Infinite Monkey Theorem

[Imperator Romani]

I'm not using it to disprove or prove anything, I'm just going to see what you think of it.

If you don't know what the infinite monkey theorem is-A more common argument is represented by Reverend John F. MacArthur, who claims that the genetic mutations necessary to produce a tapeworm from an amoeba are as unlikely as a monkey typing Hamlet's soliloquy, and hence the odds against the evolution of all life are impossible to overcome

Ok, well scientists tested it, put some monkeys in a cage with typewriters and let them type away for a month.

Of course we can tell that the scientists weren't actually hoping for a sonnet, but proof that given enough time, they could write one.

They ended up never writing one word, not even the word "a". 50 pages of type, and not even the letter a by itself.

So, again, this isn't to prove anything. It's just to get opinions, and the second source has the experiment I was talking about in it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

http://www.junkworthknowing.com/tech...monkey_theorem

[Treize]

Fail?

[Imperator Romani]

Fail?

Eh, take it or leave it, but this is a waste of a post.

Merely gathering opinions on it. Some agree with it, some criticize it, some spit at it.

And Tigrul, nice post, plus rep. But I don't think it has to do with evolution as much as abiogenesis for example. That's my opinion.

[Tankbuster]

But I don't think it has to do with evolution as much as abiogenesis for example. That's my opinion.

I believe (well actually I'm pretty sure) that the analogy is against evolution rather than abiogenesis.
The 3 billion bases (A, T, C, G) that constitute our DNA are often represented as the 'code' or 'building manual' for a human being, and you could in theory also represent these bases as letters. So that's where the comparison lies.
The comparison itself is valid, but as Tigrul pointed out, it cannot be used as an argument against evolution because the analogy is flawed: there's only a random element, and not a non-random process like natural selection 'selecting' the correct from the non-correct responses. A better analogy would be letting a monkey jam on a keyboard all the time and simply register the correct hits. Do this for a long period of time, and it's obvious that you can write 50 pages; even in a relatively short time.

The analogy doesn't really fit abiogenesis, because there we are not talking about anything that resembles 'pages of letters' in any way whatsoever. The first step of abiogenesis is going from simple chemicals to polymers, and that's a process that, when the correct materials are in place and a starting energy is applied, ultimately is bound to happen.
Can't think of an analogy to make for that, but it won't involve monkeys and typewriters

[Phier]

I believe (well actually I'm pretty sure) that the analogy is against evolution rather than abiogenesis.

The usual anti-evolution one is that it would be like a tornado in a junk yard forming randomly a working 747 out of the parts.

The ironic bit is that its not a good argument against evolution but it IS a good argument against god. God is the magic 747.

[Dr. Croccer]

It's not an actual theory that monkey's can write a sonnet, it's an impersonation of mathematical infinity and probablity. Given an infinite amount of time, monkeys typing away at a keyboard randomly, will write a Shakespeare. I.e, eventually, through mathetical probability, a set amount of numbers or letters will be achieved through random selections of numbers or lettres by, say, a computer. Given enough time, a computer selecting letters at random, will write: ''This thread is fail.'' How long it will take, is impossible to say, the point it that it will be achieved, given infite time.

[Tigrul]

Lol... you might not be trying to make an argument (although I really don't believe you), but I think it is very likely that creationists will see your post as an argument against the theory of evolution, so I'll write this as if I'm trying to show how said "theorem" does in no way affect the theory of evolution.

It's quite simple actually: evolution is in no way as random as the chance of a monkey writing a sonnet. This "theorem" ignores natural selection completely. In fact, even if, ad absurdum, one of the monkeys had written anything, it would in no way have validated evolution. Furthermore, there is absolutely no inheritance pattern in monkeys typing randomly, whereas evolution relies on the fact descendants are similar to their ancestors. For someone to be as mind-numbingly stupid/biased as to actually compare the monkey scenario to evolution, they'd have to assume that, in the real world, evolution is something which happens with beings being created randomly, with no similarity to their ancestors, and with them dying at random and multiplying at random, without any factor determining that some beings should die earlier and that some beings should parent further generations.

But, of course, evolution doesn't go that way.
First of all, there is inheritance, which is incredibly important. For evolution via asexual multiplication (for the sake of simplicity), this means that beings multiply and create other beings with genetic codes almost identical to their own (the parents'), but with a few random mutations. To compare this to trying to write a poem, it's like the sentence "kmma fnd syh in gdien tojla fggen" giving birth to the sentences "koma fnd syh in gdien tojla fggen", "kmma und syh in gdien yujla fggen", "kmma fnd syh in gdien tojla fggen". (mutations in bold; for simplicity, all mutations are exchange mutations or whatever they're called). This is very important, because there is a pattern here which is respected and passed onward.

Second of all, natural selection takes place, ensuring that the organisms best suited become parents for future generations. Natural selection, applied to the inheritance model, leads to a process by which patterns are passed onward and in time, improved. Now, this sentence thing is really a bad example, just as the monkey "theorem", because things are a lot more complex in nature, but you get idea. The monkey "theorem" asked about how monkeys typing randomly could obtain a sonnet. There is another mistake with this, other than the two I've already mentioned, and that is: this "theorem" assumes that evolution has a purpose. There is no rational reason to believe such a thing. Unfortunately, I can not show natural selection in my example unless I also commit this mistake of assuming a purpose, and I won't do that. Words and sentences are very simplistic compared to what evolution really is, but, just for the fun of it, I was aiming for the first verse of "L'ame Immortelle - Im Tod vereint", so in my example, the first sentence would be, if we selected only one individual, the parent of future generations.

So, to summarize... heavily, the monkey "theorem" reveals absolutely nothing about the theory of evolution because:
1. In the monkey scenario, there is NO inheritance.
2. In the monkey scenario, there is NO selection.
3. In the monkey scenario, a purpose for evolution is assumed.

[Avendiel]

Let's have a look at the "probability" thing that your MacArthur guy brings up, too.

Let's say we roll a die with a billion sides. Each of the outcomes is one in a billion, and one and only one of them will come up.

No matter what outcome happens with the roll, the odds of that exact thing happening were one in a billion.

Do you think it's right to take a look at the number that happened to come up, and say it couldn't have done so by chance, because the odds against it were so high?

[Phier]

Ok, well scientists tested it, put some monkeys in a cage with typewriters and let them type away for a month.

I'd LOVE to see the grant proposal for that one.

Seriously though, its completely unrelated questions. One does not assemble a complete genome randomly. Its the evolutionary drives which change them over time to be more successful at reproducing itself.

This experiment can be easily run via computer simulation with simple organisms. Random changes will completely change the character of the organism over time for maximum reproduction. Changes that would be very very very improbable if they were to be created from scratch via random numbers.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...e7f645797&pi=0
http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/25/sc...xperiment.html
http://naturalselection.0catch.com/F...evolution.html

Links for various examples.

[Nietzsche]

What the monkey's theorem does present is an interesting parable on our lack of mathematical understanding. I've no desire to enter the evolution/creation debate again, but, I was proposed this nonsense by a former colleague who asserted that monkeys could write sonnets given enough time. In pure mathematical terms infinite monkeys could indeed write every book ever written given infinite time, but the idea is preposterous because it's fantasy. In practical living terms there would not be enough resources for these monkeys to even try.

Furthermore, a billion monkeys would not even scratch the surface of any written work given a billion years and typing at a absurd speed of 10 keystrokes per second. The math is sound, but the I'm dubious of the analogy. If it were abiogenesis we were speaking of then perhaps the argument would be more compelling. Evolutionary theory presupposes a mechanism or force that provides a direction (whether this is consciously or unconsciously guided few are ever able to say) which does in fact as Tigrul suggest eliminate the necessity of random action or behavior.

[Vizsla]

There isn't all that much difference between monkeys and apes. Humans are a kind of ape. Shakespeare was human. Shakespeare wrote Hamlet's Soliloquy. So the probability of a kind of monkey writing it was presumably very high.
The end.

[Theseus1234]

There isn't all that much difference between monkeys and apes. Humans are a kind of ape. Shakespeare was human. Shakespeare wrote Hamlet's Soliloquy. So the probability of a kind of monkey writing it was presumably very high.
The end.

That makes as much sense as me claiming I know Obama through the six degrees of separation.

[Sevasti]

Given an infinite amount of time anything can happen. Even God.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Given an infinite amount of time anything can happen. Even God.

God, as prima causa, would need to exist before "anything can happen" though.

[Ummon]

Just a case of wrong example, formulated for the wrong reasons by the wrong people. To write sonnets, you need chance and... something else.

[Playfishpaste]

The reason the monkeys never wrote a word was because they never intended to try. And in fact, they would have never written a word, even given an infinite amount of time, because they would keep making the same misspellings, as the lead monkey did when typing the letter s for five pages

"lkjskdlsjaksldjsklsajsasdsdsakssasasssdjkkll"

The above seems like random scribbling on a keyboard, but if you try you can clearly see that it's only six letters on my key board that I continually pressed down on from muscle memory. In the same way, monkeys would consistently press down on the same letters and the same blocks of letters because of their lack of interest in actually testing the keyboard out.

[Phier]

The reason the monkeys never wrote a word was because they never intended to try. And in fact, they would have never written a word, even given an infinite amount of time, because they would keep making the same misspellings, as the lead monkey did when typing the letter s for five pages

"lkjskdlsjaksldjsklsajsasdsdsakssasasssdjkkll"

The above seems like random scribbling on a keyboard, but if you try you can clearly see that it's only six letters on my key board that I continually pressed down on from muscle memory. In the same way, monkeys would consistently press down on the same letters and the same blocks of letters because of their lack of interest in actually testing the keyboard out.

You do know that monkey's were only used because its a more interesting image than a random number generator?

The concept is that with infinity even the most improbable event will happen eventually.

[Anachronist]

It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times.

[Playfishpaste]

You do know that monkey's were only used because its a more interesting image than a random number generator?

The concept is that with infinity even the most improbable event will happen eventually.

This is a very common problem with philosophy, using analogies that don't fit a premise.

[Dr. Croccer]

You do know that monkey's were only used because its a more interesting image than a random number generator?

The concept is that with infinity even the most improbable event will happen eventually.

Exactly. The few experiments that were done with monkeys and type-writers were probably done for comical reasons.