Evolution Question #3

"The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity" - Andre Gide 

In an earlier post about evolution and scientists I said: "Scientists, being human, are not above a bit of verbal slight of hand from time to time to make their point to us, the great unwashed."

I just came across a perfect example of the above - from my favorite Darwin dogmatist, Richard Dawkins, of course. In his essay "The Improbability of God" he tackles the question of evolution of complex systems - in this case the scientists' favorite straw man, the eye. (Scientists love this one because creationists are so often stupid enough to raise the development of the eye as an objection to evolution when it is an easily handled challenge.)

In explaining how minuscule changes can accumulate such that we can go from non-existent or rudimentary to fully developed and complex, given enough time, Dawkins writes:

"All the domestic breeds of dogs — Pekingeses, poodles, spaniels, Saint Bernards, and Chihuahuas — have come from wolves in a time span measured in hundreds or at the most thousands of years… Think of the quantity of change involved in going from a wolf to a Pekingese; now multiply that quantity of change by a million. When you look at it like that, it becomes easy to believe that an eye could have evolved from no eye by small degrees."

At first blush this might seem like a reasonable and persuasive statement. It is not. His analogy is misleading to the point of being underhanded. The obvious reaction Dawkins is aiming for here is something like "Oh, if such huge changes can occur in canines in such a relatively short period (a few thousand years), then of course things like going from a single light sensitive cell to intricate eyes must be possible given tens or hundreds of millions of years." No doubt he is very successful in eliciting that response.

So why is it underhanded? He is equating apples and oranges. The development of the eye is alleged to be a product of evolution by natural selection. Survival enhancing mutations persist and are added to with further survival enhancing mutations over millions of generations. Change is multiplied or limited according to a combination of chance and viability. However, that is decidedly not how wolves became Chihuahuas. The Chihuahua's ancestral wolves may well have been a product of evolution by natural selection; the Chihuahua is not. Evolution by natural selection plays no role in the development of canine breeds. Every breed of dog on earth (save mongrels - the non-breeds) is a result of evolution by human selection - the opposite of natural selection. The essence of natural selection is non-design, non-direction. Every breed of dog (horse, cow, pig and other domesticated animal) was selectively bred for its particular attributes. Mutants that would quickly be eliminated in the natural world survive and are fed, cared for and intentionally bred under the direction of humans. Every breed of dog is a designer dog.

It is pathetic. I cannot stress enough what I have said before: Scientists like Dawkins are among the most intelligent people on the planet. I find it hard to believe they make mistakes like this unintentionally. Prenez garde.