Methinks it is a Weasel

Richard Dawkins, the man who tells us that evolution is true no matter what the evidence shows, has now given us a computer program that he says replicates evolution. But it does not.

The program is represented as being "a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces." The computer takes these letters and spaces (actually 26 letters and 5 spaces) and randomizes them until it strikes upon a sequence that "however slightly" resembles the target phrase which is "Methinks it is a Weasel." The target phrase represents a completed evolutionary improvement in the species.

The program causes each iteration to be unlike the previous one. This represents an error in genetic duplication. Supposedly the amount of "error" programed into the program is approximately the same frequency as copy errors from a DNA molecule. When an iteration slightly resembles the target phrase, the program recommences from that point and does another iteration, again seeking something that slightly resembles the target phrase. Thus each similar iteration moves closer the completion of the target phrase.

In his own words, Dr. Dawkins states:

"We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error– 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutantnonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"

The program is programmed to seek the target phrase and to eliminate all combinations that are not "slightly" similar to the target phrase. This is not Darwinism.

Dawkins makes it clear that the program is intended to replicate "cumulative" natural selection. Cumulative natural selection" as represented in the program is an enhanced evolutionary theory that says even minimal changes to the genome of an organism are selected by natural selection and they either improve the organism or they are neutral. But there is simply no room for such a theory because a change must enhance the ability of the organism to prevail over other lesser equipped organisms in order for it to be selected and if pure chance is the engine that creates the changes then all of the possible iterations must be considered.

Dr. Dawkins' program applies natural selection practically all of the iterations, no matter how minimal. As Dawkins states, the smallest changes in the program are considered selectible no matter "however silghtly" they resemble the pre-determined outcome. By applying the pre-determined outcome to slightly similar combinations of letters, he severely limits the non-selective changes, Dr. Dawkins' program treats the majority of changes as rising to the level of natural selection.

The program inaccurate because it severely limits the generations that create incremental changes that do not provide an enhanced chance of survival. When those generations are included the chances of a significant enhancement in the genome is effectively zero--exactly as the current physical research shows. See DNA.

What are the chances of just "Methinks it is" (14 places) being formed by actual chance? The chances are 1 in 87,178,392,300 (see Chances for the calculation of the chance arrangement of objects when there is no predetermined outcome). For instance, if a particular arrangement of 14 rungs in a DNA strand is necessary before a selectable change occurs then the chances are 1 in 87,178,392,300 that any one random arrangement of the 14 rungs would occur.

Dr. Dawkins has chosen not 14 but 23 places and he has it down to only 40 iterations. How did he do that? He did it by making practically every iteration into a selectible change that is actually selected to match a pre-determined outcome.

Let us remember that the DNA ladder is effectively a programming language that somehow evolved along side of the rungs that are written in that language. All the rungs have to be in place or the programming "command" is misspelled.

The issue is this: How many rungs in the DNA ladder must be added or rearranged in order to pass on a beneficial change to the subsequent generation and have that change substantially contribute to survival? Certainly more than one, Dr. Dawkins. See recent studies here: evolution.

"Methinks it is a weasel" is mathematically impossible unless there is a predetermined outcome that has been intentionally pre-inserted into a program that excludes practically all irrelevant iterations.

The program is a fake.