[...]
>On Thu, 05 Dec 1996 10:46:11 -0500, Brian D. Harper wrote:
>
>RL>"The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved
>>the degree of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has
>>been a continuing source of scepticism ever since the publication of
>>the Origin of the Species; and throughout the past century there has
>>always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who
>>have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of
>>Darwinian claims..." (Denton, 1985, p327)
>
>BH>This is very nice, Randy, but its a strawman since Darwinians do
>>not claim that pure chance "achieved the degree of complexity and
>>ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature".
>
[...]
>SJ:===
>In any event, Denton *one the very same page* makes it clear what he
>means by "pure chance", and it is the same meaning as Dawkins gives
>it, namely "blind to the adaptive needs and requirements of the
>organism":
>
In any event, Brian Harper *in the very same thread* also made this
clear. Good grief :-(.
[...]
>
>BH>Richard Dawkins, in his new book <Climbing Mount Improbable>, goes
>to great pains to distance himself from such a notion as this.
>
[...]
>Indeed he does, but he admits it is due to *Darwinists* own
>over-emphasis:
>
I see. So this is what Dawkins meant by "...a feeble basis to the
distortion." ?
RD:===
>"But is this one of those rare cases where it is really true that
>there is no smoke without fire? Darwinism is widely misunderstood as
>a theory of pure chance. Mustn't it have done something to provoke
>this canard? Well, yes, there is something behind the misunderstood
>rumour, a feeble basis to the distortion. One stage in the Darwinian
>process is indeed a chance process- mutation. Mutation is the
>process by which fresh genetic variation is offered up for selection
>and it is usually described as random. But Darwinians make the fuss
>that they do about the 'randomness' of mutation only in order to
>contrast it to the non-randomness of selection, the other side of the
>process. It is not necessary that mutation should be random in order
>for natural selection to work. Selection can still do its work
>whether mutation is directed or not. Emphasizing that mutation can
>be random is our way of calling attention to the crucial fact that,
>by contrast, selection is sublimely and quintessentially non-random.
>It is ironic that this emphasis on the contrast between mutation and
>the nonrandomness of selection has led people to think that the whole
>theory is a theory of chance." (Dawkins R., "Climbing Mount
>Improbable", Penguin: London, 1996, pp70-71)
>
[...]
>
>BH>Darwinism involves random mutations + natural selection. Natural
>>selection is about as opposite from pure chance as one could get.
>
SJ:===
>Agreed. But it is the *combination* of "random mutations" with
>"natural selection" that makes the *whole* process essentially
>random:
Let's turn this around and see what we get:
Agreed. But it is the *combination* of "natural selection"
with "random mutations" that makes the *whole* process
essentially non-random:
[...]
>SJ:===
>It is essential for Dawkins to maintain that "mutation is random with
>respect to adaptive advantage" because if he allowed any form of
>determinism into "adaptive advantage", he would be giving eyes to his
>"blind watchmaker" and Paley's watchmaker God would rear His ugly (to
>Dawkins) head:
>
>"According to the doctrines of orthodox Darwinism and Mendelian
>genetics, the "improvements"* in this and all other Darwinian
>scenarios come from gene mutations that are random in the sense that
>they are not directed either by God or by the needs of the organism
>(such as its wish or need to become a flying creature). This point
>is important because if an unevolved intelligent or purposeful force
>directed evolution, the blind watchmaker would not be blind and a
>supernatural element would be introduced into the system.
>"Evolution" in which the necessary mutations were directed by a
>preexisting intelligence (which did not itself evolve
>naturalistically) would be a soft form of creationism and not really
>evolution at all, in the sense in which Dawkins and other leading
>Darwinists use the term." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance",
>InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove Ill., 1995, p79)
>
It is interesting that you state that it is 'essential for Dawkins to
maintain that "mutation is random with respect to adaptive
advantage" ' and then support this essentiality by quoting
Johnson! As a matter of fact, Dawkins actually emphasizes the
point that it is *not* essential.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
Ohio State University