On Thu, 8 Jun 1995 13:09:09 -0400 you wrote:
>Bill Hamilton wrote:
>
BH>Perhaps he deals with it elsewhere in the book, but the lack of
>cumulative selection in the above example is preciesly what makes the
>example irrelevant. Either Milton doesn't understand cumulative
>selection, or he is trying to mislead his readers.
>
BH>Again: _this_ _example_, taken by itself, without the book,
>demonstrates that he either does not understand cumulative
>selection, or that he is deliberately misleading his readers.
>Perhaps reading the book would help establish which of these is the
>case, but it would not do anything about the misleading thrust of
>this example.
SC>First, I agree that to leave out cumulative selection is either
deceptive or sadly mis-informed.
Perhaps I didn't include enough of what he said in the quote, but I
suggest you all read the man's book before you conclude he either
misunderstands or misleads?
BH>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.
Agreed. At the end of "weasel" section Dawkins admits:
"Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the
distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it
is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each
generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were
judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal
target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like
that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance
target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection..."
(Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, p50)
He then immediately says:
"We can change our computer model to take account of this point. We
can also make it more realistic in other respects. Letters and words
are peculiarly human manifestations, so let's make the computer draw
pictures instead. Maybe we shall even see animal-like shapes evolving
in the computer, by cumulative selection of mutant forms. We shan't
prejudge the issue by building-in specific animal pictures to start
with. We want them to emerge solely as a result of cumulative
selection of random mutations." (Dawkins, p50).
However after ten pages giving the distinct impression that we are
seeing a model of evolution in action, Dawkins eventually admits its
not:
"We now have a much more realistic model of evolution than the monkeys
typing Shakespeare gave us. But the biomorph model is still
deficient. It shows us the power of cumulative selection to generate
an almost endless variety of quasi-biological form, but it uses
artificial selection, not natural selection. The human eye does the
selecting." (Dawkins, p60).
One could easily miss this bit of "fine print" after ten pages
extolling the biomorph model. Since Dawkins shamelessly admits that
to explain Darwinism "You have to become an advocate and use the
tricks of the advocate's trade" (Dawkins, p.xiv), one can only
conclude that this is just one of a number of such "tricks" scattered
throughout his book.
BH>So, what is established are really the upper and lower bounds on
>the problem with natural selection falling somewhere in between.
>Since there are literally orders of magnitude between the upper
>an lower bounds, pointing to either one and saying "golly gee,
>would you look at that" is meaningless.
>
BH>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.
And pigs might fly! <g>
>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.
Interesting. Perhaps the Christian story is the real thing and
Dawkins' version a cheap imitation? <g>
BH>I'll close with a quote for the philosophers in the crowd:
>
> Philosophy is like a mother who gave birth to and endowed all the
> other sciences. Therefore, one should not scorn her in her nakedness
> and poverty, but should hope, rather, that part of her Don Quixote
> ideal will live on in her children so that they do not sink into
> philistinism.
> -- Albert Einstein as quoted in _Einstein, a Portrait_,
> Pomegranate Artbooks, 1984.
Thanks Brian.
Stephen