And Slaters Go Plop

Full screen version

A couple of years ago I created an online Javascript version of Dawkins’ Weasel program. I was poking around at the code today and realised that it wouldn’t be too much work to remove some of its limitations to allow it to replicate the full 28 character phrase that Dawkins used.

If you’re unfamiliar with why anyone would want to make an program like this, take a look at the original post where I explain how genetic inheritance combined with natural selection gives vastly different results to the mistaken creationist view of evolution being a ‘monkeys with typewriters’ kind of randomness. (by the way, if you change the settings so that there is only one child per generation the program will enter ‘monkeys-with-typewriters mode’).

The main differences in this version are:

• You can now hide or show all the mutant children that were not selected
• You can use up to 30 uppercase A-Z letter plus spaces
• There’s a new column that shows how many letters matched (so you can see how it occasionally slips back with higher mutation rates – contrary to what William Dembski would have you believe)
• I’ve improved the performance slightly.

Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and ’tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel.

In attempting to discredit evolution by natural selection, creationists have often described the impossibility of random mutations in DNA being capable of anything beneficial as the equivalent of a tornado in a junkyard accidentally building a 747 or a group of monkeys bashing the keys of a typewriter to successfully write the works of Shakespeare.

And they’re right. If evolution was merely random mutations then it would be unfathomably impossible for life to evolve as it does. But here’s the rub: no evolutionary biologists claim that random mutations alone cause the diversity of life we observe. This is where the crucial natural selection part comes in. Evolution occurs by random mutations, most of them neutral, where any beneficial mutations are selected for by the environment and those successful mutations go on to have more children who will likely inherit those beneficial mutations. And so on and so on.

To illustrate the point, back in 1986 Richard Dawkins in his book, The Blind Watchmaker demonstrated a simple program which he named ‘Weasel‘ as a reference to the concept of monkeys and typewriters and the above quote from Shakespeare. ‘Weasel’ starts with a jumble of letters, spawns ‘children’ from them (i.e. multiple copies), each with slight mutations and selects whichever ‘child’ is the most similar to a target phrase to spawn a new generation of children.

The point of the program was not to demonstrate every aspect of evolution by natural selection (that’s rather too much to ask of a small page of code), just the power of mutation when combined with a selection process as opposed to brute-force random chance.

Below I’ve created a simple version of Dawkins’ program that is limited to a single word and which will, due to the limitations of Javascript and browsers, only attempt a maximum of 500 generations. Have a play around to get a feel for how random mutations can result in very non-random outcomes when there is a selection criteria combined with heritability.

(Note: an updated version is available in a new post, Methinks it is [still] like a weasel)

Full screen version

If you know how to run Python and want to check out a version closer to that of the original ‘Weasel’, take a look at the one created by fellow blogger and PhD student in evolutionary genetics, David, over at The Ativism. His is not limited to 500 generations like mine and he includes the newer concept of the option of ‘locking’ successful mutations.

“I have considered the impudent accusations of Mr Dawkins with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not read the detailed discourses of Count Roderigo of Seville on the exquisite and exotic leathers of the Emperor’s boots, nor does he give a moment’s consideration to Bellini’s masterwork, On the Luminescence of the Emperor’s Feathered Hat. We have entire schools dedicated to writing learned treatises on the beauty of the Emperor’s raiment, and every major newspaper runs a section dedicated to imperial fashion; Dawkins cavalierly dismisses them all. He even laughs at the highly popular and most persuasive arguments of his fellow countryman, Lord D. T. Mawkscribbler, who famously pointed out that the Emperor would not wear common cotton, nor uncomfortable polyester, but must, I say must, wear undergarments of the finest silk. Dawkins arrogantly ignores all these deep philosophical ponderings to crudely accuse the Emperor of nudity.”

(Link)

[Update]
And prompted by a commenter’s mention of Dawkins’ “hysterical arguments” here is a recent lecture of his on the topic of religion. A comment which (if you watch the video) amply demonstrates Blake’s Law in action. Blake’s Law follows The Courtier’s Reply in the article linked to above. A coincidence or delicious irony?

[Update #2]