Monkey Math
Monkey MathRefers to TheFamousBrettWatson's famous constrained rant, "The Mathematics of Monkeys and Shakespeare" (http://www.nutters.org/monkeys.html), and its sequel, "More Monkey Business" (http://www.nutters.org/more-monkeys.html). The former was cited in RFC 2795 (http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2795.txt), "The Infinite Monkey Protocol Suite (IMPS)".
My favorite quote: "In short, molecular biology has a lot of explaining to do."
A classic example of a StrawMan. Watson implies that evolutionists claim that the complex organisms we see about us came about by pure, blind chance; he then (surprise) proceeds to knock down that claim on perfectly fair grounds. But he misrepresents the claim: evolution involves two forces, random mutation, and non-random selection. The latter is the driving force in shaping species; detailed accounts of the mechanism are given in RichardDawkins' and StephenJayGould's works.
The Watson article is a lot of fun, to be sure. Just don't base your life philosophy on it. ;) Molecular biology has done a lot more explaining, to date, than given credit for.
Laurent, I'm genuinely interested in some references as far as the explanations go. I have yet to see something that convinces me. I have been shown examples of microevolution but never macroevolution. It seems to me that since no-one that I know of has seen macroevolution, all we can do is postulate.
But don't worry, I don't spend lots of time contemplating monkeys. I was this pigheaded before ;-)
Dunno; I only know about one kind of evolution, you'd have to explain what difference you make between micro and macro. The works alluded to above explain among other things how you get from, say, an organism such as a bacterium to, say, an organism like an elephant, in a continuous series of very small changes; is that relevant to the question? -- LaurentBossavit
I think macroevolution is generally related to the emergence of 'new' features, such as eyes. Microevolution is considered to consist of shuffling existing features around (The classic PepperedMoth example). It allows people to dismiss the emergence of new breeds of animal as unimportant to the debate and to focus on the more important (i.e. harder to test) aspects of the debate. Speciation is also used as a differentiator. -- TomAyerst
Ok, we have it. Speciation *HAS* been observed in the lab - fruit flies. And in nature - some variety of flower, I believe. Refer to the talk.origins archives for details
OK. Then my answer is that "macroevolution" (e.g. the eye) is just a summing up of "microevolution" (mutations affecting one single gene) over long periods of time, in the neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. -- LaurentBossavit
As the author of the referenced work, I must protest at LaurentBossavit's characterization of my work as a StrawMan. Ironically, I took pains to make sure that nobody would mistake my argument as a comprehensive disproof of the evolutionary mechanism in the way that Laurent has here. Consider the following quote from "More Monkey Business" [2].
Dawkin's argument is, among those addressing the 'primordial life' problem, the most convincingly put I have read. I won't do it justice here, but to paraphrase grossly: the only thing that needs an explanation is how the very first "replicator" came to exist. A replicator is any construct, natural or artificial, that happens to make copies of itself (complete with the ability to in turn make copies of themselves).
Once the first replicator arises, Darwinian theory predicts that it can only get better and better at making copies of itself, because if any copy is different in that respect from the original, the copy that is better at making copies will become predominant in the population, and ultimately displace the less successful copy because, due to competition for resources, only a limited number of replicator 'variants' can exist at any time.
The initial replicator need not be a cell, it need not use DNA as its primary mechanism for replication; if DNA is a 'better' mechanism for replication, and if there is a series of 'unitary' variations from the original replicator to a DNA-based replicator such that every variation improves the reproductive success of the replicator using it, then Darwinian theory predicts that evolution will favor DNA-based replicators.
Thus, attacking the notion that a viable DNA-based cell can arise by pure chance is a StrawMan argument, albeit a more subtle one. What we can debate using MonkeyMath is how likely or unlikely it is that, given however billion tonnes of inorganic material were floating around at the dawn of time, some kind of replicator - any kind - arose by pure chance.
Until a short while ago, the only kind of replicator we knew was the DNA-based kind, which is frightfully complex. Nowadays, one might possibly argue that computer viruses give us a better insight into how simple a replicator could be and still spread itself; more generally, computer models are likely to help in forming a better understanding of replicators.
In a future essay, I intend to take issue with natural selection from a mathematical standpoint, performing a mathematical analysis of the interaction between the random and deterministic processes. My preliminary investigation of this to date suggests that the balance between random and deterministic components must be extremely finely tuned, much as the various cosmological constants must be finely tuned in order for the universe to maintain an "interesting" state (a fact that creationists attribute to intelligent design and philosophical naturalists usually ascribe to some form of AnthropicPrinciple).
This future essay will deal with the mathematics of RichardDawkins' "Methinks it is like a weasel" computer simulation as a base. If anyone can point me at other attempts to explain natural selection in precise mathematical terms, then I'm interested in hearing about it. The hardest part of criticising evolution is getting proponents of the theory to be sufficiently precise and clear that their claims can be subjected to scrutiny. Evolution is, after all, supposed to be unlike creation in that it is scientific. If you know of works that you believe should be brought to my attention, then please email famous@nutters.org with details.
The quotation above appears to me to do a bit of weaseling.
I suspect that continued ranting here on my part would be poor form in terms of appropriate use of Wiki, so this entry will be my last contribution. On top of which I am most provoked by LaurentBossavit's continued assertion that I am attacking a StrawMan...
Not just *my* assertion. Both Tom and Gareth above have spotted the same fallacy. Please accept criticism of your argument (which does *not* imply dishonesty or incompetence, as it is all too easy to utter fallacies without meaning to) as just that, criticism, not a personal attack. We should not resort to AdHominem arguments any more than to StrawMan arguments. -- LaurentBossavit
...and thus by implication either intellectually dishonest or incompetent, and it does not pay to argue when offended. I maintain that my argument is entirely fair, and that it is downright impossible to construct a comprehensive argument against evolution because of it's hydra-like tendency to grow new heads as the old ones are cut off. I am satisfied to have, at least, demonstrated clearly that "chance" is not a source to which science may appeal for answers.
To LaurentBossavit's other points, I would say that the primary subject of my essay was that of attempting to generate useful information by random means, and it's thus unfair to claim that my focus on mutation is misleading. I get the impression that the only way I could avoid a charge of "misleading" on your part is by saying, "this demonstrates that evolution works not by random processes, but by deterministic laws of nature," or words to that effect.
That would be a fair statement; or rather, you could say, if evolution works at all, then it cannot rely on purely random processes to generate the complexity we observe. My own position is that it does not; it primarily relies on selection, with randomness providing some material for selection to work on, and putatively providing the very first replicator out of non-replicating, non-living matter. -- LaurentBossavit
I concede that your formula for life, based upon "a series of 'unitary' variations from the original replicator" would work if it were true, but I am not willing to grant you the major assumption that such a path actually exists. I have taken as my target organism the simplest known organism which is actually capable of self-reproduction and demonstrated that its order of complexity is well beyond that which can arise by chance.
I beg to differ; your calculation seems to assume a DNA-based replicator, which need not be assumed; neither do we need to assume that a path of graded variation exists from the initial replicator to a DNA-based one.
I do not have to show that our world evolved from a certain kind of initial replicator; I merely have to show that a world as complex as ours could have evolved if we take for granted the single assumption that some arbitrarily simple replicator may arise by chance. If this simple explanation can account for an arbitrary world, then it might account for ours; that does not prove that our world necessarily followed the same path, it still might have been created fully formed by an omnipotent deity, but OccamsRazor tells us that we should favor the hypothesis that requires the least amount of assumptions.
If you grant the initial replicator, Darwinian theory shows how it might give rise to complex organisms, DNA-based or otherwise. If you do not, then I concede that you have to posit a Creator. I maintain that a non-DNA replicator could arise by chance, and challenge your calculations on the grounds that they address DNA-based ones, which probably are the result of evolutionary processes.
You're telling me that certain molecules are capable of some kind of self-reproduction, and thus I should believe that there is an evolutionary chain from these molecules through to DNA-based cellular life. But where is your evidence? What facts do you provide for me to criticize? How can I tell whether your great chain of being is mathematically and physically feasible if it is only a metaphysical notion? It is very hard for me to construct concrete arguments against such vague and hazy ideas, and accusing me of attacking straw men helps not one jot.
Facts such as the one Tom quotes above: recent research into precisely such issues. Such research has neither proved nor disproved the conjecture (that simple replicators are simple enough to arise by chance) but seems to favor it. As far as the logic goes, if you believe that a simple molecule can replicate, its further evolution no longer relies on random processes, and the MonkeyMath argument no longer applies; hence, the MonkeyMath argument should only be applied to the simplest possible replicator. -- LaurentBossavit
To GarethMcCaughan's comment, I would say in the first instance that you read too much into my statement. In the second instance, I maintain that criticizing the feasibility of Mycoplasma Genitalium (or a cell of its complexity) arising by chance is quite reasonable, since it has not been demonstrated that any simpler cellular organism can self-reproduce. Even if I grant that there are particular compounds which are capable of a form of self-reproduction, I'm not willing to fill in the gap between the most complex known self-reproducing compound and the simplest known self-reproducing cell with the necessary billions of intermediate forms by sheer undiluted imagination. This is precisely what I mean when I say that molecular biology has a lot of explaining to do. The gap here is not small: it is literally hundreds of orders of magnitude.
Well, as a professional molecular biologist who also owns a gecko (truly an amazing creature), I guess I can chime in here. Molecular biologists in general (from what I've seen) don't accept the burden of explaining your arguments because we don't really care what the outcome of the debate is. We assume that the relationships between organisms, at the molecular level typically of protein structure, are evolutionary in nature. However, for our purposes, if those relationships were creationary in nature, that's also fine. To put it another way, it is enough to be able to see that there are molecular relationships between species... it doesn't particularly matter why those relationships exist. A concrete example: a mouse is found which is genetically predisposed towards obesity. We (molecular biologists) are able to identify the gene which was mutated to cause this condition. We then assume (via evolutionary arguments) that a similar gene with similar effects probably exists in humans. More often than not, this supposition has proven to be correct. In this way, the evolutionary arguments are a useful tool for us. Creationary arguments that lead to similarly useful conclusions would be perfectly acceptable too. Most of the people I know are mostly convinced that evolution is the (an?) explanation for the relatedness of species at the molecular level, but we don't get all that worked up over it. -- AndyPierce
What seems not to add up to me is that Creationists don't go to great lengths to embrace the Big Bang + evolution as one of a host of equally plausible starting points for a "Created" Universe. The idea of a God powerful enough to Create the Universe in a fully-formed state, but not able to create the whole thing from the Big Bang without further intervention, seems incongruous at best: like an odd point for a Gap in one's Faith. It seems the essence of a Creationist viewpoint is you don't have to do the MonkeyMath, because with God All Things Are Possible. So probabilities don't enter into it: and to engage in such speculation would be to set limits on the reach of the power of God. Creationism should obviate the need for probabilities and liklihoods: it offers a complete end run around the problem. -- BillKelly
An interesting thought; in fact, my wife used to subscribe to the theory of creation-through-evolution (I believe many do out there). The spectrum is pretty wide. It is certainly true that a creator could choose to create his universe by giving evolution the push here or there it needs to defeat the improbability factor. However, one must also then suppose that said creator, in the book that he is said to have inspired, is flat-out lying in the first chapter. -- MattBehrens
On the other hand, if you take the creationist view then the aforementioned creator was doing something akin to flat-out lying by making the universe look as if it's terribly old and as if evolution has happened. The problem is that the most obvious reading of the book of Genesis and the most obvious (given the relevant knowledge) reading of the book of nature conflict. -- GarethMcCaughan
The Judeo-Christian bible is full of symbolism. Very few serious theologians believe that any given time period is necessarily exact. If a Christian believes that time holds no meaning for God (can't find the reference for this right now), it is then not a stretch to say that the seven days of creation are symbolic rather than literal. The order in which the creation is said to have taken place is similar to the order in which the fossil record has been found, as well. -- MattBehrens
"Only "similar to"?
Seems to me that "religion has a lot more explaining to do" than evolution does. Providing a shorter answer doesn't make it any more correct. What I get mostly from the creationists is "'cause the Bible says". Much, much greater gap from that highly-edited, written down from oral tradition story-line to where we are today than evolution has, even considering the gaps from initial replicant to now. -- CHergerThomann
EditText of this page
(last edited March 23, 2003)
or FindPage with title or text search