It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Maslo
I want to point out that infinite monkey theorem is NOT how evolution works. It only shows how random mutation might work but is missing the other important side of the coin - natural selection.
How many strokes are needed to write Hamlet using "evolutionary enhanced monkey theorem" ?
The text of Hamlet contains 130 000 letters.
There are 26 letters in the alphabet (ignoring punctuation).
The monkey randomly types letters, incorrect letters "go extinct", but when it types the right letter, it stays written and the monkey moves to the next letter - simplified natural selection mechanism.
26 times 130 000 = 3 380 000 strokes!
And this is the worst case scenario, because mean probability of writing a correct letter is after 13 strokes, so divide it by two. This is not so implausible, isnt it?
Look at this, quite fascinating... vlab.infotech.monash.edu.au...
[edit on 8-9-2009 by Maslo]
The monkey randomly types letters, incorrect letters "go extinct", but when it types the right letter, it stays written and the monkey moves to the next letter - simplified natural selection mechanism.
Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
Originally posted by Maslo
The monkey randomly types letters, incorrect letters "go extinct", but when it types the right letter, it stays written and the monkey moves to the next letter - simplified natural selection mechanism.
This would require an outside intelligence to create a program that could identify when a correct letter/punctuation was typed. If not then we are giving the monkey an intelligence it doesn't have, agreed?
Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
Hello,
My point in that is the wording of the argument. If we are speaking of "infinite" then would it not mean that the monkey is typing forever? If so then why use the word "time" which indicates a period of time?
Also if a monkey is outside of time and space, which I believe would be required for the monkey to type for and "infinite amount of time" (I base that on the average life span of a money vs a monkey that is eternal) then could anything ever really be "completed", such as a book?
So we must first have a monkey that is eternal in order for him to type without end on an eternal typewriter with a never ending supply of paper, ribbon and ink. So to show the possibility of this complex universe just happening and that there is no need for an eternal being such as God to be the cause of it a theorem is created using an eternal monkey to demonstrate it?
Originally posted by Maslo
Originally posted by TangoVooDoo
Originally posted by Maslo
The monkey randomly types letters, incorrect letters "go extinct", but when it types the right letter, it stays written and the monkey moves to the next letter - simplified natural selection mechanism.
This would require an outside intelligence to create a program that could identify when a correct letter/punctuation was typed. If not then we are giving the monkey an intelligence it doesn't have, agreed?
In the monkey theorem, yes It would require outside intelligence. But as I wrote, in evolution the natural selection is accomplished by the environment conditions (survival of the fittest), not by any outside intelligence..
Originally posted by Maslo
Hi,
well, I dont think it is the wording that is so important, but the concept behind it is. The point of the whole theorem is that random data generators can, given enough time, replicate for example Hamlet. As the running time and number of generators approaches infinity, the probability approaches one. And yes, it substitutes intelligence with brute force and long time.
well, I dont think it is the wording that is so important, but the concept behind it is. The point of the whole theorem is that random data generators can, given enough time, replicate for example Hamlet.
Originally posted by malcolm420
this may not pertain exacally to this subject but i have a theory of existance and i need some open minded peoples thoughts on it:
everything is nothing and nothing is everything just like a thought or memory can hold colors, textures, and even smells. everything we know in existance is just an echo of a thought and every thought we have is just amplifying the echo that is our existance while possibly creating new echos of existances. like they say god always was and always will be and is inside of everyone just like nothing always was and always will be and is inside everyone (if this is correct). the nothing is everything and something in itself, it may be a creation of a higher power or god himself.
Originally posted by OldThinker
1) Thoughts on the video?
2) Thoughts on Newton’s quotes?
3) Thoughts on freedom of thought?
4) Thoughts on the banning of creationists?
[edit on 17-8-2009 by OldThinker]
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Creationism is not a scientific theory, that is why it cannot be taught. It makes no predictions, has no level of testability whatsoever, and doesn't really explain anything.
I've provided a thread where people can try to prove creationism, nobody seems to have even bothered. Why? Well, there's no proof, no evidence whatsoever. The closest they get is by trying and failing to poke holes in evolution.