<<Milton's argument misses the point: he throws out cumulative selection.
Suppose we consider a different situation that is more like what
evolutionists claim occurs in nature. Suppose we consider a large number,
N, of foursomes, each with their own deck of cards. The cards are dealt.
After the deal, the hands are ranked according to the number of one
particular suit (say clubs) that appears in them and the top x percent are
selected. These hands are reproduced and given to the other players who
had smaller numbers of clubs. Then each player is allowed to combine hands
with one other player to produce a single hand with the maximum number of
clubs. All cards given to "offspring" are replaced and the selection
process is repeated. In a scenario like this you can show that the
exponential allocation proven by Goldberg for genetic algorithms will
occur: the number of hands with large numbers of clubs will increase
exponentially.>>
Am I missing something here, or is this scenario about a group of intelligent
players with a specific teleology in mind, and a specific strategy to reach
it?
If the players are environmental factors, I still don't get it. How should the
environment know that a few more clubs are "better"? Unless the player with
the most clubs "survives" the present hand, how is his position on the next
deal a "cumulation"? Isn't the LARGE assumption here that the player with a
few more clubs will get to hold them deal after deal?
And THEN, where is the fossil evidence of all these "deals"? We should at
least be able to find thousands of "hands" that have progressively more
"clubs," shouldn't we?
I never liked Bridge anyway.
Jim Bell