JGC: "But here’s the same thought experiment I offered with respect to the random condensation of 570-plus amino acids forming hemoglobin. Assume the works of Shakespeare consist of N number of characters and spaces. Sit a monkey down at a typewriter and wait until he’s randomly typed N characters and spaces one time. You won’t be surprised to find he hasn’t typed the works of Shakespeare, right?

But what were the odds he’d have randomly typed the N characters and spaces he did type? Exactly the same as the odds he would have randomly typed Shakespeare. By your argument it should have been impossible for him to type this instead. By your own argument from improbability we must logically conclude it was equally impossible for the monkey to have generated THAT string of characters and spaces of N length--in fact to generate any random sequence of length N. (“It [could not]. Ever. Not quickly. Not slowly.”)

=============

CALIFORNIADREAMIN RESPONDS:

I couldn't possibly make this stuff up.

No, JGC, a well-educated person, seems to believe that

"randomly typed" sequences and Shakespeare's sonnets are "equally impossible" for monkeys to type.

Here's a thought experiment:

Put up two tents at a carnival.

Sell tickets to the events inside.

Tent A has a monkey "randomly typing" out gibberish.

Tent B has a monkey typing perfect sonnets of Shakespeare's works.

Which tent, A or B, would attract more people, and why?

Imagine the JGCs in Tent A:

"Wow, look at that! The monkey just typed out mdghe45=1j [haQn asdfvdv,"

Can you even BELIEVE IT! ! ! ! IT MUST BE MAGIC. THERE'S SOMETHING VERY, VERY TRICKY GOING ON.

There's monkeys in both tents? They'll both sell out immediately. Everyone loves monkeys, they're just so cute!

But they fling... well, you know.

Either tent would attract more people if it contained strippers and/or beer.

...except for the evil monkey that lives in my closet...

Wow! Where are these tents anyway!! I gotta take my son to see that!

Obviously CD doesn't understand probability and randomness.

I just want to go to the carnival.

Is there cotton candy? and rides?

:-(

But later they are going to throw CD into the cages with the monkeys and that ought to be fun!

You know, maybe monkeys have been typing CD's posts all this time! Well, it's something to consider, isn't it?

The core problem here is the word "random". Just because one part of it is random doesn't mean the entire result is. As a whole it isn't random because the weak die and the strong survive.

Take our monkey example. They all hit the first letter (i.e. one generation). We (i.e. mother nature) then kill the monkey's who made a mistake. Then we duplicate the survivors and their work to continue.

This is going to get something readable pretty quickly.

This is going to get something readable pretty quickly.

Yeah, but it won't be Shakespeare. Michael Crichton at best.

Wrenn:

But they fling... well, you know.

They fling the same thing CA flings in every post.

I thing that is how we DID end up with Michael Crhchton, isn't it?

DBuss:

The core problem here is the word "random". Just because one part of it is random doesn't mean the entire result is. As a whole it isn't random because the weak die and the strong survive.

Take our monkey example. They all hit the first letter (i.e. one generation). We (i.e. mother nature) then kill the monkey's who made a mistake. Then we duplicate the survivors and their work to continue.

This is going to get something readable pretty quickly.

This is roughly the point that Dawkins made in The Blind Watchmaker, the effect of cumulative selection. Dawkins illustrated the point with a computer program that 'bred' from random text, selecting for a snippet of Shakespeare. However, I wouldn't be surprised if CD takes you literally, DBuss, in order to claim that your scenario wouldn't work.

At this point, since we've provided the quotes in context as well as an online pdf of the entire book, we may rightly assume that CD intentionally lies about it in order to continue to use his debunked argument.

For this reason I heartily support the mockery. :) Although I suspect JGC will stop by and be perfectly patient and reasonable, and we will look silly for just making fun. I'm ok with that.

dumb_blonde:

Wrenn:

But they fling... well, you know.

They fling the same thing CA flings in every post.

Maybe he's one of the monkeys. I'd for sure go to see that.

That would be preferable to what's been flung around here lately!

And at least we know monkeys look cute when they're flinging stuff.