The Religion Of Evolution And Infinite Typing Monkeys , , ,

JAG Writes:
It seems to me there is a lot of Faith in Evolution. You who know more about this
subject than I do, help me out here. Help me to understand how astronomical numbers
plus infinity or "enough time" will inevitability produce life. This passage below from the
Wikipedia article titled "Infinite Monkey Theorem" seems to be saying that is not true.

But before we get to that , , ,
Evolution , , ,
See the section titled "Evolution" in the same article -- which does not present
any encouraging words for "astronomical numbers" plus infinity or "enough time"
to inevitability produce life with regards to Richard Dawkins' "weasel program" , , ,
. "As Dawkins acknowledges, however, the weasel program is an imperfect analogy
for evolution"__from the linked article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Evolution


Now back to the Wikipedia article titled "Infinite Monkey Theorem" , , ,

Start quote.
"However, for physically meaningful numbers of monkeys typing for physically meaningful lengths of time the results are reversed. If there were as many monkeys as there are atoms in the observable universe typing extremely fast for trillions of times the life of the universe, the probability of the monkeys replicating even a single page of Shakespeare is unfathomably small.

Ignoring punctuation, spacing, and capitalization, a monkey typing letters uniformly at random has a chance of one in 26 of correctly typing the first letter of Hamlet. It has a chance of one in 676 (26 × 26) of typing the first two letters. Because the probability shrinks exponentially, at 20 letters it already has only a chance of one in 2620 = 19,928,148,895,209,409,152,340,197,376[c] (almost 2 × 102. In the case of the entire text of Hamlet, the probabilities are so vanishingly small as to be inconceivable. The text of Hamlet contains approximately 130,000 letters.[d] Thus there is a probability of one in 3.4 × 10183,946 to get the text right at the first trial. The average number of letters that needs to be typed until the text appears is also 3.4 × 10183,946,[e] or including punctuation, 4.4 × 10360,783.[f]

Even if every proton in the observable universe were a monkey with a typewriter, typing from the Big Bang until the end of the universe (when protons might no longer exist), they would still need a far greater amount of time – more than three hundred and sixty thousand orders of magnitude longer – to have even a 1 in 10500 chance of success. To put it another way, for a one in a trillion chance of success, there would need to be 10360,641 observable universes made of protonic monkeys.[g] As Kittel and Kroemer put it in their textbook on thermodynamics, the field whose statistical foundations motivated the first known expositions of typing monkeys,[4] "The probability of Hamlet is therefore zero in any operational sense of an event ...", and the statement that the monkeys must eventually succeed "gives a misleading conclusion about very, very large numbers."

In fact there is less than a one in a trillion chance of success that such a universe made of monkeys could type any particular document a mere 79 characters long.[h]"
End quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Probabilities

___________


Is there not some Faith Based Beliefs in the Religion Of Evolution?
How do you know for an established scientific fact that astronomical numbers
plus infinity or "enough time" will inevitability produce life? My view is that if you
believe that, it is a Faith Based Belief.

JAG


``

 

Well.... First of all you are talking about typewriters and monkeys. And typewriters do not behave like atoms and molecules when subjected to changing environmental conditions. But when elements form molecules they follow certain rules and paths. Sodium and chlorine form salt .... period. Your analysis is flawed. Monkeys don't follow rules.

 

Please show where anybody makes the claim above, again you have created a strawman because of your lack of understanding.

 

Incorrect.
Its not my analysis. You didn't even bother to read the OP
before you commented.

The monkeys are not necessary to the larger and more interesting question , , ,
Forget the monkeys and tell me
How do you know for an established scientific fact that astronomical numbers
plus infinity or "enough time" will inevitability produce life?

My view is that if you believe that, it is a Faith Based Belief.

JAG

``

 

I did not read the entire thing because I have heard the argument over and over. It is always odds. I say under the right conditions life has to happen. Time doesn't create life, or assemble life , it just allows life..... or anything else to happen. It seems.... for all we know... life needs water. But there are microbes that "eat" energy. I say .... screw the odds. We are here.

 

You have been told, no one thinks the above. Whereas fundamentalists believe life begins with an invisible being who nobody can show exists made a magic spell and produced life!

 

Noted.
Here is the crucial part of the OP , , ,
How do you know for an established scientific fact that
astronomical numbers plus infinity or "enough time" will
inevitability produce life?

My view is that if you believe that, it is a Faith Based Belief.

That's Faith.
Nothing wrong with Faith.
I say on Faith that John 3:16 is true.

Noted.
There is nothing in that, that tells me , ,
How do you know for an established scientific fact that
astronomical numbers plus infinity or "enough time" will
inevitability produce life?

My view is that if you believe that, it is a Faith Based Belief.

That's a Faith Based approach to explaining how we got here.
Cool.

Best.

JAG


``

 

ONE of the problems with this monkey thing is that it has NOTHING to do with how evolution works.

What's missing is a decision making process that accepts or discards what is "typed" while it is being typed.

The prolem isn't one of waiting for Hamlet.

It's a problem of selecting sequences that meet some criteria.

Our forebears did not make wheat by waiting until wheat sprang out of the ground. And, waitign for monkeys to complete Hamlet is just as totally IGNORANT.

What our forebears did was to selected plants that seemed a little "better" to them, and then restarted the experiment.

And, when humans weren't around to make such selections, nature supplied that selection mechanism.

The part that I really don't get is how so many Christians can use LIES as if it is argument.

If they are even slightly interested in the topic, they would know PERFECTLY well how evolution works. And, for them to suggest that they are ignorant of that (as demonstrated by BS such as this monkey thing) is no better than insult.

 

What I don't understand is how Christians reject a theory (evolution) proven by science and as an alternative provide a claim that is supported by no proof whatsoever other than a magic book.

 

Thank you for your usual bright cheerful upbeat friendly warm
contribution to the thread. Such kindness and warmth does not
go unappreciated.

Meanwhile , , ,
Forget the monkeys and explain , , ,
How do you know for an established scientific fact that
astronomical numbers plus infinity or "enough time" will
inevitability produce life?

My view is that if you believe that, it is a Faith Based Belief.

Best,

JAG

 

The issue is evolution. THAT is what I commented on.

I have not responded to concerns about abiogenesis, where there are several serious ideas on how life began, but are not yet known well enough to be considered theories (as defined by the strong scientific method definition of theory).

Let's remember that human understanding is not complete. And, the fact that our understanding is not complete is NOT EVIDENCE of intervention from some totally unsubstantiated indetectable and entirely magical other world.

Let's also remember that every religion has had some story of human origins - stories that don't even slightly match. So, I see no reason to accept the origin story of YOUR religion as of any more interest than the origin stories of every other religion that has existed. The only commonality is that they all lack ANY logical or evidentiary support.

I'm not opposed to you believing your favorite origin story, whatever it is.

I don't see it as playing any significant part in the important decisions that mankind is faced with.

But, evolution is a very different matter. Evolution DOES play a highly important role today. And, the religious assault on evolution is damaging to our society in several important ways.

 

The Infinite Monkey Theorem is there to prove a particular point, it is not analogous to all of evolution. The Infinite Monkey Theorem shows that meaning (or at least perceived meaning) can arise from random sources (that did not intelligently imbue meaning). This is an analogue to the "random mutation" aspects of evolution.

However, evolution contains another aspect, "natural selection". Random mutations are responsible for making it possible, natural selection brings it from possible to statistically likely (or you know, "plausible" or whatever). Selection (natural or otherwise) is the process by which we avoid the astronomical numbers, by focusing not on every possible combination, but only on the best combination so far. Imagine the following variation of the monkey example:

Instead of infinite monkeys, we have only 60 monkeys (let's say that between upper and lower case plus some punctuation, there are 60 characters in Hamlet). They all type random stuff, like in the infinite monkey theorem. However, between every key stroke, we perform a selection. When the monkeys have done their first key stroke, we gather the papers up, and we check whether any of them have typed the first letter of Hamlet (which happens to be a 64% chance). If one of them has, then instead of letting each monkey keep typing on their own paper, we let all the monkeys continue that story (if no monkey typed the right letter, we restart without that letter, having wasted one keystroke's worth of time). We do this for every key stroke that the monkeys make. So, even though the monkeys were just as random as they were before, typing out Hamlet (~130000 characters, let's say 2 characters per second) takes 130000chars * 0.5s/char / 0.64 = 102000s = 28h. Not astronomical at all (and mostly limited by the time it takes for the monkeys to type a character). Likely much faster than Shakespeare wrote it.

Of course there are many aspects in which this is not representative of evolution. It merely shows the fact that a process of selection can bring astronomically unlikely things into believable possibilities, or at least that if you have not taken natural selection into account, your estimate of probabilities and timescales for random evolution are going to be astronomically off.

 

Well you're wrong. 99% of people live their lives without the slightest consideration of whether evolutionary theory is accurate or not. The only people who care at all are the tiny subset of scientists who work in the field (who don't particularly apply faith) and the tiny subset of people who falsely present it as in any way relevant to theology (who are therefore fools or liars).

Two points there. First, that is a ignorant oversimplification and not a claim any professional actually makes and second, that would relate to abiogenesis and not evolution, which are two separate topics.

 

Yes. And it also amazes me that they think if they can somehow someway manage to disprove evolution theory, that makes their creation myths automatically true. That's not how logic works folks.

 

Science has never "proven" how we got here. To me the bigger question is "why". People clamour to know "why". The "why" is our reason for being......it gives us purpose. You can get all bogged down with the "how", and "pretend" to know, but the "why" leads to the greater introspection into ones own existence. I choose to believe it's "life with a purpose". Call it intelligent design if God offends you. Jesus and His mission explains the "why".

 

Well you are wrong.
And not just wrong but totally wrong.
There is a lot of Faith in the Religion Of Evolution.
Evolution's literature has a lot of "iffy" language in it.
"Iffy" language like , , ,
~ maybe
~ possibly
~ if
~ probably
~ and other type "iffy" language clearly demonstrating that they
are guessing and speculating.
There is a lot of Faith in the Religion Of Evolution.

That is a Faith Based Statement.
You do not KNOW that.
You have no possible way of actually knowing what 99% of the
people think about Evolution
Christendom has 2.4 billion and Theism has some 5 billion and
you do not know what some 5 billion people think about during
the days of their life.

Another Faith Based statement.
You don't know what the world's some 5 billion theists care about.
Plus we have the Worldwide Web --- and the Internet keeps the
subject of Evolution active and alive with thousands of articles
and videos -- so untold numbers of human beings in the world
DO think about Evolution.

So you do not know what you're talking about and you're making
Faith Based statements about what you, by faith, are claiming
99% of people know and think about.
You are a Man Of Faith

Your posted venom duly noted.

So YOU say.
I have no confidence in what you say.
You can practice your Religion Of Evolution and
I will practice my religion Of Christianity.

JAG Wrote:
"Help me to understand how astronomical numbers
plus infinity or "enough time" will inevitability produce life."___JAG

Honest Joe Replied:
"that is a ignorant oversimplification and not a claim any
professional actually makes"___Honest Joe

I do not believe you.
I do not believe you know what all the "professionals" have said
about astronomical numbers" plus infinity or "enough time"
will inevitability produce life.

JAG

 

I'm glad you asked. I wasn't sure, at 1st, if this wasn't just going to be a thread of Creationist philosophy dueling against Random Chance + Evolution, in which never the twain would meet. If you are genuinely interested in seeing these in combination, I can suggest a couple of places to look. For starters, you should familiarize yourself w/ the concept of pantheism. This word means, literally, "all-god," because the pantheistic concept is not of simply a Divine CREATOR of the universe but of a divine universe, itself. To the hisses of the,"strictly observable science," crowd, I ask one question: where did the material for the Big Bang come from? If you don't think a person should believe in things they can't explain, I guess you're out of the conversation here, because that's a prerequisite for literally EVERYTHING else, & that's one answer science doesn't have even an inkling of.

Now, there are many types of pantheists but the main difference between monotheism, which sees God as Transcendent (above Creation), and pantheism, is the belief in an Immanent Divine Presence, dwelling within the Creation. For many of the modern variety of pantheist this presence is the sum of the physical forces which have created & continue to govern the universe; hence, their view falls largely along scientific lines but is distinguished, due to equating the whole universe with god, by a reverence for creation, which is shared among all pantheists.

At the other end of the spectrum, Encyclopedia Britannica calls (or did, when I read the entry many years ago) pantheism the first religion. It was back at a time when humans found it easier to feel themselves as being part of nature, that separation seeming less distinct. I, personally, lean more in this direction, & see this way of perceiving God's spirit manifested in some Amerindian tribes, particularly those of the plains. And yet, like a species, or the universe itself, my sensibilities in this area continue to evolve.

It's actually too late (in my day) for me to add all that I'd intended right now. So, quickly: since anything that goes on in the universe, in this theology, is an action OF God, Itself, there is no conflict between any scientific process, like evolution, & any concept like Divine Will.

This brings us to the brilliant, early co-creator of the science of psychology, Carl Gustave Jung. Though a scientist, he had what I'd call, for lack of a better word, a mystical side as well. In his view-- & you can find this amongst his works-- he conceived of God also as inhabiting, & being able to physically manifest, in the universe; not in a singular form but as life itself, searching for a way to express Itself but not sure exactly how; in Jung's philosophy God was omnipotent, but not omniscient. So, here again is an answer that incorporates the concepts both of natural processes & Divine Inspiration, the body & the soul.

 

You commented on MORE than evolution.
WillReadMore Commented And Said:
"The part that I really don't get is how so many
Christians can use LIES as if it is argument.

If they are even slightly interested in the topic, they would know
PERFECTLY well how evolution works. And, for them to
suggest that they are ignorant of that (as demonstrated
by BS such as this monkey thing) is no better than insult."
___WRM

You're just a warm-hearted kind compassionate human being
that has no biases and prejudices against Christians. You never
insult Christians because you clearly love them and have respect
for them.

JAG

 

Yet again you show that you have no interest in educating yourself about evolution but merely wish to tell us how you feel about other posters and preach.

 

Isn't that the exact opposite of faith? They're not saying "This is the definitive truth that you must believe!", they're presenting the evidence and their interpretations of the most likely conclusions. The conditional language you refer to is because they remain open to further evidence or alternative interpretations that could build on or even contradict those conclusions.

It's opinion based on experience, just like everything you're posting. How does whether evolution is true or not impact most people's day to day lives? When was the last time you did anything because you don't accept evolutionary theory other than posting on these forums?

Sure, but even if hundreds of thousands of people read those articles, that would still be less that 0.1% of the world population.

And I don't believe any said that. If you're claiming they did, you can quote them so we can discuss exactly what they say rather than your indirect reporting.

Also, you ignored a key point that what you describe here would be about abiogenesis, not evolution. Do you understand the difference?

 

I don't know. Therefore, God did it. In logic this is called an argument from ignorance fallacy. And with respect to "Jesus and His Mission" it is back to the magic book. What is the "mission"? Would that be God sacrificing himself to himself to save me from rules he created?

If I commit a Federal crime I can be pardoned by the President. If I commit a State crime I can be pardoned by the Governor. But if I commit a crime against God's law, i.e., a sin, he cannot pardon me without sacrificing himself to himself and requiring me to believe this without any evidence. Yep. Makes perfect sense.

 

Science doesn't claim to know how life was created. Nature has given you a clear reason for being. To compete, survive, and propagate your DNA.

 

I look at it as Faith Based "iffy" language.
There are a significant number of Thread-Evolutionists that present Evolution
as scientific fact based on Empirical evidence. These are the one's that I say
practice their Faith Based Religion Of Evolution.

Regarding the Evolutionists that do not present Evolution as scientific fact
based on Empiricism, I do not say they hold Faith based Beliefs.

Then I am not saying they hold Faith Based Beliefs.

By the way, many Thread-Evolutionists DO say that Evolution is "the
definitive truth" that must be believed. We have one of them right here
in this thread. At least one -- and I betcha more of them show up later.
And there could be more of them already here in this thread?

Some do that.
Many of "their followers" and "disciples" present Evolution as a Religion
with the same fanatical religious zeal as a Pentecostal Preacher as they
present their Religion Of Evolution. They will insult you too -- if you
dare question their zealous Secular Faith Religion -- they will call
you ugly names and will call you a Lair and will imply that you are
an Ignorant Fool and worse. You're read it. You know it.

So then Evolution is NOT settled science.
I interpret what you wrote to mean that, on your lights, Evolution is not
settled science.
I have read many Thread-Evolutionists that assert that Evolution is
settled science with the same religious zeal as a Religious Fundamentalist,
and they will strongly insult you with severe ad hominem if you dare
challenge the "gospel" of their Religion Of Evolution.
You've read it.
You know it.

Evolution is based on "opinion based on experience."
I like that. I have no problem with putting it that way.

My opinions based on my experience, you say.
And you too, right?
Not just me, but you also.
Of course, I gladly admit that much of what I post is Faith Based Beliefs.
That's true for you too.
And everybody else as well.

All I said was this , ,
That is a Faith Based Statement.
You have no possible way of actually knowing what 99% of the
people think about Evolution

Again all I said was this , ,
That is a Faith Based Statement.
You have no possible way of actually knowing what 99% of the
people think about Evolution

You do not know that hundreds of millions do not read the articles and
watch the videos. You Tube has many videos that have hits in the
many millions.
You have no way of knowing what kind -- or what level -- of influence
those articles and videos have on those who click on them.

All I said was this , ,
I do not believe you know what all the "professionals" have said
about astronomical numbers" plus infinity or "enough time" will
inevitability produce life.

It has been said on these forums. I do not know if the "say'er" was a
"professional" or not --- and with regard to me quoting them, not
now. They may, or may not, show up later -- but it is common knowledge
that some Evolutionists claim that astronomical numbers plus infinity or
plus "enough time" will inevitability produce life.

I do understand the difference.
I ignored the point because I am primarily interested in seeing the Empirical
Evidence that scientifically demonstrates that astronomical numbers plus
infinity or plus "enough time" will inevitability produce life.

I will wait and see if anybody shows up in this thread that does claim that
there is Empirical Evidence that scientifically demonstrates that astronomical
numbers plus infinity or plus "enough time" will inevitability produce life.


JAG

 

Why do you want empirical evidence on something only you claim?

 

I would like for a creationist to explain vestigial organs. A deliberate error or a flawed design from a flawed designer?