What's even more amazing is that runner has written hundreds of posts over more than two and a half years and yet has still only managed to write one very simple idea.

Thanks pelican. I've been waiting for someone to state the obvious.

One reason that this is just another dumb Porkycrap thread is that he doesn't actually understand the rational principle that he thinks he's debunked. The "infinite monkey theorem" has nothing to do with evolution, or even monkeys (as others have pointed out).

Wikipedia explains it quite well:

<< The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

In this context, "almost surely" is a mathematical term with a precise meaning, and the "monkey" is not an actual monkey; rather, it is a metaphor for an abstract device that produces a random sequence of letters ad infinitum. The theorem illustrates the perils of reasoning about infinity by imagining a vast but finite number, and vice versa. The probability of a monkey typing a given string of text as long as, say, Hamlet, is so tiny that, were the experiment conducted, the chance of it actually occurring during a span of time of the order of the age of the universe is minuscule but not zero. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

That various religionists and atheists have misapplied the theorem by treating it as analogous to evolution does nothing to refute the mathematical probability of its validity.

In an infinite Universe anything's possible - even, I suppose, god/s. But the question will always remain as to what created them (and, indeed, the Universe itself).

Unless of course one undergoes a virtual lobotomy by acquiring a religious 'faith'. It's all downhill from there, I'm afraid - at least in my experience and empirically observable in this forum.

Runner,

It is not irrational test falsifiable hypothises, which are tentatively held.

Albeit, weird things happen with QM, but these are predictable weird things, which underpin our reality. Look to CERN Partical Accelerator for a sly look into Nature, not the Bible. That said, I would not deny the latter is a very important historical document, in its various versions

RObert the dreamtime stories are lovely. I like the connection to the earth and the rich culture that the dreamtime stories relay.

Additionally, the messages inherent in many other religions and beliefs - do unto others etc and the messages of peace and self-awareness in the Bhuddist faith are all worthwhile. The Quakers, Bahai and many others make for interesting study noting there is much to learn from many religious/cultural myths and stories.

However, my overall view is that these beliefs are merely evidence of the many different and varied human cultural attempts to explain the mysteries of the universe.

The essence of my view is all religious stories were created by man and as such the wonderful messages and lessons are already there within ourselves. Perhaps these myths and legends were created in a way to impart these important lessons which were necessary for group survival and cohabitation in more primitive and uncertain times. :)

CJ

I agree. I did some further research in an attempt to learn more about these elusive monkeys and found nothing to support Polycarp's broad interpretation. In fact I failed to make any connection at all. At first I asked "is there a link I am missing" but after reading on realised that there was no link to miss or in other words no missing link. :D (sorry couldn't help myself)

I am sure Polycarp sincerely believes whatever it is he is proclaiming but there is no corroboration in this particular experiment.

Hi A.J.

You said:

"There are credible (albeit incomplete) explanations about how the first complex cells arrived." Oh yeah?

2 points.

1/ Where? are they.
2/ 'Credible'... might just be influenced by specific presuppositions ...mightn't it?

Then..dear Yabby..and you trailing along behind.. saying I make a dill of myself :) au contrare.. people who dredge up the rediculous 'amino acid' experiment of Miller are the true dills.

Plecican.. you said:

"The chances of this randomness actually producing a Hamlet manuscript is infinitesimal but it has nothing to do with evolution."

Well hooray.. you kinda get it.. exactly, it has NOTHING to do with "evolution" just as I said at the begining.. this thread is not about "evolution" it is about 'origins' and probabilities.... grrrrrr

Looking at the "Minimal Genome Project" where they sought to establish just how many genes were needed to sustain life.... the probabilities that such a thing could emerge even over trillions of years.. are so ming bogglingly astronimical that to believe such.. seems to me to require more faith than even the most wild eyed Christians.

If the probability of just ONE protien forming are HUGE..then each step along the way to greater complexity MULtiplies the probabilty.
(as in...making it less probably)

This Minimal Genome team managed to synthesize a 5386 base genome thingy.. with 580,000 base pairs.

Ok.. I'm sure Buggy will correct me here, but it seems that for each one of those base pairs... we are talking astronimical probabilities... for each one.. EACH ONE! ..now again.. to believe such seems more like religion than science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life#Self-organization_and_replication

The question "How do simple organic molecules form a protocell?" is largely unanswered but there are many hypotheses

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

<<How the whole business of molecular replication got started has been and remains one of the central mysteries of the origin of life.>>

A) MANY HYPOTHESES......
B) CENTRAL MYSTERY......

A+B= "faith" :) = Religion or at least 'metaphyisics'

Poly, faith does not equal religion.

If someone tells you something like "the news said the train will run late today" and you choose to believe them, you can take it on 'faith', but you wouldn;t make a religion out of it.

The major idea that it seems that you cannot get your brain around is that scientists 'faith' is contigent. That is, contingent on the evidence at hand. At any time the story may change as new evidence comes to light.

I know you think that is "make it up as you go", but it is what distinguishes science and attempting to make models and understand the real world from fantasy and maintaining outdated models of reality in the face of blatantly contradictory evidence.

The very fact that you and many of your ilk have amply demonstrated this fundamental lack of understanding means that I do believe that "religion" and pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo will likely be with us for a while yet. It's persistent, but I think that's probably because not many people have actually studied real science, as not everyone can, but they still think they can have an opinion on it.