RICHARD DAWKINS THE BLIND WATCHMAKER
RICHARD DAWKINS THE BLIND WATCHMAKER PENGUIN BOOKS RICHARD DAWKINS THE BLIND WATCHMAKER
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941.He was educated at Oxford University,and after graduation remained there to work for his doctorate with the Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen.From 1967 to 1969 he was an Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley.In 1970 he became a Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College.In 1995 he became the first Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University Richard Dawkins's first book.The Selfish Gene (1976;second edition, 1989),became an immediate international bestseller and,like The Blind Watchmaker,was translated into all the major languages.Its sequel,The Extended Phenotype,followed in 1982.His other best- sellers include River Out of Eden (1995)and Climbing Mount Improbable (1996;Penguin,1997). Richard Dawkins won both the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Los Angeles Times Literary Prize in 1987 for The Blind Watchmaker.The television film of the book,shown in the Horizon series,won the Sci-Tech Prize for the Best Science Programme of 1987. He has also won the 1989 Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London and the 1990 Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of science.In 1994 he won the Nakayama Prize for Human Science and has been awarded an Honorary D.Litt.by the University of St Andrews and by the Australian National University,Canberra
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Richard Dawkins was born in Nairobi in 1941. He was educated at Oxford University, and after graduation remained there to work for his doctorate with the Nobel Prize-winning ethologist Niko Tinbergen. From 1967 to 1969 he was an Assistant Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley. In 1970 he became a Lecturer in Zoology at Oxford University and a Fellow of New College. In 1995 he became the first Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Richard Dawkins's first book. The Selfish Gene (1976; second edition, 1989), became an immediate international bestseller and, like The Blind Watchmaker, was translated into all the major languages. Its sequel, The Extended Phenotype, followed in 1982. His other bestsellers include River Out of Eden (1995) and Climbing Mount Improbable (1996; Penguin, 1997). Richard Dawkins won both the Royal Society of Literature Award and the Los Angeles Times Literary Prize in 1987 for The Blind Watchmaker. The television film of the book, shown in the Horizon series, won the Sci-Tech Prize for the Best Science Programme of 1987. He has also won the 1989 Silver Medal of the Zoological Society of London and the 1990 Royal Society Michael Faraday Award for the furtherance of the public understanding of science. In 1994 he won the Nakayama Prize for Human Science and has been awarded an Honorary D.Litt. by the University of St Andrews and by the Australian National University, Canberra
CONTENTS Preface Chapter I Explaining the very improbable Chapter 2 Good design Chapter 3 Accumulating small change Chapter 4 Making tracks through animal space Chapter 5 The power and the archives Chapter 6 Origins and miracles Chapter 7 Constructive evolution Chapter 8 Explosions and spirals Chapter 9 Puncturing punctuationism Chapter 10 The one true tree of life Chapter 11 Doomed rivals Bibliography Appendix (1991):Computer programs and"The Evolution of Evolvability' Index
CONTENTS Preface Chapter I Explaining the very improbable Chapter 2 Good design Chapter 3 Accumulating small change Chapter 4 Making tracks through animal space Chapter 5 The power and the archives Chapter 6 Origins and miracles Chapter 7 Constructive evolution Chapter 8 Explosions and spirals Chapter 9 Puncturing punctuationism Chapter 10 The one true tree of life Chapter 11 Doomed rivals Bibliography Appendix (1991): Computer programs and 'The Evolution of Evolvability' Index
PREFACE This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries,but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.Darwin and Wallace solved it,though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet.I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but,incredibly,in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place! The problem is that of complex design.The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes (one byte is used to hold each character of text).The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones.Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand 'electric wires'connecting them to other neurones.Moreover,at the molecular genetic level,every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer.The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design.Ifanyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation,I give up. No,on second thoughts I don't give up,because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it.But having built up the mystery,my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution. xiii
PREFACE This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved. Darwin and Wallace solved it, though we shall continue to add footnotes to their solution for a while yet. I wrote the book because I was surprised that so many people seemed not only unaware of the elegant and beautiful solution to this deepest of problems but, incredibly, in many cases actually unaware that there was a problem in the first place! The problem is that of complex design. The computer on which I am writing these words has an information storage capacity of about 64 kilobytes (one byte is used to hold each character of text). The computer was consciously designed and deliberately manufactured. The brain with which you are understanding my words is an array of some ten million kiloneurones. Many of these billions of nerve cells have each more than a thousand 'electric wires' connecting them to other neurones. Moreover, at the molecular genetic level, every single one of more than a trillion cells in the body contains about a thousand times as much precisely-coded digital information as my entire computer. The complexity of living organisms is matched by the elegant efficiency of their apparent design. If anyone doesn't agree that this amount of complex design cries out for an explanation, I give up. No, on second thoughts I don't give up, because one of my aims in the book is to convey something of the sheer wonder of biological complexity to those whose eyes have not been opened to it. But having built up the mystery, my other main aim is to remove it again by explaining the solution. xiii
XIV Preface Explaining is a difficult art.You can explain something so that your reader understands the words;and you can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones.To do the latter,it sometimes isn't enough to lay the evidence before the reader in a dispassionate way.You have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate's trade.This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise.Other books on Darwinism are,and many of them are excellent and informative and should be read in conjunction with this one.Far from being dispassionate,it has to be confessed that in parts this book is written with a passion which,in a professional scientific journal,might excite comment.Certainly it seeks to inform,but it also seeks to persuade and even one can specify aims without presumption-to inspire.I want to inspire the reader with a vision of our own existence as,on the face of it,a spine-chilling mystery,and simultaneously to convey the full excitement of the fact that it is a mystery with an elegant solution which is within our grasp.More,I want to persuade the reader,not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true,but that it is the only known theory that could,in principle,solve the mystery of our existence.This makes it a doubly satisfying theory.A good case can be made that Darwinism is true,not just on this planet but all over the universe wherever life may be found. In one respect I plead to distance myself from professional advocates. A lawyer or a politician is paid to exercise his passion and his persuasion on behalf of a client or a cause in which he may not privately believe.I have never done this and I never shall.I may not always be right,but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right.I remember being shocked when visiting a university debating society to debate with creationists.At dinner after the debate,I was placed next to a young woman who had made a relatively powerful speech in favour of creationism.She clearly couldn't be a creationist,so I asked her to tell me honestly why she had done it.She freely admitted that she was simply practising her debating skills,and found it more challenging to advocate a position in which she did not believe. Apparently it is common practice in university debating societies for speakers simply to be told on which side they are to speak.Their own beliefs don't come into it.I had come a long way to perform the disagreeable task of public speaking,because I believed in the truth of the motion that I had been asked to propose.When I discovered that members of the society were using the motion as a vehicle for playing arguing games,I resolved to decline future invitations from debating societies that encourage insincere advocacy on issues where scientific truth is at stake
XIV Preface Explaining is a difficult art. You can explain something so that your reader understands the words; and you can explain something so that the reader feels it in the marrow of his bones. To do the latter, it sometimes isn't enough to lay the evidence before the reader in a dispassionate way. You have to become an advocate and use the tricks of the advocate's trade. This book is not a dispassionate scientific treatise. Other books on Darwinism are, and many of them are excellent and informative and should be read in conjunction with this one. Far from being dispassionate, it has to be confessed that in parts this book is written with a passion which, in a professional scientific journal, might excite comment. Certainly it seeks to inform, but it also seeks to persuade and even - one can specify aims without presumption - to inspire. I want to inspire the reader with a vision of our own existence as, on the face of it, a spine-chilling mystery, and simultaneously to convey the full excitement of the fact that it is a mystery with an elegant solution which is within our grasp. More, I want to persuade the reader, not just that the Darwinian world-view happens to be true, but that it is the only known theory that could, in principle, solve the mystery of our existence. This makes it a doubly satisfying theory. A good case can be made that Darwinism is true, not just on this planet but all over the universe wherever life may be found. In one respect I plead to distance myself from professional advocates. A lawyer or a politician is paid to exercise his passion and his persuasion on behalf of a client or a cause in which he may not privately believe. I have never done this and I never shall. I may not always be right, but I care passionately about what is true and I never say anything that I do not believe to be right. I remember being shocked when visiting a university debating society to debate with creationists. At dinner after the debate, I was placed next to a young woman who had made a relatively powerful speech in favour of creationism. She clearly couldn't be a creationist, so I asked her to tell me honestly why she had done it. She freely admitted that she was simply practising her debating skills, and found it more challenging to advocate a position in which she did not believe. Apparently it is common practice in university debating societies for speakers simply to be told on which side they are to speak. Their own beliefs don't come into it. I had come a long way to perform the disagreeable task of public speaking, because I believed in the truth of the motion that I had been asked to propose. When I discovered that members of the society were using the motion as a vehicle for playing arguing games, I resolved to decline future invitations from debating societies that encourage insincere advocacy on issues where scientific truth is at stake