do is compute the probability of an unordered set of five playing cards, drawn without substitution, call it F, and say that P(A) equals #A * F.

[Nebullis]

In your metaphor, the question I would ask is whether the wanderings up and down the bank "looking" for a natural crossing are not inherently limited by the probability of the neutral mutations. I hope you would agree that there is some such limit.

I'm not sure what limit you mean. An iso-fitness region is, of course, limited. But the limit for possible mutations (and fitness)is potentially so large it's pointless to talk about that. It keeps getting larger (and drives evolution, does it not?).

Perhaps you are unaware of the great potential for functional mutations generated by random change. Think of somatic mutations of the genes coding for immune recognition proteins. Think of the rapid evolution of genes coding for protein coats of viruses.

[maro]

Limited by time and probability. I would think that the "range" of the river crosser making one river crossing within unit time is a probabilistic cloud centered about the original position. The cloud is "denser" (higher probabilities) in the center and falls off thereafter. With unlimited time, the cloud grows bigger and bigger, but we are not dealing with unlimited time.

[edsheppa]

I submit that we now know far too little to know what A is

I agree.

the best we could do is compute the probability of an unordered set of five playing cards, drawn without substitution, call it F, and say that P(A) equals #A * F.

You will get the wrong answer which makes the effort rather pointless. OTOH a probabilistic argument can effectively eliminate some models; asking for more is asking for trouble.

[Nebullis]

This has all been modeled before. Here is an example using GAs. In vitro models of actual molecules has been done with RNA (structure is simpler than proteins), and in vivo with the examples I mentioned above.

[Nebullis]

It turns out that the article I linked is a simulation, not a GA. There are examples of GA's which exhibit the behavior of neutral drift followed by functional change, followed by neutral drift, etc.

[maro]

"This result indicates that changing significantly a protein structure through a biologically acceptable chain of point mutations is a rare, although possible, event." I would be interested in how rare an event it is. But this is definitely the way to prove or disprove the evolutionary hypothesis. As our understanding improves, we will have better models.