At 12:39 PM 10/10/00 +0100, Richard wrote:
>From: DNAunion@aol.com <DNAunion@aol.com>
>
> >DNAunion: Here are some other references I found to Dawkin's model and how
>it works. Note that the first representation, though contained in Behe's
>book, is not made by an IDist (it is made by E. Sober). Here is material
>from another of my posts from another site:
>
>[...]
>
>Oh dear, oh dear. When will creationists/IDers stop beating up on this poor
>old straw man?
>
>Dawkins' METHINKITISLIKEAWEASEL model was only intended to demonstrate the
>power of cumulative selection vis-a-vis single-step selection. Dawkins made
>this perfectly clear at the time (in The Blind Watchmaker), and specifically
>pointed out the limitations of the model. (Sorry, I can't quote as I only
>had the book on loan from the library.)
Since this occurs so often, I thought I would post the appropriate paragraph
below. Apologies if someone has already done so.
But first a few comments. What is, to me, equally disturbing is that one hardly
ever sees an acknowledgement of this error. I hate to brag :), but the only
creationist I've ever seen admit to this mistake is me :). I did talk.o several
years ago when I was still a creationist. One time I posted this type of
criticism of the monkey. Someone, actually rather politely considering it
was t.o :), pointed the paragraph out to me and I must say I was tremendously
embarrassed. The possibility of just keeping quiet never occurred to me.
A public blunder of this magnitude requires (morally, IMHO) a public apology.
Here's the quote:
====begin quote======================
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,
although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion
that our species is the final goal of evolution.
In real life, the criterion for selection is
always short-term, either simple survival or,
more generally, reproductive success. If, after
the aeons, what looks like progress towards
some distant goal seems, with hindsight, to
have been achieved, this is always an incidental
consequence of many generations of short-term
selection. The 'watchmaker' that is cumulative
natural selection is blind to the future and has
no long-term goal. -- Dawkins TBW
=====end quote=========================
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 13 2000 - 17:32:32 EDT