Actually the monkey and typewriter analogy does not depend on errors ever being repeated. It depends on unimaginable numbers of monkeys and unimaginable amounts of time, and this is what the universe provides. There are more galaxies than human bings on earth and more star in each galaxy, etc. And that's just the known universe. So, any attempt to figure the odds of life evolving by chance are bunkum because the processes must be incredibly complex and so any small mistake in the input data into any computation of the odds could lead to a huge error in the output. I have no doubt that the odds are vanishingly small, but the universe and time are unimaginably vast, so any argument that says evolution is so improbable as to make it impossible without divine intervention are DOA.
The only thing to arise from pure randomness is chaos. This can and should become a science, but it has not because this is not something men want to know, just as there has been no science to determine the limits of human knowledge and perception. Each prefers to think of himself as limitless, especially compared to others, who all seem to be below.
tp: Actually the monkey and typewriter analogy does not depend on errors never being repeated.
jc: Actually it does, and since the advent of computers this has been something that can be tested and explored. Empirically the project would be to write a decryption algorithm which is purely random, allowing repetitions, and then watch to see how much order it creates, characterized over billions of calls. For instance you might find that you can generate words of three letters frequently, but far fewer words of four letters, and my guess would be no significant sentences at all no matter how long the process goes on. But you don’t have to take my word, write the program if you dare. I’d be interested too.
tp: It depends on unimaginable numbers of monkeys and unimaginable amounts of time, and this is what the universe provides.
jc: Here is what appears to be a scientific sentence, generated in defiance of all science. You don’t have to wave your hands, “unimaginable.” It may be unimaginable to your mind, but mathematicians may come later with theorems making it self-evident, so that it isn’t even necessary to test the hypothesis pure randomness creates nothing but chaos. Underneath this vague haze of objection lies a mind that does not really want the answer.
tp: There are more galaxies than human bings on earth and more star in each galaxy, etc. And that's just the known universe.
jc: So you have heard about big numbers, but here is where a science of randomness can step in to explore the depths of the various infinities. There are big infinities and small infinities, for instance the infinity of decimal numbers is larger than the infinity of integers. But when you allow repetition in a decryption algorithm, the infinities explode.
tp: So, any attempt to figure the odds of life evolving by chance are bunkum because the processes must be incredibly complex and so any small mistake in the input data into any computation of the odds could lead to a huge error in the output.
jc: This is not a scientist speaking, but a superstitious man unmindful of science’ potential. When a serious science of randomness appears, they’ll find this a bit silly.
tp: I have no doubt that the odds are vanishingly small, but the universe and time are unimaginably vast, so any argument that says evolution is so improbable as to make it impossible without divine intervention are DOA.
jc: You’re trumpeting the limitations of your own mind very loudly. Perhaps all are this way. Yet I suspect there is hostility underneath your assertions that you “can’t imagine it.” The truth is you don’t want to imagine it. This is the roadblock the Intelligent Design crew has been facing, though they could be said to have begun a science of randomness. I guess practically, this science will put a rational face on these “opposing unimaginables.”
