to be or

[Tiberius]

Then it's guided?

Not in the sense that there's an outside agency directing it towards a particular conclusion, no.

From your challenge:

Sounds random to me.

But the OUTCOME isn't random, is it? And that's the whole point.

Evolution is the outcome of natural selection. The input (the various variations and mutations that occur) are random, but natural selection and evolution are NOT random. Natural selection isn't as likely to pick a harmful variation as it is a beneficial one.

 

[Golden Yak]

Offer them peanuts if they do it right and they'll pull it off:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cKg9D4QKCM

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution is the outcome of natural selection. The input (the various variations and mutations that occur) are random, but natural selection and evolution are NOT random. Natural selection isn't as likely to pick a harmful variation as it is a beneficial one.

You're portraying evolution as a process that has the right ingredients in the right place at the right time, self filtering, and being guided by some internal force.

My op, on the other hand, shows evolution (or more appropriately, abiogenesis) as mathematically improbable, if not downright impossible.

 

[CabVet]

You're portraying evolution as a process that has the right ingredients in the right place at the right time, self filtering, and being guided by some internal force.

My op, on the other hand, shows evolution (or more appropriately, abiogenesis) as mathematically improbable, if not downright impossible.

That's because your OP is not an analogy to evolution.

 

[SkyWriting]

to be or
That simple phrase requires eight taps on a keyboard, in the proper order:
[/LIST]
Let's put a monkey in a room with a typewriter with only five keys:
The chances of that monkey hitting the "t" is 1-in-5, then the "o" would be (1-in-5) x (1-in-5), or 1-in-25, or 1-in-5[sup]2[/sup].
His chance of typing "to be or" is 1-in-25[sup]8[/sup].
Picture him now with a standard qwerty keyboard, and I hope you get the idea that evolution can take a hike.

You are failing to take into account that monkeys get bored.
Typewriters fail after a certain amount of time.
They run out of ink.
Monkeys die of old age.
So your analogy is off.
Nothing would keep the monkeys at the task for more than an hour.

Oh and random chemicals don't stay on task either.
Conditions change for them as well.
That's why Earth has the only life there is. With a reason why.

 

[Tiberius]

You're portraying evolution as a process that has the right ingredients in the right place at the right time, self filtering, and being guided by some internal force.

Evolution takes what is already there. It arranges them in many different ways, some of them good, some of them bad. The bad ways don't last and the good ways do last.

Seriously, it's not that hard.

My op, on the other hand, shows evolution (or more appropriately, abiogenesis) as mathematically improbable, if not downright impossible.

Your analogy does not accurately describe evolution though.

 

[Golden Yak]

Oh and random chemicals don't stay on task either.

Are you saying that if you mix vinegar and baking soda together enough times, eventually there won't be any reaction because they've gotten bored with one another?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

to be or

That simple phrase requires eight taps on a keyboard, in the proper order:

1. t
2. o
3. space
4. b
5. e
6. space
7. o
8. r

Let's put a monkey in a room with a typewriter with only five keys:

1. t
2. o
3. b
4. e
5. space

The chances of that monkey hitting the "t" is 1-in-5, then the "o" would be (1-in-5) x (1-in-5), or 1-in-25, or 1-in-5[sup]2[/sup].

For that to be even close to an analogy for evolution (and ignoring the lack of an "r" key) the scenario would be:

1. Chances of hitting "t" = 1-in-5. Mutation selected and passed on.
2. "t" mutation already exists. Chances of hitting "o" = 1-in-5. Mutation selected and passed on.
3. "t" and "o" mutations already exist. Chances of hitting "space" = 1-in-5. Mutation selected and passed on.
etc etc

Evolution is not 7 mutations happening simultaneously. In this case it is 7 mutations happening sequentially with each mutation only happening after the previous one has been selected and passed on.

His chance of typing "to be or" is 1-in-25[sup]8[/sup].

Nope, the chances for each one happening is 1-in-5. There is no mathematical reliance on previous mutations.

Your analogy would require 7 keyboards to be lined up side-by-side and the monkey to hit one key on each keyboard simultaneously with specific keys hit in order from left to right. But that's not how evolution works.

Picture him now with a standard qwerty keyboard, and I hope you get the idea that evolution can take a hike.

You've just put the chances for each event out to about 1-in-60 - which is still pretty good odds.

 

[AV1611VET]

You are failing to take into account that monkeys get bored.
Typewriters fail after a certain amount of time.
They run out of ink.
Monkeys die of old age.
So your analogy is off.
Nothing would keep the monkeys at the task for more than an hour.

Oh and random chemicals don't stay on task either.
Conditions change for them as well.
That's why Earth has the only life there is. With a reason why.

 

[46AND2]

You are failing to take into account that monkeys get bored.
Typewriters fail after a certain amount of time.
They run out of ink.
Monkeys die of old age.
So your analogy is off.
Nothing would keep the monkeys at the task for more than an hour.

Oh and random chemicals don't stay on task either.
Conditions change for them as well.
That's why Earth has the only life there is. With a reason why.

He's also failing to take into account that abiogenesis (since that is what he's really arguing against) is not limited to solitary sequential trials.

If there are 25[sup]8[/sup] monkeys attempting to accomplish the task instead of one trying over and over, suddenly the odds don't seem quite so long.

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

This analogy fails because there is no element of selection going on. Mutation is random, yes, but selection is not. So in order to adjust the OP, there needs to be selection. So if the monkey hits an incorrect letter, he gets slapped. Or if the monkey hits a correct letter, he gets a reward. Either way, there must be a selective force shaping the chaos.

A better analogy is rolling a yahtzee. It's hard to do in one roll, but if you keep every 6 you roll, it's pretty easy in a few turns to end up with all 6s.