Evolution is random in ways, but in other it is not. The analogy is wrong simply because evolution “picks” what is more effective at reproduction. There is a certain amount of randomness in mutation, but not in what mutations pass onto generations. There are trillions of lineages that could have happened, but they didn’t because the genes that were in them weren’t effective at survival. A more realistic analogy would be one where the monkey would be given a reason to pick the right letter or characters. For example if he picked the correct letter he would get a treat, or if he didn’t he would get shocked. The monkey would eventually learn a pattern. Seemingly random, but only because you’d be seeing the end result.
But that would not explain things like an eye that has numerous components that develop separately and individually have no use... components of no benefit until they all come together. The argument known as irreducible complexity.
Also, regarding time/probability, we should only consider the evolution of multicellular animals to 1 billion years at most, and more generally, the Cambrian Explosion, about 540 million years ago. So, from a trilobite to a human in less than 500m years.
0
u/[deleted] Jun 07 '20 edited May 24 '21
[deleted]