Ever hear the evolutionists argument against the infinitesimally small odds that evolution could ever happen? ‘Take an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters and they would produce all the works of Shakespeare’. I guess my basic argument with that statement is that if you need an infinite number of anything in order to overcome the problems with your theory, your theory is probably wrong.

But can using an infinite number of monkeys and typewriters be an apt example of the evolutionary process? I don’t think so. Let me ‘splain.

The more complicated something is the lower the probability that it could happen by randomness. The modern discovery that simple life is in fact quite complex has thrown a curve ball to the evolution fraternity which has built their entire scientific edifice on the false hypothesis of Darwin that simple life is simple.

The truth that a single self-replicating cell is as complex as a large city with the ability to unpack all city plans and designs, copy, repack and make another city just like it, is a dagger through the heart of evolution. To say that something on that order of complexity could happen at all is staggering but to say that it could happen more than once is preposterous.

Therefore an infinite number of monkeys is not necessary. One will do.

And what does this wondrous primate accomplish with no conceptual intellect, no tools, no goal? Why . . . everything! He paints the Mona Lisa. He builds the Roman Coliseum. He makes the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. He constructs the Pyramids of Giza. He designs and makes the Hubble Telescope, the Space Shuttle, Large Hadron Collider, iPhone, Ferrari etc.

Surely if “nothing” can make amoeba to man then a monkey can make all those things? He just needs enough time. Does anyone reading this actually believe that? If you do you have some serious issues to deal with. Your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.

But they must believe that very assumption on some level, even if it’s only subconsciously, and that creates an interesting philosophical question. Of what merit is the genius and ingenuity of man if all he has done and accomplished can be reduced to X = monkey + time, where X is any achievement you can think of. Intelligence becomes nothing more than nature’s fast forward button.

But it gets even worse. For if our intelligence was created by ‘nature’ then it was created by nothing so that the equation becomes even more simplified and brutal. I = nothing + time, where I = Intelligence. Many would argue that nothing should be replaced with randomness but this doesn’t help them any because randomness is not a force to act on something but rather a process and therefore subject to mathematical probability.

The smartest person on the planet is incapable of doing anything that a monkey could not do on a longer time frame. Nothing more that nature’s fast forward. How humiliating is that?

I have objections with two views that you have:

“The more complicated something is the lower the probability that it could happen by randomness.”

Of cours this cannot be quantified. Probability is a field of mathematics, which is independent of the universe we live in (that does not mean that mathematics cannot be used for this universe specifically). How we define “complicated” is one question, how we define “more” complicated is another question and how we can say that “more” “complicated” equals “lower” probability that it happens by “randomness” is something that is almost entirely nonsensical. Randomness is the act of not knowing determinism – sometimes complicated things can be known.

Even if we accept this statement, I can find some examples that seemingly counter it. For example, consider 3 data points, x1 x2 x3 and we fit them by a third order polynomial. Then consider the time grid from the origin to x3 (assuming x3 is the largest point), the probability of this model is far more likely to be correct than one taken over many data points.

The second view I object to is this:

“randomness is not a force to act on something but rather a process and therefore subject to mathematical probability”

In mathematical talk, this is a tautology. We define randomness through probability theory, i.e. a stochastic (random) process comes from the evolution of a random variable.

If you look at randomness as a process, you assume that it satisfies probability theory. But reality and mathematics do not match. Rather, viewing randomness as a process is actually equivalent to perceiving that we view randomness to be a process, which by definition is “acting” on something.

LikeLike

The problem with you first objection is that there is ample physical and real world evidence to support the statement that increasing complexity, as in a Formula 1 car is far more complex than a Model T, not only reduces the probability of randomness, but decreases the time allowed for the creation of it due to an ever increasing entropy. I may have misspoke when I referred to randomness as a process. What I meant was that randomness describes events that have no intelligent input or defined goal. Events that are not just happen are random. That is not to say that some force called random can be attributed with causing anything.

To my way of thinking there is no way to overcome the probability question. When the probability of something is so small that there have not been enough events in the entirety of time to get through a fraction of the possible combinations you are now in a state of faith and not science.

For me it is simply nonsense to say that nothing, meaning no one, meaning no intelligent agent, produced the complexity of existence we see all around us and you objections have done nothing to counter my assertion that if it could then human genius and ingenuity are themselves meaningless.

Thanks for taking the time to read and comment.

God bless.

LikeLike