Starboy

Keith it is basic probability. If the number of characters in the LPB is X and each character can be one of m possible characters then it is pure combinatorics. The total number of combinations would be m to the X power. One of those combinations will be the London phone book. If all other combinations are equally probable then the chances are 1 / total number of combinations. If the monkey types enough characters randomly then given enough time, one could find a contiguous subset of all the characters typed of length X that matched the London phone book.

Starboy

Keith

In that case, we should expect the range of complexity found in life forms to conform to the normal (bell-shaped) distribution. Right?

Keith

Keith

Now let's throw in some further conditions to make the monkey experiment more closely resemble the way evolution works. Let's say that instead of one long-living monkey doing the project (writing the LPB), we require 300 monkeys to type specific and equal portions of the LPB, and they must do it on the same exact schedule. No one monkey is allowed to get ahead or behind the other monkeys. How much more improbable would that be?

Keith

Starboy

You lost me Keith. How is this the way evolution works?

excreationist

Natural selection doesn't require an intelligent being there choosing what to do. If an intelligent being is involved it is very wasteful since it is producing lots of evolutionary "dead-ends" that become extinct and diseases/parasites that work against us.

I never said that nature has a "purpose" (or goal).

Keith

Let's say that some creature needs, or will some day need, exceptional hearing ability in order to survive. It needs an ear (or maybe two) that can hear 100 times better than a human (bat like?). But unfortunately, the ear that the creature is trying to develop consists of 300 different anatomical structures, all of which are necessary for the ear to be useful. If any one of these necessary ear structures doesn't form both correctly AND at just the right pace with all the other ear parts, the creature is not going hear anything, and it will not survive.

The first problem is how does an animal (or nature) know IN ADVANCE what kinds of organs to start developing or perfecting for its future evolutionary needs, and secondly, how does "nature" orchestrate all of the necessary design, development, and refinement processes in all 300 parts, without some intelligent and purposeful guidence of some kind.

Keith

Starboy

Keith, you’re kidding right? I think you need to study up on evolution. You are way off the mark.

A better way to understand adaptation is to realize that for a given species, not every creature alive of that species is identical to all other members. There are random differences in height, weight, body build, hair color, webbed toes, and on and on. If the environment changes, those creatures that have traits that are beneficial to surviving the change in environment will have an improved chance of surviving and passing on their traits to the next generation. Now this is the important thing to understand. Life adapts to the environment, the environment does not adapt to life, so if all creatures were blind but the environment changed so that there was an advantage to be had by being able to detect light, then those creatures that could sense heat or some other form of radiation on their surface would be more likely to survive and pass this adaptation on to the next generation. The next generation might have a mutation that improved on it and on and on, generation after generation for billions of years.....

Another thing to remember, if the environmental change is too great or by bad luck there was not enough variation in the species that could be selected to adapt to the environmental change well then that species is just shit out of luck and will be place on the scrap heap of history, where over 99% of all the species that ever existed reside.

So nature didn't set out to make an eye, creatures adapted to their environment by detecting light. Those creatures with traits that improved on the ability survived better than those that did not. Each small change over each generation conferred a small improvement towards their ability to compete and survive, resulting in what we know as a human eye.

Conversely those traits that did not confer any advantage would atrophy, such as webbed toes and full body hair. But from time to time they crop up in individuals. This means that if the environment were to change to favor those traits they would be preferentially passed on to the next generation.

Starboy

Theli

But then you are talking cause, not purpose. A big difference there.
I wouldn't say that someone or something must have wanted the rock to fall from the cliff, or that the rock would possess "wants" and wishes itself.

Batman

First of all, neither an animal nor nature know anything in advance. Secondly, the reason certain traits are selected for is that they aid in the survival of the species. Traits that disappear are those that harm the chances of survival. There is no plan, no intelligent purpose. Something is selected because it helps, even complex organs.

Keith

I agree. But I would add that sometimes causes suggest a purpose. If my ears, eyes, and nose all have a series of causes, when taken together this suggests that the series of causes is purposeful rather than random and chance-driven.

Keith