in reply to RE: RE (tilly) 1: Be a monkey!
in thread Be a monkey!

(Two other papers that might be of interest are "The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare" and "More Monkey Business".)

Note that the argument against evolution presented in this last document is wrong. The chance that a work shakespeare is generated randomly is indeed almost zero. However it is rather easy to evolve a work of shakespeare, provided there is a way to select the works that look more like shakespear from works that look less then shakespeare.

Have Fun

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: RE: RE (tilly) 1: Be a monkey!
by mischief (Hermit) on Aug 31, 2000 at 20:19 UTC

    I think you've missed the point of the essay - the fact that we are part of a system that is able to evolve is the remarkable thing.

[reply]

      Could be. But he seems to claim that he can't understand how even the simplest organism springs into life. However all that that needs it any kind 'thing' (idea/molecule) that can replicate and some form of selective process. Out of that complex things will evolve. Be it novels or organisms. But this is getting way off topic for a perl discussion group! :) (email fslothouber@acm.org if you like to discuss this further).

      Have Fun

[reply]
RE (tilly) 4: Be a monkey!
by tilly (Archbishop) on Aug 31, 2000 at 22:21 UTC
    Is it a surprise that the argument is wrong?

    I spent a few years on alt.atheism and friends, and without exception every last argument I saw against evolution showed some basic misunderstanding of biology, general science, math, or a combination of the above.

    I used to have a great essay, A Priori vs A Posteriori (or something like that) on alt.atheism I pointed people at for most of the statistical arguments. I used the copy on dejanews, but they are fubarred at the moment. If anyone can find it I would appreciate it.

    And yes, this is seriously OT for this site. Anyone with an interest in this should go to talk.origins and hash it out there. Or visit their website and learn some of the basics.

    EDIT
    A friend of mine just found it for me. Here is a copy. :-)

    Basically after a lot of math, the point is that the argument by design will only be convincing to people who already have some belief in God...

[reply]

In Section Meditations