Hangman as analogy for Natural Selection

Delta

Hi guys,

I was trying to come up with a helpful analogy to help explain natural selection in simple terms and it occurred to me that the game Hangman might make a useful analogy, albeit an imperfect and simplified one. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this and any other useful analogies or strategies for explaining in simple terms how natural selection allows complexity to arise from simplicity and how it is distinct from random chance.

The Hangman analogy I propose would read as follows:

A long word is chosen, say with a dozen letters, and a dozen blanks are drawn on the paper. Person A then guesses a letter. If the letter is present in the word a blank is filled in and the player can try another letter and so on. Their further guesses will be informed by the letters they have already discovered rather than being completely random. If the letter is not present the player loses a life (represented by the drawing of part of the gallows). If they run out of lives the game is over and a new player, Person B takes their place. Person B must start from the beginning.

In this analogy the long word is a complex adaption, requiring many seperate chance mutations to build it. Each guessed letter is a chance mutation that can be beneficial (correct answers bring you closer) or detrimental (wrong ones cost you lives). The loss of all lives represents the extinction of the species, meaning no further mutations can occur. Person B is an entirely different species that can't "compare notes" with Person A and hence must start from the beginning (though they may take a different route).

The benefit of this analogy is it's an example of random guesses still having a sense of forward progression (discovered letters are not removed, and gradually build up), and that it refers to a simple game I think most people will be familiar with. You could then go on to explain how a complex adaption takes many more than a dozen steps, that there are many more than 24 possible mutations, and that each guess takes many generations, to give a sense of the timescales involved.

The weaknesses are considerable and include the inability to go backwards (beneficial changes can be lost as well as gained) and the existence of a single specific end goal (the unknown word), rather than this being a continual process without set targets. It also ignores the possibility that a beneficial mutation does not spread throughout the species.

I very much doubt this is an original suggestion, but it seemed a handy simplification of the "password-guessing" analogy I was just reading about in Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker". Any comments or alternative methods would be welcome (I'm still not very widely read on the subject of evolution so I'm sure others have put it more clearly than I could).

Thanks for your time.

David

Hi guys,

The Hangman analogy I propose would read as follows:

A long word is chosen, say with a dozen letters, and a dozen blanks are drawn on the paper. Person A then guesses a letter. If the letter is present in the word a blank is filled in and the player can try another letter and so on. Their further guesses will be informed by the letters they have already discovered rather than being completely random. If the letter is not present the player loses a life (represented by the drawing of part of the gallows). If they run out of lives the game is over and a new player, Person B takes their place. Person B must start from the beginning.

In this analogy the long word is a complex adaption, requiring many seperate chance mutations to build it. Each guessed letter is a chance mutation that can be beneficial (correct answers bring you closer) or detrimental (wrong ones cost you lives). The loss of all lives represents the extinction of the species, meaning no further mutations can occur. Person B is an entirely different species that can't "compare notes" with Person A and hence must start from the beginning (though they may take a different route).

Thanks for your time.

David

The 'irreducible complexity' argument advocated by the intelligent design community often cites the specific example of the eye. It is argued that an eye is a complex organ with many different individual parts that all must work together perfectly and that this implies it could not have been gradually built out of small gradual random changes.

This argument has been around a long time but it has been well answered within the scientific literature and the vast majority of biologist consider the issue settled.

Dawkins' book 'Climbing mount improbable' provides a summary of the science for the lay reader and uses the eye as a detailed example.

Darwin was the first to explain how the the eye could have evolved via natural selection. I quote the wikipedia article:

Charles Darwin himself wrote in his Origin of Species, that the evolution of the eye by natural selection at first glance >seemed "absurd in the highest possible degree". However, he went on to explain that despite the difficulty in imagining it, >this was perfectly feasible:

...if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each >grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, >as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, >then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by >our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

The argument of 'irreducible complexity' has been around since Darwin first proposed natural selection and it has been conclusively answered within the scientific literature (for a good summary see the Wikipedia article). Those who believe that all life was created by God cannot believe the scientific explanation. In my view the real problem is that they tend to argue that they have superior scientific evidence which proves that the scientific consensus is wrong. In other words the intelligent design community argues they are scientifically superior to the science community. This reduces their position to a undignified one of deception or perhaps even fraud.

Wait, did you interpret my comment as supporting the "irreducible complexity" argument? My whole point was that it is a bad argument. I was criticizing the Hangman analogy because it seems to invite the same sort of mistake that the "irreducible complexity" people make.