On Thu, 1 Jun 1995 13:35:36 -0500 you wrote:
>Stephen writes
SJ>Dawkins is "plain wrong", as has been pointed out by Milton:
>"Dawkins' argument is a modern rendition of the traditional Darwinist
>approach and the error it falls into is that dubbed the 'Statistical
>Fallacy' by Francis Crick...Suppose we have a highly improbable event
>such as a perfect deal in bridge, where each of the four players
>receives a complete suit of cards. The odds against this happening
>are billions of billions of billions to one. Let us assume that since
>being manufactured the cards have been used for 99 deals and on the
>100th time the pack was shuffled, the perfect deal arose. Can we say
>that each of these previous shuffles, deals and plays of hands (number
>1 for instance) was a cumulative event that ultimately contributed to
>the perfect deal? Can we reduce the ultimate odds against the perfect
>deal by attempting to spread them around more thinly between the
>intermediate steps? Not afterwards, note, when we know the result,
>but at the time each step is occurring?
>The answer is no, we cannot. Like the supposedly evolving DNA, the
>cards have a memory in that the previous deals have contributed to
>their current order and the ultimate perfect deal. But being part way
>towards a perfect deal does not alter the odds on the ultimate deal,
>because some of the key random events determining the ultimate outcome
>have not yet taken place."
>(Milton R., "The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myth of Darwinism",
>Fourth Estate, London, 1992, p143)
>
SJ>With this fallacy Dawkins' whole argument fails. And with it his
>whole Blind Watchmaker thesis.
>
SC>Milton's argument misses the point: he throws out cumulative
>selection.
I don't believe so, Bill. Have you read Milton's book? He deals with
"cumulative selection".
BH>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. Eventually, in a finite number of hands, you will
>obtain a hand with all clubs. Of course you can repeat the above
>four times and obtain all four perfect hands in 4 times the time with
>probability one. (statisticians please forgive any mangling of
>terminology in the above. Likewise, for those of you who use genetic
>algorithms regularly, you may not find my arguments to be rigorous,
>but I believe they are basically correct with perhaps minor
>modifications)
Yes Bill. This *is* a good example. Of artificial selection! Just
like Dawkins example of biomorphs. These are more analogies of
Paley's Watchmaker than they are of the Blind Watchmaker!
BH>Question: Did Milton misunderstand Dawkins? Or is he attempting to
>mislead his readers?
Again, Bill have you read Milton? I thought he understood Dawkins and
was also very clear and honest in his approach.
God bless.
Stephen