Brilliant metaphor explaining evolution

I was watching Richard Dawkin's "The Genius of Charles Darwin" when I suddenly had what could almost be called an epiphany, of the perfect way to explain how evolution works.

Take a letter from the alphabet at random... in fact, take every letter, and write each one down a hundred times... a hundred hundred times... more... Now, next to each of those letters, choose another letter at complete random... and write that letter next to it. Now, for each of those pairs of letters, write the same pair out again a million times, then maybe add another letter at random next to one of them... or remove a letter... or even leave them all the same for one round. Scrap the ones that don't make sense phonetically. Once in a while use a dictionary from a different latin language, 'killing' any words that don't make sense in the new language. Repeat this a few trillion times, and eventually... you'll have words, single letters, phrases, or perhaps... even something as complex and obviously intelligently designed :roll: as a book. You'll have words that started as a W, and now don't even have a W in them, or sentances that suddenly came about in only a few 'generations'. You'll have countless trillions of garbled words that 'died out', or stagnated and were unable to adapt to the sudden pressures of a new vocabulary.

Just because something is complex, doesn't mean it had to be designed.

Please help me in finding ways to improve this metaphor, help me find errors or strong points, because I honestly think this is the best metaphorical explanation of evolution and natural selection that I have ever seen.

My brain began to smoke after a few sentences in.

Edit: After re-reading through it, I feel that it's a pretty basic representation of the theory of evolution through figurative language. It's not covering all details, however, but the explanation is pretty accurate to what the theory states. Good job.

How about this: Changes in the environment = Evolutiona55assin

Edit: Also, that explanation, although simple (in a good way) and fundamentally correct, is far too easy to explain away or deny. What I'm striving to do is explain what exactly evolution is, as an answer to people who ask questions such as "Well why aren't chimpanzess still turning into humans?"

How about this: Changes in the environment = Evolutiona55assin

Rather brief, don't you think?

Good analogy, though it's not like the people who argue against evolution are relevant any moremunu9

I believe the arguement is directed towards those who are still on the fence about their beliefs. Fundamentalists' mindsets against evolution are too concrete to sway in any sort of way, no matter how much evidence is presented in evolution's favor. Just leave them be.

Your metaphor seemed even more complicated than the theory itself.gobo212

Probably because he included many of the basic aspects of how evolution actually works within the theory's explanation rather than a brief summarization of which theories are usually made up of.

[QUOTE="gobo212"]Your metaphor seemed even more complicated than the theory itself.-Jiggles-

Probably because he included many of the basic aspects of how evolution actually works within the theory's explanation rather than a brief summarization of which theories are usually made up of.

However, we started out w/ a single cell organism... wait no, maybe just an element. We didn't have all 26 possibilities like the alphabets at the start.

[QUOTE="a55assin"]How about this: Changes in the environment = EvolutionTylendal

Edit: Also, that explanation, although simple (in a good way) and fundamentally correct, is far too easy to explain away or deny. What I'm striving to do is explain what exactly evolution is, as an answer to people who ask questions such as "Well why aren't chimpanzess still turning into humans?"

Writing all those letters would take way too much time. I personally wouldn't wriite that many letters, I'd get carpal tunnel. :(

Good analogy.

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

jethrovegas

However, we started out w/ a single cell organism... wait no, maybe just an element. We didn't have all 26 possibilities like the alphabets at the start.

Ultimeaciax

Alphabetical letters are used as a metaphor for DNA base pairs within his explanation, not elements.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

a55assin

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

a55assin

Mutations within DNA is random, but natural selection is not.

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

jethrovegas

But over the last few millennia, humans themselves had evolved slightly--as had certain other mammals. Humans were way shorter in the Roman times, way shorter. Our bones differed, our behavior was more aggressive.a55assin

[QUOTE="a55assin"]But over the last few millennia, humans themselves had evolved slightly--as had certain other mammals. Humans were way shorter in the Roman times, way shorter. Our bones differed, our behavior was more aggressive.Ultimeaciax

[QUOTE="Ultimeaciax"]

Alphabetical letters are used as a metaphor for DNA base pairs within his explanation, not elements.

-Jiggles-

[QUOTE="Ultimeaciax"]

However, we started out w/ a single cell organism... wait no, maybe just an element. We didn't have all 26 possibilities like the alphabets at the start.

-Jiggles-

Alphabetical letters are used as a metaphor for DNA base pairs within his explanation, not elements.

[QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

Tylendal

Nope.

Let me narrow it down to the one word:

"Take".

As a whole, it is random. There is no one thing directing it. Everything in evolution depends on something else; the cycle is unbreakable. Scientifically, evolution is both random and not--but more so to the "not." However, natural selection's first step IS random--chances. The mutation. And since it starts out with chance, it doesn't much matter how we end up. We could have had 6 fingers on each hand. Some still do--but they don't count. Anyway, evolution isn't all 0's and 1's. (Only on screen.) And there are, of course, different kids of believed versions. Not that it matters to us humans. We live in the "now," not in the next hundred of years. a55assin

[QUOTE="a55assin"]As a whole, it is random. There is no one thing directing it. Everything in evolution depends on something else; the cycle is unbreakable. Scientifically, evolution is both random and not--but more so to the "not." However, natural selection's first step IS random--chances. The mutation. And since it starts out with chance, it doesn't much matter how we end up. We could have had 6 fingers on each hand. Some still do--but they don't count. Anyway, evolution isn't all 0's and 1's. (Only on screen.) And there are, of course, different kids of believed versions. Not that it matters to us humans. We live in the "now," not in the next hundred of years. zakkro

[QUOTE="Tylendal"][QUOTE="jethrovegas"]

This metaphor collapses with the very first sentence:

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random".

You do see the problem, don't you?

jethrovegas

Nope.

Let me narrow it down to the one word:

"Take".

[QUOTE="a55assin"] Mutations happen more often than not--and the fact that it doesn't happen every single time further strengthens my view. Nothing is certain, and chance rules all. zakkro

/going to sleep

[QUOTE="Ultimeaciax"][QUOTE="a55assin"]But over the last few millennia, humans themselves had evolved slightly--as had certain other mammals. Humans were way shorter in the Roman times, way shorter. Our bones differed, our behavior was more aggressive.Tylendal

Other than that the alphabet is already there to begin with in my metaphor, which you've stated isn't the problem, then no, I don't see the problem. I'd be much obliged if you would enlighten me.Tylendal

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random."

In this sentence, the word 'take' implies action.

You cannot look at three cupcakes and take one randomly. You choose which cupcake you take, and regardless of whether or not you actually sit there for a bit and rationally consider which cupcake you want the most, you will never be able to choose one completely at 'random'.

The act of taking the cupcake is tainted by your volition, by your rational mind; it is corrupted by intent, and cannot be wholly 'random' as a consequence.

That is the first problem.

The second problem is more obvious.

In the metaphor, the letters are being placed. Even with the erroneous assumption that they are being placed "randomly" left to stand, the letters are still being placed.

The metaphor implies action, implies intent and implies a degree of control; as a result, it just doesn't work.

[QUOTE="a55assin"][QUOTE="zakkro"]And most of them are neutral. zakkro

[QUOTE="a55assin"][QUOTE="zakkro"]And most of them are neutral. zakkro

There's the problem of attributing intent to evolution. What really happens is that a gene might get turned on, and just happen to be a good thing as dictated by the current selective pressures. There is no control center thinking. "Hmm... right now would be a really good time to have gills."Tylendal

There was a Thunderf00t video I presume that featured something along these lines, except it had to do with dots and not letters. After many thousands of "generations" it started forming something that looked like a picture.

There was a Thunderf00t video I presume that featured something along these lines, except it had to do with dots and not letters. After many thousands of "generations" it started forming something that looked like a picture.

foxhound_fox

[QUOTE="Tylendal"] Other than that the alphabet is already there to begin with in my metaphor, which you've stated isn't the problem, then no, I don't see the problem. I'd be much obliged if you would enlighten me.jethrovegas

"Take a letter from the alphabet at random."

In this sentence, the word 'take' implies action.

You cannot look at three cupcakes and take one randomly. You choose which cupcake you take, and regardless of whether or not you actually sit there for a bit and rationally consider which cupcake you want the most, you will never be able to choose one completely at 'random'.

The act of taking the cupcake is tainted by your volition, by your rational mind; it is corrupted by intent, and cannot be wholly 'random' as a consequence.

That is the first problem.

The second problem is more obvious.

In the metaphor, the letters are being placed. Even with the erroneous assumption that they are being placed "randomly" left to stand, the letters are still being placed.

The metaphor implies action, implies intent and implies a degree of control; as a result, it just doesn't work.

Action, is clear... evolution works with living creatures, not rocks.

Intent? There is no intent here, other than that of emulating the natural pressures applied in a real scenario.

And as for control? But of course. That's what natural selection is... control. Without control, there would be no limit to the outrageous paths that evolution would have taken, with completely nonsensical results. What creationists fail to realize is just how huge a factor control is in evolution. Maybe not concious control, but control nonetheless.

You don't know that for sure. They could be under the same environmental pressures, and therefore end up not changing at all, or by random chance, ending up very different. They could be under very different environmental pressures, but manage to adapt with very minor changes. It really is quite random.Tylendal

It's supposed to represent evolution, not emulate it. And yes, you could take a cupcake at, if not random,at least at a choice unnaffected by your own bias. Assign each cupcake two numbers from one to six, then roll a dice. There you go. However, I digress. Since the letters of the alphabet aren't going to be scurrying off on their own to reproduce, the act of writing them out yourself is a simulacrum of such actions.

Action, is clear... evolution works with living creatures, not rocks.

Intent? There is no intent here, other than that of emulating the natural pressures applied in a real scenario.

And as for control? But of course. That's what natural selection is... control. Without control, there would be no limit to the outrageous paths that evolution would have taken, with completely nonsensical results. What creationists fail to realize is just how huge a factor control is in evolution. Maybe not concious control, but control nonetheless.

Tylendal

It would not be random. Unaffected by bias =/= random... and you seem to have admitted this, which is odd, asthis alone is enough to bring your metaphor crashing down.

Nevertheless, I'll continue, if only for the sake of argument.

Once more, the second problem with your metaphor; the word 'Take'.

Take a letter randomly.

It implies necessity of intentional action on the part of the arranger, and it implies the necessity of the 'random' arranger to begin with. This does not work. The metaphor implies that the letters must be set in motion. Within the context of the metaphor, the letters are incabable of arranging themselves, randomly or otherwise. Within the context of the metaphor the letters would not make words if you did not "randomly" arrange them.

It's just a deeply flawed metaphor. Excuse its flaws by whatever means you deem necessary, but do remember that you asked for it...

help me find errors Tylendal

...and you shouldn't be surprised when you get what you ask for.

[QUOTE="Tylendal"]

It's supposed to represent evolution, not emulate it. And yes, you could take a cupcake at, if not random,at least at a choice unnaffected by your own bias. Assign each cupcake two numbers from one to six, then roll a dice. There you go. However, I digress. Since the letters of the alphabet aren't going to be scurrying off on their own to reproduce, the act of writing them out yourself is a simulacrum of such actions.

Action, is clear... evolution works with living creatures, not rocks.

Intent? There is no intent here, other than that of emulating the natural pressures applied in a real scenario.

And as for control? But of course. That's what natural selection is... control. Without control, there would be no limit to the outrageous paths that evolution would have taken, with completely nonsensical results. What creationists fail to realize is just how huge a factor control is in evolution. Maybe not concious control, but control nonetheless.

jethrovegas

It would not be random. Unaffected by bias =/= random... and you seem to have admitted this, which is odd, asthis alone is enough to bring your metaphor crashing down.

Nevertheless, I'll continue, if only for the sake of argument.

Once more, the second problem with your metaphor; the word 'Take'.

Take a letter randomly.

It implies necessity of intentional action on the part of the arranger, and it implies the necessity of the 'random' arranger to begin with. This does not work. The metaphor implies that the letters must be set in motion. Within the context of the metaphor, the letters are incabable of arranging themselves, randomly or otherwise. Within the context of the metaphor the letters would not make words if you did not "randomly" arrange them.

It's just a deeply flawed metaphor. Excuse its flaws by whatever means you deem necessary, but do remember that you asked for it...

help me find errors Tylendal

...and you shouldn't be surprised when you get what you ask for.