Beleg_Strongbow

Yes, that is what I meant. Some people think evolution is purely random, like a creature without eyes giving birth to a creature with fully fuctional eyes, or, like a monkey typing out a great novel just by chance. But in my analogy, a random mutation occurs. If it works (makes sense) it is kept (the animal lives) if it doesn't make sense, it is deleted (the animal died)

Wounded King

Wow Beleg, you are really harsh on your monkey typists, killing them for on teeny tiny mistake.

*shoots monkey typist for missing out an e*

gcameron

Methinks it looks like a weasel.

Beleg_Strongbow

Wounded King, I don't know what you're talking about. The monkeys are allowed to live no matter how many mistakes they make. Free food provided.

Wounded King

It takes an art student to actually try it though.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,58790,00.html

Jan Haugland

Actually, the Shakespeare/monkeys/typewriter analogy explains the theory of large numbers, but doesn't really apply very well to anything in evolution.

I suspect the misunderstanding arouse because evolution was thought to be about monkeys somehow (ie "monkey trial").

Wasn't it Huxley who used the analogy first? In what context?


- Jan

...who rants and raves every day at Secular Blasphemy

Lobstrosity

Now that is hilarious!

The Lone Ranger

From the article:
The odd thing is that the monkeys' output bore a striking resemblance to the writings of Hovind. Go figure.

-- Michael

omarsright

I think there is some value in the analogy defined by the original poster but more illustrative of artificial than natural selection.

It could be seen as analogous to the processes that breeders of domestic dogs have employed to achieve something dachsund or St Bernard like from the wolflike ancestors over a comparitively short historical time.

When they breed a dog that looks more like what they are trying to achieve they permit it to continue to breed and pass on the genes that give it its particular characteristics. Less suitable individuals don't get to breed.

Same with the typed output - if it makes sense keep it (let it breed) if it doesn't - delete it.

I think its value is that it illustrates simply that the evolution is potentially massively accelerated if it is directed by some mechanism - in this case selection for fitness. The environment doing the selection in this case is the editor who decides if the output makes sense or not.

scombrid

Ah yes, as I was passing through the Greenville/Spartanburg area Sunday on my way home from a regatta at Lake Lanier there was some talk show putting this study out as proof against evilution.