# Methinks it is sort-of like two weasels

**URL:** https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/methinks-it-is-sort-of-like-two-weasels/15043
**Category:** Conversation
**Tags:** Science
**Created:** [May 3, 2022, 9:27pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/methinks-it-is-sort-of-like-two-weasels/15043 "2022-05-03T21:27:56Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 151

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![Paul\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Paul\_King](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Paul_King)
#### Post date: [May 19, 2022, 7:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/methinks-it-is-sort-of-like-two-weasels/15043/151 "2022-05-19T19:59:44Z")

</div>

> [@Why are We Disagreeing with ID?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-are-we-disagreeing-with-id/15100/6):
>
> > [@Why are We Disagreeing with ID?](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/why-are-we-disagreeing-with-id/15100/6):
> >
> > Here I believe I can confidently state that nobody actually thinks all evolutionary change occurs on perfectly smooth fitness landscapes.
> 
> Yes, so Dawkins is wrong to portray evolution like this.

Perhaps you would like to explain where Dawkins does so. The weasel program - which is covered in only a few pages in _The Blind Watchmaker_ - is intended only to show the advantage of what Dawkins calls “cumulative selection” over “single-step selection” (which is essentially random guessing). It is not billed as or intended to be a simulation of biological evolution and Dawkins says that it is not accurate as such.

(It is interesting that criticisms focus on the relatively unimportant weasel program and not on the biomorph program that occupies the bulk of that chapter - and is intended to be closer to biological evolution, though still not a simulation).

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/methinks-it-is-sort-of-like-two-weasels/15043)._