A question on Dawkins

MURRAY HOGG (muzhogg@ozemail.com.au)
Wed, 24 May 95 09:34:08 +1000

> "To 'tame' chance means to break down the very improbable into less
> improbable small components arranged in series. No matter how
> improbable it is that an X could have arisen from a Y in a single
> step, it is always possible to conceive of a series of infinitesimally
> graded intermediates between them. However improbable a large-scale
> change may be, smaller changes are less improbable. And provided we
> postulate a sufficiently large series of sufficiently finely graded
> intermediates, we shall be able to derive anything from anything
> else"*
> (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker", 1991, Penguin, p317).

Pardon my possible ignorance of the subtleties involved here, but I keep seeing
this quote, and I keep thinking *it just ain't so* - perhaps someone can
explain what I am missing (I assume Dawkins hasn't made the basic mistake I am
about to accuse him of)

If one takes 100 dice, rolls them all at once, the probability of getting 100 x
sixes is pretty low (1/6 ^ 100). *Ah, but,* says Dawkins, *a SINGLE six is
much more likely - only 1/6 - THUS if we roll a single dice 100 times we are
more likely to get 100 x sixes.* Now, as I say, this just ain't so, but it
appears to me that this is exaclty what Dawkins is saying. What am I missing,
or is he indeed plain wrong?

In Him
Murray (Muzz) Hogg
muzhogg@ozemail.com.au