#BLIND CLOCKMAKER SERIES#

In particular, he recognised that certain patterns of embryological development could lead to the success of a related group of species in filling varied ecological niches, though he emphasised that this should not be confused with group selection. In an appendix to a later edition of the book (1996), Dawkins explains how his experiences with computer models led him to a greater appreciation of the role of embryological constraints on natural selection. The gene values are given as bars on the top. 'Biomorph' that randomly evolves following changes of several numeric 'genes', determining its shape. Dawkins speculated that the unnatural selection role played by the user in this program could be replaced by a more natural agent if, for example, colourful biomorphs could be selected by butterflies or other insects, via a touch-sensitive display set up in a garden. This process often produced images which were reminiscent of real organisms for instance beetles, bats, or trees. Thus, the user, by selection, could steer the evolution of biomorphs. The chosen mutation would then be the basis for another generation of biomorph mutants to be chosen from, and so on.

Adding new lines (or removing them) based on these rules offered a discrete set of possible new shapes (mutations), which were displayed on screen so that the user could choose between them. The program displayed a two-dimensional shape (a 'biomorph') made up of straight black lines, the length, position, and angle of which were defined by a simple set of rules and instructions (analogous to a genome). Dawkins then describes his experiences with a more sophisticated computer model of artificial selection implemented in a program also called The Blind Watchmaker, which was sold separately as a teaching aid. He demonstrates this by the example of the weasel program.

In developing his argument that natural selection can explain the complex adaptations of organisms, Dawkins' first concern is to illustrate the difference between the potential for the development of complexity as a result of pure randomness, as opposed to that of randomness coupled with cumulative selection. In making this journey, he points to several creatures whose various seeing apparatus are, whilst still useful, living examples of intermediate levels of complexity.

Beginning with a simple organism, capable only of distinguishing between light and dark, in only the crudest fashion, he takes the reader through a series of minor modifications, which build in sophistication until we arrive at the elegant and complex mammalian eye. To dispel the idea that complexity cannot arise without the intervention of a 'creator', Dawkins uses the example of the eye. Dawkins, in contrasting the differences between human design and its potential for planning with the workings of natural selection, therefore dubbed evolutionary processes as analogous to a blind watchmaker. Paley, writing long before Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, held that the complexity of living organisms was evidence of the existence of a divine creator by drawing a parallel with the way in which the existence of a watch compels belief in an intelligent watchmaker. In his choice of the title for this book, Dawkins refers to the watchmaker analogy made famous by William Paley in his 1802 book Natural Theology.

#BLIND CLOCKMAKER SERIES#

Blind clockmaker