Re: A question on Dawkins
Bill Hamilton (hamilton@predator.cs.gmr.com)
Wed, 7 Jun 1995 08:40:46 -0500>Bill
>
>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".
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.
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.
Bill Hamilton | Vehicle Systems Research
GM R&D Center | Warren, MI 48090-9055
810 986 1474 (voice) | 810 986 3003 (FAX)