Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Infinite monkey theorem and creation 2016-05-03 19:03:50 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Infinite monkey theorem and creation 2016-05-03 19:03:50 Post No.
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 27ab945255f5b36ed46ba7e05fe3ed15.jpg (94KB, 680x382px) Image search:
[Google]
94KB, 680x382px
The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.
This correlates with how creation began as random mutations that formed life by pure chance.
The relevance of the theorem is questionable—the probability of a universe full of monkeys typing a complete work such as Shakespeare's Hamlet is so tiny that the chance of it occurring during a period of time hundreds of thousands of orders of magnitude longer than the age of the universe is extremely low (but technically not zero).
Though if there are infinite universes being birthed then the chance should be 100% chance right? I am not so sure.
It is incredibly odd that monkey's will type the complete works of Shakespeare and then devolve back into typing complete nonsense after that.
This also relates to the "Junkyard tornado." which is an argument used to deride the probability of both abiogenesis and the evolution of higher lifeforms as comparable to "the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747. The odds are so low it's completely insane.
Let's take out the fact that there might be an old man in the clouds that have created us. I think this can't be the case, but I am lead to suspect that it is possible the universe could be intelligent, and that life doesn't just appear randomly. However, within infinite time anything seems possible.
What do you make of this?
>>
>>1082048
That's assuming that it's as likely for life to arise as the monkey's typing out all of Shakespeare. It isn't. Life is far more likely.
Abiogenesis is still stupid as hell, but it's definitely more likely than all of hamlet being typed by a monkey pressing keys at random.
>>
>>1082071
Hell, life is probably more likely to arise from non-life in the correct environment than a monkey typing the two paragraphs in the post I quoted.
>>
OP you just dont understand probability
>>
The monkeys hitting a typewriter are presumed to be doing so completely randomly. Life and evolution isn't really like that due to selective pressures, although chance does have a role in it. You shouldn't be thinking of it as "monkey has to randomly write the entirety of hamlet in one go", you should be thinking of it as "monkey has to write a word, then a sentence, then a paragraph, and the more it's like shakespeare the more successful it is" and so on. It's something that intelligent design proponents tend to do, by taking something complicated like an eye and saying that there's no way something like that could randomly arise in nature, ignoring the whole buildup towards that point from single light sensitive neurons or cells towards gradually more complex structures. Plus, all the evolutionary dead ends and random chance that happened over hundreds of millions of years before you got a functional complex organ to arise.
>>
>>1082143
Yeah, that's not how abiogenesis is, which is what OP is addressing, shitlord. Abiogenesis is literally chance.
>>
>>1082172
Eh, I saw "evolution of higher lifeforms" and went on from there. Maybe we'll have a better idea of how likely abiogenesis is if we discover life elsewhere in the universe.
>>
>>1082048
>that pic
Monkeys =/= apes
when will people get this?
>>
File: joe-friday-just-the-facts.png (61KB, 250x188px)
61KB, 250x188px
a monkey already did
his name was William Shakespeare
gawd, stop overthinking it
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2