>First, I agree that to leave out cumulative selection is either deceptive
>or sadly mis-informed. At the same time I must also say that Dawkins
>use of teleological selection as an illustration of natural selection
>is also deceptive. Consider his typing monkey program. The number of
>"generations" required to type "methinks it is like a weasel" is
>tremendous if there is no selection. It drops by many orders of
>magnitude when you run his nifty little program. But the program
>represents the best-case scenario (teleogical selection) which in
>no way resembles the actual process of blind watchmaker selection.
Absolutely. Dawkins generates the phrase in 40 or so (as I remember)
generations by applying a very strong, explicit, goal-directed selection
process. Then he proceeds to claim that far more varied, dynamic,
intricate behavior arose without any teleology at all. It seems to me that
selection is a way in which teleology can be imposed on nature. Science
can't properly say anything about what, if anything, is driving selection.
On the other hand, no knowledge of what, if anything, is driving selection
is necessary for studying selection itself.
>So, what is established are really the upper and lower bounds on
>the problem with natural selection falling somewhere in between.
Right.
>Since we're on the subject of Dawkins ...
>
>I have often thought that it would be tremendous for leading
>scientists to call to account (publicly) atheists (or humanists
>or whoever) who manipulate science to promote their world-view.
>If they did this with the same vigour with which Creationists are
>attacked, so much the better.
Phil frequently laments that AAAS and other science organizations don't do
this. While he has a point, I think this is a task that can be more
effectively carried out by individuals. We can't expect a large
bureaucratic organization like AAAS to have much of an opinion on anything
outside the narrow concerns of science. Individual members, however, do
have opinions and ought to speak out.
>
>I was surprised to find this type of public rebuke in Brian Goodwins
>book on complexity:
>
> Dawkin's description of the Darwinian principles of evolution
> can be summarized as follows:
>
> 1. Organisms are constructed by groups of genes whose goal is
> to leave more copies of themselves. The hereditary material
> is "selfish".
> 2. The inherently selfish qualities of the hereditary material are
> reflected in the competitive interactions between organisms
> that result in survival of fitter variants, generally by the
> more successful genes.
> 3. Organisms are constantly trying to get better (fitter). In a
> mathematical/geometrical metaphor, they are always trying to
> climb up local peaks in a fitness landscape to do better than
> their competitors. However, this landscape keeps changing as
> evolution proceeds, so the struggle is endless.
> 4. Paradoxically, humans can develop altruistic qualities that
> contradict their inherently selfish nature by means of educational
> and other cultural efforts.
>
> Does this look familiar? Here is a very similar list of principles
> from another domain:
>
> 1. Humanity is born in sin; we have a base inheritance.
> 2. Humanity is therefore condemned to a life of conflict and
> 3. Perpetual toil.
> 4. By faith and moral effort humanity can be saved from its
> fallen, selfish state.
>
> So we see that the Darwinism described by Dawkins, whose exposition
> has been very widely (but by no means universally) acclaimed by
> biologists, has its metaphorical roots in one of our deepest cultural
> myths, the story of the fall and redemption of humanity. Dawkins did
> not invent this evolutionary story; he just tells it with great care
> and inspiration, in terms that clarify the underlying ideas of Darwinism.
> And what we see so clearly is a myth with which we are all utterly
> familiar. [...]
> -- Brian Goodwin, _How the Leopard Changed its Spots_, Charles
> Scribners, 1994.
Imagine anything as effective as that coming out in a press release from
AAAS. Proves my point. Thanks, Brian. Let us hope we see more of this
sort of thing in the future. I think you convinced me to read Goodwin.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)