Uncommon Descent Contest Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 26, 2009

Darwinism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Special invitation for Richard Dawkins – but any civil person is entitled to enter.

There’s been some discussion here and elsewhere whether the the recent IEEE article by Dembski and Marks correctly characterizes Richard Dawkins’ famous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL program.

Does the program ratchet correct letters or does it let them vary? One is a partitioned or stair-step search, the other a more realistic evolutionary search. From The Blind Watchmaker, where Dawkins describes the program, its performance suggests that it could be either of these options (though he doesn’t say).

On the other hand, from a (video-run of the program , go to 6:15), it seems to be the latter.

It’s easy enough to settle this question: Make the code for the program public. Perhaps Richard Dawkins himself or his friends at RichardDawkins.net can finally provide this code (apparently a program written in BASIC).

The prize is a copy of either Stephen Meyer’s new Signature in the Cell or Richard Dawkins’ soon-to-be-out The Greatest Show on Earth.

Should the winner choose the latter, I will ask Dawkins’s publicist to mail the copy. Given that at his site, he calls himself “the most formidable intellect in public discourse,” I would assume that if he signs the copy, it will be worth millions.

But wait. Let’s see that code first.

Comments

This is fun. This has to be the slowest derailment I have ever watched. kairosfocus at post 66
23 –> however, on p. 1055, they simply describe, exemplify and analyse a partitioned search.
kairosfocus at post 372
2] The algorithm described textually and mathematically in section III.E of M&D’s paper clearly contradicts both the description of WEASEL and the results thereof reported in TBW. M & D do not describe an algorithm, they give an unrealistic illustration [Emphasis DNAJ's]
Expedient, but wrong. You were correct at post 66, but since then you have had to concede that the partitioned search they 'described, exemplified, and analyzed' is quite different from TBW Weasel. Hence the evasion. So now, according to kf, there is no "THE" M&D algorithm in Section E, just an unrealistic illustration - Huh? So what are they calculating the active information for? As the train ever so slowly comes off the rails, kf has learnt that eqn 22 can be simply modified to take into account mutation rates other than 100%. Now would be a good time to re-read posts 34, 114, 164, and the first half of 305. With s/N replacing 1/N in eqn22, do some exploring. You still cannot get a partitioned search that looks like the TBW run. kairosfocus at post 375
PPPS: And of course weirdly enough for s = 1, it turns out that we see 1/N.
That's not really "weird", it is the starting point, and the algorithm that M&D explicitly describe. With Math. And it CANNOT be Weasel. More importantly, equation 22 cannot be modified to take generational champions into account. When DiEb asks you to "just show me some values", he is gently trying to show you that your Q = GenSize x Gen# approximation leads to results that are waaaay off. I can help you here: You have showcased a run of 21 generations, where Q = 999 x 21 = 20,979, with a mutation rate of 8% (your run D). According to your math (post 367)
q ~ [1 - (1 - s/N)^{G*z}]^L
the probability that this search is not finished within the first 11 generations is 1 in 5 million million. Try it at home:
q ~ [1 - (1 - 0.08/27)^(999*11)]^28
My computer returns zero if I try to put a number >12 into this equation....DNA_Jock_{September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

[ .. ] an explicitly latched version would be utterly unlikely to run as illustrated. That is the M & D example is most credibly by way of illustration, not a credible actual run.
Utterly unlikely? I don't think so! And if you asked W. Dembski and R. Marks, I'm sure they'll tell you that the example wasn't constructed, but an actual run of some program. Of course, they may have discarded some runs without any (new) correct letters in the first two generation (the most probable events) - but their example is more probable than getting firstly a queen and secondly a black two from a deck of card. But I suppose you'll tell me that drawing the queen of hearts and then the two of spades is utterly unlikely and not a credible actual run of the game of drawing two cards.DiEb_{September 16, 2009
September
09
Sep
16
16
2009
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT}

PPPS: And of course weirdly enough for s = 1, it turns out that we see 1/N. (But the case is artificial, as an implicitly latched version would be practically -- with probability, almost anything is logically possible but some things are practically impossible -- impossible and an explicitly latched version would be utterly unlikely to run as illustrated. That is the M & D example is most credibly by way of illustration, not a credible actual run. And of course we should reckon with the implications of the multiple algors at EIL. There is no THE M & D algorithm to be contrasted to a "THE" Dawkins algor. [Indeed, it is now quite clear that here will be no fortcoming c 1986 Weasel code; absent such code, we do not know the actual state of the algors c 1987 beyond all reasonable dispute; so various interpretations of Weasel c 1986 have a certain degree of legitimacy, and indeed that is so despite statements and declarations made in subsequent years. A declaration is not a demonstration, especially when it is made after the fact of a debate challenge and the decisive evidence is not forthcoming.])kairosfocus_{September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
11:01 PM
11
11
01
PM
PDT}

PPS: For a more technically sophisticated version: 1] Bayes Th: p(A|B) = p(A AND B) / p(B) 2] Here, what I have given as probability of going correct is actually in context prob of going correct on being selected: p(K|S) = 1/N, --> where N alternative values for a given character are possible (here, 27) and there is no reason to prefer any one value relative to the rest --> of these N values, one is correct --> in the case of potential implicit latching, each letter in turn for a member of a pop is subject to selection and if chosen, will take up one of N values at random, one of these being correct relative to the "distant" target. [This is of course at he heart of the dis-analogy between Weasel and real life as CRD acknowledged in BW.] 3] We are interested in the probability of being selected AND being correct: p(K AND s) = p(K|S) * p(S) --> Where p(S) = s, by definition, i.e. the per letter mut rate. --> And we see already that p (K|S) = 1/N 4] So, substituting and rearranging: p(K AND S) = (1/N) * s = s/N --> this is the result presented more loosely above. --> And, it is why I said the probs are 'effectively" independent. (I am aware that conditional probability and Bayes th etc are even harder to think through. Cf my discussion in App 6 on Caputo et al . . .)kairosfocus_{September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
10:43 PM
10
10
43
PM
PDT}

PS: I may need clarify what I mean by no-change cases: members of a pop of mutants that are equal to the seed for the generation. With pops of reasonable size and low enough mut rates per letter, they are very likely to be present. So they are the latching backstop: another mutant is likely to be chosen by the gen champ selecting filter only if they preserve the existing letters AND add a new one. Failing such, the no-change case passes through to be the next gen champ. And in fact the two 1986 showcased runs hit target in 40+ [with 3 initially correct letters] and 60+ gens, indicating that about 1/2 the time no-change members won the contest to be seed for the next gen. [This is of course discussed in my App 7 the always linked. (I confess I get the distinct feeling that a lot of critiques are in a context of having never read what I actually have to say step by step on the matter.)]kairosfocus_{September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Okay: After an 8-hr power cut last night since before midnight and dodgy net connexions since [hope this is not a hint from "someone" on the likely prospects of the new Govt . . . "Mons'rat lack arf" is not a joke if/when it moves from song to reality!], a few footnotes: 1] Rob: Nor does implicit latching depend on a matching of mutation rate to pop size. The higher the pop size, the lower the probability of losing a correct letter. This underscores the importance of a dynamical-empirical view rather than a principally mathematical one. Once pop size goes up enough, implicit latching is lost the other way: far tail effects such as substitutions [one reverts, another advances] -- also demonstrated [cf line 25] -- show up. Hence too the importance of the law of large numbers here in making relatively improbable "far tail" or "black swan" events observable as sample size goes up. 2] The algorithm described textually and mathematically in section III.E of M&D’s paper clearly contradicts both the description of WEASEL and the results thereof reported in TBW. M & D do not describe an algorithm, they give an unrealistic illustration. It seems that given the rhetorical environment it would have been better to have given an actual run showing implicit latching and ratcheting. Recall, such exist and have been demonstrated, since April. 3] Your position has been shown to be false by both the mathematics and the empirical results In fact implicit latching has been empirically demonstrated, ever since April 9th, as has repeatedly been underscored [and as was just linked]; whatever debates may be had over mathematical models and errors regarding thereof; the dynamical-empirical framework is valid. And, once implicit latching has been shown, it is a credible explanation of the showcased runs of Weasel 1986. Also, on the mathematical side my issue was that I misread a term in an equation. (BTW, it seems that you, too, seem to have done so; cf. below.) Once I saw that I did, I acknowledged that and provided an alternative that fits with the relevant regime. I see you challenge it, so I comment: 4] The probability of a given letter going correct on any mutant phrase is 1/N only if you assume a 100% mutation rate. But that assumption would contradict your assumptions in #8. N states for the L relevant characters, prob of being selected for mut s; on flat random model, odds go to essentially s/N. (Independence is effectively true: each letter is picked in succession, and once it is in the hopper the s-odds die is thrown; deciding whether or not to let it take up any of the N available values at random. then, next letter. With odds of say 4% or so, typically one letter per 28-letter phrase will be varied, and 1 in 27 times it will repeat itself. And with a big enough but not too big pop, there will be to high odds no-change cases or at lest no distance to target change cases, and when a change occurs that goes closer home, it is likely to win. If pop is too big, multiple mutaiton effects will be more likely to pop up, and when a correct letter reverts while another advances in the same pop member, then this may crop up in the gen champs line, which would break the latching effect. Such substitutions were also demonstrated, as can be seen here in line 25.) note again: I have also in effect inferred that we look at any given letter, say: l; then roll the dice to see if it will be permitted to mutate to one of 27 states, with s being odds that the given letter will mutate. Then the next letter is fed in etc. 5] Consider that we can make the mutation rate arbitrarily low and still meet the conditions stated in your #8. Your conclusion says that q should remain constant as the mutation rate drops ridiculously close to zero, but we know that q would, in fact, also decrease. Where did this come from? In the analysis above, at 367, I am using q analogous to M & D for their s = 100% case. [I have already noted that s = 100% is not a practically feasible case to have implicit latching. I note that due to the required matching to get implicit latching, which was demonstrated, s is indeed factored in once we see latching. I simply misread the full import of M & D's 1/N; this I have adjusted on seeing it, for he relevant implicit latching and ratcheting to target case: catch and keep in effect all cases where letters go correctt he first time. ] That is q is NOT a constant but the odds of going correct after G generations of size z. Thus, since s is a variable which will affect a rather large exponentiation, s will affect its value as it falls. Indeed at s = 0, q will be zero independent of G; save for the trivial case where the initial string is the target. As s --> 0, q for a given G will fall towards zero, and that will be in the context of a probably large Q = G* z. Which is what the intuitive expectation is too. (And I think this all shows just how hard it is to "read" these eqns right, on all sides.) 6] Nakashima-san: Appreciated. I guess I need to go off and do 500 lines of serious derivation as due penance to the gods of mathematics . . . ;) However, the dynamical-empirical fundamentals of Weasel and why implicit latching is a credible account for the showcased runs c 1986 remain the same. (And that is why I rely on and prioritise dynamical-empirical methods.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

--kf
As you know, Eqn 22 on p 1055 of the IEEE paper is about the effect of latched search, with the probability of capturing a correct letter built in already in the parameters.
In #123 you stated:
Again, once the run of generational champions takes on the cumulative progress, ratcheting-latching pattern [and cf the showcased runs of 1986 on that], it makes but little difference whether it is produced explicitly or implicitly.
In #222 you described a proximity reward search with a population of 500 and a mutation probability µ of .04 as implicitly latched. So, according to you, eq. 22 should apply. I just ask you to do the actual math, and to calculate the values. This should not be that complicated, should it? Could you do the math, please, with S=500, and µ=.04? P.S.: I'd take it as a personal favour if you could start your answer with the sentence: Yes, the value is ... and No, I couldn't calculate the value. After this, feel free to elaborate.DiEb_{September 15, 2009
September
09
Sep
15
15
2009
02:25 AM
2
02
25
AM
PDT}

KF-san, Sir, I honor you. Keep up the good work.Nakashima_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus:
If so, on a default, uniform distribution, odds of being selected and going correct on any mutant phrase would be: s* (1/N) = s/N
Couple of problems I see here. Big problem: The probability of a given letter going correct on any mutant phrase is 1/N only if you assume a 100% mutation rate. But that assumption would contradict your assumptions in #8. Not-as-big problem: P(A&B)=P(A)*P(B) only if the two events are independent. Obviously, getting selected is not independent of the given letter going correct. This can be remedied by defining s as "the probability of this sequence being selected given that the letter in question went correct". But s is also dependent on whether other letters in the sequence went correct, and also on whether letters in other sequences went correct. The upshot is that I see no way to define s such that all of the steps in your derivation are true. Maybe you can see a way. Setting aside the problems in the derivation, we can easily see that your conclusion is not true. Consider that we can make the mutation rate arbitrarily low and still meet the conditions stated in your #8. Your conclusion says that q should remain constant as the mutation rate drops ridiculously close to zero, but we know that q would, in fact, also decrease. If there's anything wrong with my take on your math, I'm open to correction.R0b_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, it's gratifying to see that some progress is being made in this debate -- a rather rare occurrence on this forum. But issues still remain.
Across these months, here are some points where I have been bitterly opposed by Darwinist critics and have proved objectively correct:
From what I can tell, each of the points in your list has either not been disputed, or is in fact incorrect. We can go through each point individually if you'd like.
Eqn 22 would be correct on the premise that latching behaviour is OBSERVED, and the particular features of the M & D illustrative model (i.e. the context for their discussion) are followed. Latching, in turn depends on a matching of mutation rate per letter to pop size and to filter characteristics. This is pivotal. Mut rate –> 0 or –> 100% are cases where diverse effects will happen depending on pop size and filter characteristics. One of these will be that under certain circumstances latching will be lost one way or another.
Of course Eq. 22 is correct given the particular features of M&D's model, since eq. 22 is derived from those features, which include explicit latching. Explicit latching clearly does not depend on a matching of mutation rate to pop size, as it includes an added mechanism that shields correct letters from mutation. Nor does implicit latching depend on a matching of mutation rate to pop size. The higher the pop size, the lower the probability of losing a correct letter. And the lower the mutation rate, the lower the probability of losing a correct letter. No matching is necessary. If you don't believe it, we can work through the math. If you're claiming that latching will be lost as the mutation rate goes to zero, you're wrong.
Yes, one can construct a strawman algorithm from this which will not resemble Dawkins' "algorithm"
The algorithm described textually and mathematically in section III.E of M&D's paper clearly contradicts both the description of WEASEL and the results thereof reported in TBW. The strawman algorithm is of M&D's making. If you think that someone here has strawmanned M&D's strawman algorithm, then tell us how.
And, Mr Dawkins has not provided actual code or a technical summary of his algorithm[s] so various possibilities are credible or at least legitimate on the relevant evidence.])
The algorithm described by M&D in section III.E is not a possibility, as it contradicts Dawkins' description and reported results.
Now, since I have focussed hitherto on the empirical data and dynamics of variable mut rates and the appearance of latching as a control, I have based my view of what was going on on this; which is an objective external control above and beyond the mathematics involved. (Such a control, BTW, limits the effect of errors one may make in a logical analysis.
Your position has been shown to be false by both the mathematics and the empirical results, so the above statement rings rather hollow. I'll comment on your extension of M&D's math later.R0b_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Following up: Let's see what an adjusted form of the M & D analysis could look like; again in the context of OBSERVED latching. 1] Each letter has N states, which we may take the "odds" -- I am using this loosely for probability -- of being selected on any try as s. If so, on a default, uniform distribution, odds of being selected and going correct on any mutant phrase would be: s* (1/N) = s/N [For s =1, s/N --> 1/N, the case that M & D seem to have analysed] 2] Complementing, the odds of not being selected and/or not going correct would be 1 - s/N 3] With Q independent tries,the extended complement becomes odds of not being selected and/or not going correct after Q tries: (1 - s/N)^Q 4] So odds that somewhere in the Q choices a letter will be selected and will go correct are the second tier complement: [1 - (1 - s/N)^Q] 5] For L independent letters, this extends: [1 - (1 - s/N)^Q]^L 6] Now, to get to "catch and keep," we first allow Q to increment by generations of size z, so in G generations, we see Q = G*z 7] Then, the odds of L letters going correct in G generations would seem to be (under "catch and keep" constraints to be discussed following): q ~ [1 - (1 - s/N)^{G*z}]^L 8] Obvious limitation -- need to catch and keep. That is, this extension of the M & D analysis implies that if a letter goes correct it must be caught and kept, i.e. there is a generational sparseness but observability of go-correct mutations such that no more than one letter changes to go correct per mutant as a rule, and that the pop is of scope that once one correct mutation appears, it will be captured. In the meanwhile, the pop should be of sufficient size for the rate -- which needs to be small enough too -- that no-change cases are overwhelmingly likely to be present. that way, we don't have a holed keep-net.) 9] This boils down to saying that the already identified plausible and empirically observed conditions for implicit latching must be met if this simple extension to M & D is to work. [Note that approximation rule: ~ not =.] 10] under such circumstances it seems likely enough that we will see cases of implicit latching of the generational champions, and that selection of such to showcaswe will be a feasible action, especially iof per Weasel 1986, one is looking for "good" examples of "cumulative selection." Where, "cumulative" normally means: Increasing or enlarging by successive addition. 11] Which was what was to be explained, per showcased run excerpts circa 1986. _______________ So, let's see what others have to say . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT}

Trib and Clive: Thanks. GEM of TKI Footnotes: 1] Re Sev, 356: you persist in the flawed argumentum ad nauseum ad Lewontin – who neither speaks for the whole of science nor, as far as I am aware, claims such . . . In fact, Seversky here is wrong. For, in the original remarks in my Section E the always linked, in the initial brief mentions (through links to Section E) and most recently in the expansion at 347 supra I point out the way that the US National Academy of Sciences [NAS] bases its current definition and interpretation of "Science," AND in its interventions in Kansas c 2005 [and I gather 2001]. Moreover, this is the same position that appears in say the ACLU advice to Judge Jones, which he reproduced practically verbatim as his decision at Dover c 2005 -- his much celebrated decision. (All that stuff about centuries-old rules of science.) So, Sev knows, or should know, that the Lewontinian a priori materialism -- whether explicitly metaphysical or implicitly so through the term "methodological naturalism" -- is not an easily dismissible idiosyncrasy of one man but a widespread, entrenched, instituionalised problem. Precisely what my reference to a nneo-magisterium issuing ideological evolutionary materialist edicts in the name of science (metaphorically, while wearing lab coats) is highlighting and correcting. 2] Quote of Cromwell, 356: I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Observe, Mr Cromwell (no mean sinner himself) spoke correctively, and in Sev's opinion, correctly. So, fallible and fallen sinners can be right, even when they speak correctively; some of the time at least. Therefore, we need to focus on the merits of any given case, rather than distractive, mischaracterising or dismissive side issues such as the above Darwinist pattern shows. Yes, I openly admit that like the old Protector, I am finite, fallible, and indeed fallen and under reconstruction through gospel ethics. And I have made and corrected acknowledged mistakes [e.g. my initial interpretation of Q]; including in the general context of this discussion for coming on a year now. (And Nakashima-San, you should know that before hinting as you do above.) Indeed, on a point from DNA-J I will do so again below. However, it is also objectively true that on many core matters relating to Weasel I have been correct; i.e. even fallible humans sometimes succeed in being correct after all. For instance, Weasel is admitted by Mr Dawkins to be targetted, artificially selected search on mere proximity to target that rewards the smallest increments in proximity for NONSENSE -- non-functional -- phrases. That is why Weasel is fundamentally misleading entirely apart form the credibly observed phenomenon of latching and ratcheting in the showcased runs c 1986. Across these months, here are some points where I have been bitterly opposed by Darwinist critics and have proved objectively correct: a --> That the Weasel c 1986 runs show samples of 300+ letters in which in over 200 cases -- every case where a letter goes correct and could revert -- once a letter goes correct in a sample generation champion, it never is seen to revert. This, in a context where it is easy to see incorrect letter values persisting for decades of generations. b --> That this is reflective of the import of he law of large numbers, and so it is reasonable on the observations and Mr Dawkins' effusive remarks on the power of "cumulative selection" on the plain meaning of terms, to conclude that for the showcased runs, latching and ratcheting of correct letters in generational champions is real. c --> That this evidence c 1986 can be accounted for on two major mechanisms, explicit and implicit latching-ratcheting ones. d --> That, on subsequent testimony from CRD as reported indirectly, implicit latching best accounts for the evidence in hand from 1986. Though -- and thus the focus of this prize thread -- only credible code will prove actually decisive. (From recent remarks from CRD, it seems this will not be forthcoming, but he says that the general pattern of Weasel recreations out there is sufficiently good of a representation.) e --> That implicit latching, quasi-latching and non-latching based on runs with parameter settings that facilitate such behaviour has been DEMONSTRATED here at UD [from here on] by the undersigned on Atom's Weasel implementation at EIL, hosted by Marks and Dembski. Ever since April 9th inst. f --> That the analysis on p. 1055 of the IEEE paper by M & D hinges on the observation of latching as a part of ratcheting, and enfolds in it the issue of whatever mutation rates and pop sizes may lead to implicitly latched runs. So, whatever issues may be taken with the M & D analysis or mine, latching behaviour is observable, and controls onward discussion on the point. 3] DNA-J, 361: kf fails to respond to a very simple request : “Just some numerical values”‘. At 348 above, my response was:
As you know, Eqn 22 on p 1055 of the IEEE paper is about the effect of latched search, with the probability of capturing a correct letter built in already in the parameters. Mut rate per letter is implicit in this.
In short, my observationally and dynamically based point is that where we deal with an implicitly latched case [which we can demonstrate to be real], mut rate per letter, is enfolded with pop per gen and filter characteristics [which may yield implicit or explicit latching . . . i.e a mask register or the like is effectively part of a filter] and issues in the OBSERVED latching. Citing M & D: ________________ >>Assuming uniformity, the probability of successfully identi- fying a speci?ed letter with sample replacement at least once in Q queries [in the context of a ratcheting, partitioned search] is 1 - (1 - 1/N)^Q [NB: Cf below, this DOES imply the 100% mutation rate per letter], and the probability of identifying all L characters in Q queries is q = 1 ? (1 - (1/N))^Q)^L (22) [NB: Q -- number of mutants to date; N -- number of characters in the "alphabet", L -- length of target phrase] For the alternate search using purely random queries of the entire phrase, a sequence of L letters is chosen. The result is either a success and matches the target phrase, or does not. If there is no match, a completely new sequence of letters is chosen . . . >> _____________ So, the issue is to be addressed in a context of observed latching. 4] So equation 22 is correct, whatever the mutation rate is? What happens to the number of queries needed to reach the target as the mutation rate approaches zero? Eqn 22 would be correct on the premise that latching behaviour is OBSERVED, and the particular features of the M & D illustrative model (i.e. the context for their discussion) are followed. Latching, in turn depends on a matching of mutation rate per letter to pop size and to filter characteristics. This is pivotal. Mut rate --> 0 or --> 100% are cases where diverse effects will happen depending on pop size and filter characteristics. One of these will be that under certain circumstances latching will be lost one way or another. (For instance if pop per generation size = 1 [to make the point obvious to all] or only a few, with a low but non-zero mutation rate, reversions will predictably appear -- so latching will vanish -- as there will be insufficient population per generation at the mut rate to reasonably assure observability of no-change cases. It is the highly reliable presence of the no-change cases that acts with the filter to lock in [ = latch] progress to date. The presence of a sufficiently -- but not "too-" -- high mut rate is required to get single-step progress to target. With a too-high mut rate, multiple letter effects such as substitutions will occur, leading to reversions and parallel advances, again destroying latching. In short, the issue is that the analysis is on the premise that latching must be observed and to be observed must be based on certain dynamics, whatever errors may or may not be present otherwise in the M & D analysis. [Yes, M & D use a simplistic illustration of what partitioning means, and do so in a way that invites dismissal of what they analysed. Yes, they look at a case where for illustration, every letter is changing in the envisioned generation champions, and this produces obviously implausible single generation advances -- 5 letters -- in their constructed example. Yes, one can construct a strawman algorithm from this which will not resemble Dawkins' "algorithm"; howbeit M & D also host a recreation of a wide range of possible Weasel algorithms and display their comparative effects, indeed going on to analyse some to these in later sections. And, Mr Dawkins has not provided actual code or a technical summary of his algorithm[s] so various possibilities are credible or at least legitimate on the relevant evidence.]) 5] eqn 22 does not take the mutation rate into account (he [KF] may or may not realize that it actually sets it at 100%) and that eqn 22 CANNOT take the generation number into account, because it cannot describe a search that uses generational champions. I have shown that generation number for a proximity reward search case -- which under certain conditions will implicitly latch -- can be accounted for on simply reckoning that Q comes in generational lumps of size S. In G generations, of size S, Q = G * S. (And so, on any given mut per letter rate etc, there will be Q queries at any given time, but say it will jump in lots of 50. And if in any given lot of 50 the correct phrase appears, the Weasel will of course pick it up. And if any advance appears, it will be recognised.) Now, you make an intersting point, that in the model in Eqn 22, the implied per letter mut rate on unlatched letters is 100%, which is of course the pattern they illustrate with their example. Now, since I have focussed hitherto on the empirical data and dynamics of variable mut rates and the appearance of latching as a control, I have based my view of what was going on on this; which is an objective external control above and beyond the mathematics involved. (Such a control, BTW, limits the effect of errors one may make in a logical analysis. that is why the Galilean principle is correct and helpful: ideas must be subject to empirical tests. And, that is why even though his explanation of tides etc was rather plainly wrong, we today reckon that Galileo had the better of the case on balance regarding whether the Copernican scheme was more or less correct.) In a 100% mutation per letter rate situation of course, implicit latching will be practically impossible -- especially with a pop size of one per gen. So, the didactic model would at once fall apart if it were to be attempted practically. [That means, practically, it CANNOT be a real world case on proximity reward search. I do believe it would in general work on explicit latching, though getting a five letter increment in proximity to target on a single member generation model is rather unlikely adn would not be typical behaviour. M & D are most likely giving a didactic illustration, not a credible actual run.] Where I went wrong. Now, let's look at the probability on a particular letter position going correct that M & D use: {1 - (1 - 1/N)^Q}. The second component is that odds of not being correct are (1 - 1/N)^Q, i.e. Q independent tries on (1 - 1/N). This last is odds on not being correct on a uniform distribution on N states. And you are correct, this is indeed implying 100% odds of change on the letter per generation-member. I stand corrected on this. And, the case will not be observable on a proximity reward case without explicit latching, as a 100% mut rate will impose in praxis non-latched non-ratcheting behaviour. Implicit latching and ratcheting are are observable, but not credibly on the terms discussed on p. 1055. However, using odds of selection for mutation per letter, s, brings to bear the analysis in App 7 point 18 on, e.g.:
A letter in the string of length L [= 28] has probability of being selected to mutate, s. Once so selected, it can equally take up any of the g [= 27] available states at random. Of these, one is identical to the original state and 26 are changed outcomes. So, we can see that, for a given letter: chance to be NOT selected = 1 - s chance to be selecd but not change value = s * 1/g overall chance to remain the same = (1 - s) + s/g chance of no-change for a string of L letters = [(1 - s) + s/g]^L [Odds of at least one change being of course the probabilistic complement]
In short, the M & D model in part E of the paper is correctable in principle. The analysis in part F of that paper points the way [I forget who said that, he is correct], with the proviso that population size and mutation rate actually need to be matched, as beyond a certain limit, substitution effects etc. will tend strongly to do away with latched, ratcheting behaviour also. (Also, demonstrated.) 6] Nakashima-San, 3564: “Have you ever been wrong? Ever mismatched your socks or ended a sentence in a preposition?” Work up to mathematical issues slowly. You have a point, given what I have acknowledged above; on taking a closer look at the model M & D presented in Eqn 22. I do not and have not claimed infallibility, however I do maintain that empirical controls do limit error, as I also highlighted. (And in that context, I think it is also fair comment that there are several specific points [cf. above] where -- despite rather strident criticism -- I have been right. Right in ways that strongly limit the impact of limitations of Eqn 22. And, the pattern of destructive rhetoric I have spent much of this thread addressing is real and needs to be corrected.) 7] On Judaeo-Christian heritage. I think many of us have been indoctrinated into thinking that does not accurately or fairly reflect the actual balance or key foundational role of the historical contribution of the Judaeo-Christian frame to our civlisation, not only on law and morality and liberty etc, but on even the rise of science. (Cf Peterson's introductory discussion in the context of the ID debate, here.) ___________ So, the above includes not only points where I think I am right, but a key point where I have been wrong and set out on correcting that error. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 14, 2009
September
09
Sep
14
14
2009
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

DNA_Jock,
So here’s my offer to you Clive: I promise to forego the benefits and work product of people who teach evangelism, if you promise to forgo the benefits and work product of people who develop pharmaceutical products. Do we have a deal?
That's a false dilemma. My point was to point out that lab coat scientism has no premium in the value of human thought. There is no such thing as lab coat thought over and against evangelical thought. The real distinction is between logical and non-logical thought (and on this a scientific training gives a man's opinion or ingenuity or rationality no added value), for if logic goes, science goes with it. And the moral clarity that can be found (for instance from an evangelical) outside of wearing a lab coat can and should pass judgments on what lab coat wearers do, for, again, a scientific training gives a man's opinion on morality absolutely no added value. And of course sometimes they do wrong, for they're only human and fallible, as the rest of us are. The point is that scientism can be a dangerous philosophy, and on that anyone's opinion, including kairosfocus's, is just as valid as any other man's, regardless of whether they wear a lab coat for goodness sakes.Clive Hayden_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
06:06 PM
6
06
06
PM
PDT}

Mr DNA_jock, Onlookers will notice that kf fails to respond to a very simple request : “Just some numerical values”‘. You might start with a simpler query to KF-san, such as "Have you ever been wrong? Ever mismatched your socks or ended a sentence in a preposition?" Work up to mathematical issues slowly.Nakashima_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT}

India, or Nepal once they get rid of the communists. You mean India with the legal system based on English Common Law which at the time of its application to India was (and remains) firmly established on Christian values, right? With regard to Nepal, why are you confident that they will replace the communist with a pro-freedom, pro-scientific inquiry government of light and tolerance, assuming they do replace them?tribune7_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

India, or Nepal once they get rid of the communists. And thank you for asking, tribune7.DNA_Jock_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

DiEb at 329:
Where – and how – do you introduce µ (the mutation rate per letter) into eq. 22? Could you please calculate q(Q) for S = 500, µ=.05? Just some numerical values? Thanks!
kairosfocus replies at 348:
A] Dieb, 329: on calculating mutation rates per letter etc As you know, Eqn 22 on p 1055 of the IEEE paper is about the effect of latched search, with the probability of capturing a correct letter built in already in the parameters. Mut rate per letter is implicit in this.
Onlookers will notice that kf fails to respond to a very simple request : "Just some numerical values"'. He asserts that the mutation rate is "implicit" in equation 22. Huh? So equation 22 is correct, whatever the mutation rate is? What happens to the number of queries needed to reach the target as the mutation rate approaches zero? The fact of the matter, of which kf is painfully aware (and I mean painfully) is that eqn 22 does not take the mutation rate into account (he may or may not realize that it actually sets it at 100%) and that eqn 22 CANNOT take the generation number into account, because it cannot describe a search that uses generational champions. Hence all the evasion.DNA_Jock_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

DNA_jock --The majority of the people in the world live in societies that are not based on “Judeo-Christian values” Right. And in which would you like to live?tribune7_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PDT}

tribune7 wrote:
I promise to forego the benefits and work product of people who teach evangelism, if you promise to forgo the benefits and work product of people who develop pharmaceutical products. You seem to be sort willing to trade your inheritance for a bowl of pottage. Can you image living in a society not based on Judeo-Christian values?
Very revealing. The majority of the people in the world live in societies that are not based on "Judeo-Christian values" (I assume that you intended to exclude Islam). Many of these societies are execrable, but some are not. So, yes, I can imagine living in such a society. If you cannot, tribune7, then you must be sorely lacking in imagination, or else profoundly prejudiced. To answer lamarck at 344, I don't work for a pharmaceutical company. I chose pharmaceuticals as my example, not because I know researchers who have developed life-saving drugs, but rather because I believe antibiotics represent the most clear-cut example of a public good produced by the 'lab-coats' that Clive was maligning. "Household Cleaning Supplies" wouldn't have had the same impact, y'know.DNA_Jock_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT}

The fact that Weasel implementations do not always latch proves that it is not a latching algorithm. It's almost like saying it does not always latch until it does. Anyway, why the objection to latching -- other than the obvious reason it destroys Dawkins point? NDE is predicated on random genomic changes being fixed, or latched, by natural selection.tribune7_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

DNA_jock I promise to forego the benefits and work product of people who teach evangelism, if you promise to forgo the benefits and work product of people who develop pharmaceutical products. You seem to be sort willing to trade your inheritance for a bowl of pottage. Can you image living in a society not based on Judeo-Christian values?tribune7_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT}

PPS: And those who are taking “turn the other cheek” out of context above — BTW, this is specifically a Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals Communist agitator tactic — should remember that it is arguable that TWICE [and certainly at least once], the itinerant evangelist who said that, drove abusive moneychangers out of the Temple in Jerusalem, with a certain shocking implement in hand, which he plaited himself and at minimum brandished threateningly. He did it to protest abuse of key public institutions in service to powerful agendas. (In short, as SB has observed, all too many today struggle with context. Being one not easily provoked into a fight through personal insult is different from the need to challenge and correct — if necessary forcefully — public abuses publicly. [As another comparison, another famous C1 evangelist, when unjustly seized, whipped and gaoled in Phillipi, on the morrow refused to leave town quietly; standing on his rights as a Roman citizen and insisting that public wrong be publicly corrected instead of being left to spread its poison by remaining uncorrected.])
Since you persist in the flawed argumentum ad nauseum ad Lewontin - who neither speaks for the whole of science nor, as far as I am aware, claims such - it seems fitting to answer the above with a famous quote from the author of the book Lewontin was reviewing:
But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Or how about this from "A letter sent to the General Assembly of the kirke of Scotland: by Oliver Cromwell Lord Generall of the army of the Common-wealth of England now in Scotland &c":
Your own guilt is too much for you to bear: bring not therefore upon yourselves the blood of innocent men, -- deceived with pretences of King and Covenant; from whose eyes you hide a better knowledge! I am persuaded that divers of you, who lead the People, have laboured to build yourselves in these things; wherein you have censured others, and established yourselves "upon the Word of God." Is it therefore infallibly agreeable to the Word of God, all that you say? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
Seversky_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

Irq Conflict: I see your short remark on college indoctrination. You seem to be all too close to home. And that is ever so sad. (I think we need to read Plato's Parable of the Cave, again, and think very carefully on the real world case of Socrates.) GEM of TKI _______________ PS: I saw as well further remarks trying to imply that I am a hypocrite to point out that a seriously destructive pattern is at work. this is, sadly, more of the same turnabout accusation rhetoric. I am all too aware of my failings as a finite, fallible, fallen human being under slow and painful progress through the ethics of the gospel. That does not falsify my concerns that a pattern of destructive rhetoric based on distraction, distortion and demonisation or belittling and dismissal. Nor does it disestablish the evident facts regarding Weasel 1986. Nor does such "shut up!" rhetoric change the fact that there is an a priori evolutionary materialist neo-magisterium, duly vested in lab coats, that has clearly seized control of key science institutions such as the US NAS. Nor, does it change the fact that hey are pushing materialism under the false colours of science [even seeking to redefine "science" to suit their agenda], while actually falling into reduction to absurdity, e.g. as we see from Mr Lewontin's "science as the only begetter of truth" -- a self-refuting knowledge claim in epistemology not science. And, as Burke long ago warned: all tha tis required for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing. So, I refuse to be silenced, strawmannised, demonised or intimidated. ___________ PPS: And those who are taking "turn the other cheek" out of context above -- BTW, this is specifically a Saul Alinski Rules for Radicals Communist agitator tactic -- should remember that it is arguable that TWICE [and certainly at least once], the itinerant evangelist who said that, drove abusive moneychangers out of the Temple in Jerusalem, with a certain shocking implement in hand, which he plaited himself and at minimum brandished threateningly. He did it to protest abuse of key public institutions in service to powerful agendas. (In short, as SB has observed, all too many today struggle with context. Being one not easily provoked into a fight through personal insult is different from the need to challenge and correct -- if necessary forcefully -- public abuses publicly. [As another comparison, another famous C1 evangelist, when unjustly seized, whipped and gaoled in Phillipi, on the morrow refused to leave town quietly; standing on his rights as a Roman citizen and insisting that public wrong be publicly corrected instead of being left to spread its poison by remaining uncorrected.])kairosfocus_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: Some further, corrective footnotes: 1 --> CT should remember that we are explaining an observed phenomenon, Weasel 1986. Its observed credibly latched o/p of generational champions may be achieved explicitly or implicitly. And, detuning of the parameters that give rise to implicit latching and ratcheting to target -- or whatever descriptive terminology strikes your fancy -- is a demonstrated fact. 2 --> In short, the main issue currently on the table is not whether something CANNOT change (explicit latching) but whether it DOES not change for relevant "showcase-able" runs. 3 --> As to "finally" offering "definitions," CIT should be reminded that the descriptions and discussion in the relevant appendix 7, the always linked has been on the record since April, as well as onward linked runs as again linked above. And, the record of CRD's showcased observations has similarly been on the record since 1986, as has again been replicated above: runs of generation champions that once letters go correct, they credibly remain that way, as part of a ratcheting to target. 4 --> Since I have never equated latching and ratcheting with being targetted [and on the main problem with Weasel, it is targetting and proximity-reward search that duck the issue of functional complexity that are the key dubious points of all Weasels . . . ], it is rather strange to see CIT confusing the two. 5 --> Similarly, the varying of parameters -- as has been pointed out long since -- is the key factor that drives the behaviour of Weasel algorithms that in some cases [with appropriately matched parameters] latch implicitly. Where varying parameters has a relevant and dramatic consequence, that is a material issue. 6 --> Similarly, CIT needs to recall that what is to be explained is certain showcased results. What "good" runs do per what was deemed good "cumulative selection" by CRD, c 1986, is the empirical matter at stake. As has long since been addressed. Citing the always linked App 7: ____________ >>8 --> So, we have reasonably good reason to infer that the samples above are more or less representative of the published "good" runs of what have for convenience been called generational champions, circa 1986. And indeed, since Mr Dawkins was trying to illustrate the power of "cumulative selection" to achieve an otherwise utterly improbable target, we can very reasonably conclude that the observed no-reversions excerpts of runs were reflective of and showcased what was happening at large with "good" runs. That is, beyond reasonable dispute, the good runs circa 1986 latched the o/p's in the sense that once a letter went correct it stayed that way; as the sequence of generational champions ratcheted their way ever closer to the target, hitting it in the published cases in 40+ and 60+ generations . . . . 12 --> To explain the latching more realistically, we may have an explicit latching algorithm based on letterwise search [that is, in effect once a letter goes correct it is explicitly partitioned off from further change, perhaps using a mask register] . . . . 13 --> Letterwise partitioned search is also a very natural way to understand the Weasel o/p in light of Mr Dawkins' cited remarks about cumulative selection and rewarding the slightest increment to target of mutant nonsense phrases. As such, it has long been and remains a legitimate interpretation of Weasel [i.e. c. 1986]. However, on recently and indirectly received reports from Mr Dawkins, we are led to understand that he did not in fact explicitly latch the o/p of Weasel, but used a phrasewise search. 14 --> Q: Can that be consistent with an evidently latched o/p? ANS: yes, for IMPLICIT latching is possible as well. 15 --> Namely, (i) the mutation rate per letter acts with (ii) the size of population per generation and (iii) the proximity to target filter to (iv) strongly select for champions that will preserve currently correct letters and/or add new ones, with sufficient probability that we will see a latched o/p. (This effect has in fact been demonstrated through runs of the EIL's recreation of Weasel.) 16 --> in a slightly weaker manifestation, the implicit mechanism will have more or less infrequent cases of letters that will revert to incorrect status; which has been termed implicit quasi-latching. This too has been demonstrated, and it occurs because an implicit latching mechanism is a probabilistic barrier not an absolute one. So, as the parameters are sufficiently detuned to make reversions occur, we will see quasi-latched cases. Sometimes, under the same set of parameters, we will see some runs that latch and some that quasi-latch . . .>> _______________ 7 --> Similarly again, latching or non latching versions or set-ups for Weasel are all targetted searches. Targetted searches that in Dawkins' words reward "mutant nonsense phrases" -- i.e. non-functional ones -- on mere proximity to target. Thus, all Weasels show artificial selection on that which does not meet a criterion of reasonable function, build-in targets and so have added-in active information from the outset. THIS is what -- as Marks and Dembski aptly analysed in p 1055 of the IEEE paper -- is what explains the advantages of such algorithms over random walk searches. ____________ All of these -- as the excerpts show -- have long since been pointed out and explained, step by step, correcting many misconceptions and misrepresentations, over weeks and months. The just above [and a lot of similar strawmannish commentary by Darwinists here and elsewhere on the Internet] therefore shows a remarkable, consistent failure of duties of care on the part of Darwinist critics, who should seek to understand before commenting adversely or dismissively or belittlingly. That is truly sad. GEM of TKI PS: And, onlookers, we see again utterly no compunctions on the exposed pattern of destructive uncivil rhetoric that I have had to repeatedly correct. We should take that evident numbness to moral considerations very seriously into our reckoning as we reflect on the state of early C21 science and society in our civilisation.kairosfocus_{September 13, 2009
September
09
Sep
13
13
2009
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Just checking in, did i win yet? to BillB @328: Thanks for making me snort my coffee. :-) KF writes> "AND, quasi-latching or even non-latching Weasels do eventually converge to target, as has been demonstrated. (Some of the runs I have seen have occasionally substituted or slipped in other ways on already correct letters. When this is rare, quasi-latching is appropriately descriptive. When it is a lot more frequent, non-latching is obviously more apt.)" Thank you KF, for finally (finally!) offering your definition of latching. You are observing the random behavior of multiple runs of the same algorithm, and declaring that some runs show latching but others have frequent slips and are non-latching. These runs come from the same algorithm, so you are just assigning arbitrary labels to random behavior. This doesn't even qualify as a property of algorithms, it's just some nonsense you made up. Interestingly, you (KF) now say that even non-latching Weasels "do eventually converge to target", which seems to be a reversal of your earlier position that latching is what enables the Weasel to find the target. Maybe you should scroll up and check on that? KF writes> "And, onlookers, I don’t know of any one who has seriously studied the behaviour of Weasels and has invented a “standard terminology” that captures the observed and described ratcheting-related effects I have sought to describe and explain." KF, clearly you don't give yourself enough credit. With implicit/semi/quasi-latching you have invented a new terminology meaning "not a random walk". I'm nearly certain that your Abel prize will be arriving in the mail soon.Tomato Addict_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

kariofocus, #351
Secondly, as a matter of fact — which has been demonstrated in the already linked thread — Weasel implementations do not always latch. Sometimes, we see quasi-latching [occasional slip-backs],and sometimes we see far from latching behaviour.
The definition of "latching" in a search algorithm is really quite plain. If a character in the search string is latched then it can not change, period. The fact that Weasel implementations do not always latch proves that it is not a latching algorithm.
In short — contrary to what BB imagines — the issue of latching and of related quasi-latching is explanatorily important, and the descriptive terminology is appropriate.
Any appearance of latching is simply an artifact of the probabilities defined by the initial conditions. While some combinations may make the chance of a given character changing extremely small, as long as there is any chance it cannot be considered latched. Call it "implicitly latched" or "quasi-latched" if you want but it is still not latched.camanintx_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
09:08 AM
9
09
08
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It seems I have to make a few more corrective remarks: 1] re BB,350: Fitness is defined by WEASEL as proximity to target, this is standard terminology for genetic algorithms, of which WEASEL is one example. First, I must express appreciation to BB for his acknowledgement that Weasel is a [primitive -- missing link level . . . ] GA. One assumes BB is familiar with the phrase approved by Darwin as a synonym for "natural selection," namely: survival of the fittest. He may not be familiar with the subtitle for the earlier edns of Orign before the 6th: "the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." In that context, he will doubtless be familiar with the principle that fitness here implies that the organisms struggling to survive already have viable, functional cell-based bodies; which we now know requires some considerable degree of algorithmic complexity and a significant amount of functionally specific digital information. Also, he should recognise the contrasting points made by CRD in BW, that in Weasel, certain "mutant NONSENSE phrases" are rewarded with promotion to generational champion status because they have an increment in proximity to target. (Which BTW implies that Weasel is targetted search, another point where CRD had to acknowledge a "misleading" divergence from presumed biological reality.) Now, as we may see from the Wikipedia introductory remarks on GA's:
A genetic algorithm (GA) is a search technique used in computing to find exact or approximate solutions to optimization and search problems. Genetic algorithms are categorized as global search heuristics. Genetic algorithms are a particular class of evolutionary algorithms (EA) that use techniques inspired by evolutionary biology such as inheritance, mutation, selection, and crossover . . . . Genetic algorithms are implemented in a computer simulation in which a population of abstract representations (called chromosomes or the genotype of the genome) of candidate solutions (called individuals, creatures, or phenotypes) to an optimization problem evolves toward better solutions. Traditionally, solutions are represented in binary as strings of 0s and 1s, but other encodings are also possible. The evolution usually starts from a population of randomly generated individuals and happens in generations. In each generation, the fitness of every individual in the population is evaluated, multiple individuals are stochastically selected from the current population (based on their fitness), and modified (recombined and possibly randomly mutated) to form a new population. The new population is then used in the next iteration of the algorithm. Commonly, the algorithm terminates when either a maximum number of generations has been produced, or a satisfactory fitness level has been reached for the population. If the algorithm has terminated due to a maximum number of generations, a satisfactory solution may or may not have been reached . . .
We may easily see that Weasel's use of targetted search on mere proximity that rewards non-functional entities with reproductive privileges is a key dis-analogy with biological reality -- as opposed to speculations (aka theories and models) of evolutionary biologists, AND that the similar use of "fitness" in GA's in contexts such as ours is thus highly questionable. (in short I am suggesting a reading into the thought structure of evolutionary materialistic materialistic assumptions that beg big questions on the origin of functional complexity dependent on algorithmic information.) Thus, my reference to loaded and misleading language is unfortunately fully justified. For, there is an issue that needs to be recognised and addressed squarely and fairly and frankly on the merits. (A question that seems to always brushed aside ever since Wistar 1966.) 2] As we have established ALL search algorithms except a random sampler ‘implicitly latch’. Almost by definition when a search algorithm proceeds towards a target it will preserve beneficial features, in this case letters The little word, target, is of course highly revealing of the fundamental dis-analogy of Weasel from the real biological world, as CRD had to acknowledge:
Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection . . . In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success.
And, insofar as other GA's may use targets or symbolically based objective functions as metrics of relative "fitness" they are inherently a key step removed from biological reality. Similarly, if target proximity or comparison on a metric scale are used to focus on artificial selection, then the GA's are again removed from biological reality. (Artificially selecting antennas that on empirically validated modelling, theory and simulation give better performance is one thing, begging questions over origin of functional complexity by undirected chance + necessity is another. Precisely the question being underscored by design theory.) Secondly, as a matter of fact -- which has been demonstrated in the already linked thread -- Weasel implementations do not always latch. Sometimes, we see quasi-latching [occasional slip-backs],and sometimes we see far from latching behaviour. That is, the issue of co-tuning of pop size, mutation rate per letter and selection on proximity to target filter are all important and non-trivial issues. AND, quasi-latching or even non-latching Weasels do eventually converge to target, as has been demonstrated. (Some of the runs I have seen have occasionally substituted or slipped in other ways on already correct letters. When this is rare, quasi-latching is appropriately descriptive. When it is a lot more frequent, non-latching is obviously more apt.) BB is simply wrong here. 3] The use of the term ‘implicitly latch’ is not useful, or part of the terminology normally used to describe this behaviour – it is something you made up. BB is simply and manifestly wrong. As just pointed out, in some cases Weasels simply do not show implicit or explicit latching behaviour:
Run C, April 9: 500/gen, 8% per letter mut rate, shows a substitution effect at line 25 in a quasi-latched, 35 gen to target run. Run F, 999/gen, 25% mut rate per letter, 318 gens to target, shows non-latched behaviour.
In short -- contrary to what BB imagines -- the issue of latching and of related quasi-latching is explanatorily important, and the descriptive terminology is appropriate. And, onlookers, I don't know of any one who has seriously studied the behaviour of Weasels and has invented a "standard terminology" that captures the observed and described ratcheting-related effects I have sought to describe and explain. G'day again GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

KF: Fitness is defined by WEASEL as proximity to target, this is standard terminology for genetic algorithms, of which WEASEL is one example. It is not a loaded term, it is a standard term. "This is how the appearance of [implicit] latching happens" As we have established ALL search algorithms except a random sampler 'implicitly latch'. Almost by definition when a search algorithm proceeds towards a target it will preserve beneficial features, in this case letters. If it didn't then it would not be a search, just random sampling. The use of the term 'implicitly latch' is not useful, or part of the terminology normally used to describe this behaviour - it is something you made up.BillB_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

PS: And of course the data to be explained c 1986 is precisely ~~only viewing the fittest member of each generation~~ the runs of generational champions (as excerpted and showcased; which is what showed evident latching]: ________________ >> We may conveniently begin by inspecting the published o/p patterns circa 1986, thusly [being derived from Dawkins, R, The Blind Watchmaker , pp 48 ff, and New Scientist, 34, Sept. 25, 1986; p. 34 HT: Dembski, Truman]: 1 WDL*MNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P 2? WDLTMNLT*DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO*P 10 MDLDMNLS*ITJISWHRZREZ*MECS*P 20 MELDINLS*IT*ISWPRKE*Z*WECSEL 30 METHINGS*IT*ISWLIKE*B*WECSEL 40 METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*I*WEASEL 43 METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL 1 Y*YVMQKZPFJXWVHGLAWFVCHQXYPY 10 Y*YVMQKSPFTXWSHLIKEFV*HQYSPY 20 YETHINKSPITXISHLIKEFA*WQYSEY 30 METHINKS*IT*ISSLIKE*A*WEFSEY 40 METHINKS*IT*ISBLIKE*A*WEASES 50 METHINKS*IT*ISJLIKE*A*WEASEO 60 METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEP 64 METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL >> ___________________kairosfocus_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

II: More on Weasel A] Dieb, 329: on calculating mutation rates per letter etc As you know, Eqn 22 on p 1055 of the IEEE paper is about the effect of latched search, with the probability of capturing a correct letter built in already in the parameters. Mut rate per letter is implicit in this. B] DNA-J, 336: can we stipulate that TBW Weasel corresponds to Atom’s Proximity Reward Search at EIL? Not quite as cut and dray as yes/no in absolute. The EIL reconstruction is of a proximity reward search that under certain circumstances of mutation rate and pop per generation, will show latching behaviour of generation champions in some runs (sometimes, a high proportion). The Weasel 1986 showcased o/ps as published in BW and NewScientist by Dawkins, credibly fall into that class. (The 1987 videotaped runs show (i) internal members per generation and/or (ii) an unlatched run. The first will always be so, the second will happen with other parameter settings. Dawkins' remarks in a recent forum elsewhere suggest to me that he probably had a case of (ii), and BBC may have focused on (i) in the run, as that is where the visually interesting things are happening.) C] Frogbox: kairosfocus’ anti-science rhetoric shows him in a very bad light indeed, as one of those who would indeed take society back to the Dark Ages if they had the opportunity. unfortunate strawman distortion, laced with ad hominems. I too, as noted, am a “lab coat wearer.” Yesterday and today, I have specifically spoken to the corruption of institutional science by materialistic ideology. Please do not confuse the partyline with real world science and engineering in the trenches of the lab, workshop or the field. And, I have no intent to return us to dark ages of inquisitions etc – including those done by materialists under the false colours of science. D] Indium, 338: I have asked kf more or less the same question over 10 times now, for example in post 194 here. He will continue to avoid answering it. Kindly, stop prevaricating. I HAVE answered the question, as I just did again. Just, the answer on the merits is not a simplistic yes/no that neatly aligns with your rhetorical strawman. E] LH, 341: He spends a lot of time pontificating about herrings, oil, straw, and men. More accurately, I have had to speak correctively on a habitual, destructively uncivil rhetorical pattern used by darwinists, that seems to seep into the ID debates from the wider political and public relations culture. Namely:
1] red herring distractors dragged across the track of reasoned dialogue towards truth, then 2] led off to ad hominem soaked strawmen misrepresentations [cf the case above on the issue of natural [= the materialistic world of chance + necessity] vs supernatural as opposed to natural vs intelligent] that are 3] ignited to create a spectacle, also clouding and confusing the air and filling it with poisonous hostility and polarisation, thence 4] demonising and dismissing those who do not toe the materialistic partyline.
Abundant examples -- sadly -- are above in this very thread. (And, observe how LH does not address that highly relevant fact and context, even as he indulges in yet another case in point; belittling me through a strwmannish caricature, to dismiss the well warranted correction. Sad.) LH and co: I would rdearly love to actually discuss the matters on teh merits; it is your consistent use of red herrings, strawman arguments and ad hominems thast forces me to remark correctively. And, the terminology is not my invention. All I have done is to chain the names for the fallacy in a way that shows the dynamical rhetorical pattern at work in distracftion/ changing the subject, distortion of concepts arguments and people, demonisation or belittling and well-poisoning as you Americans say. [We in the British-influenced world tend to think of poisoning the atmosphere of discussion.] It is the pattern that is destructigve and shootintg the messenger who warns of the consequences thereof is not going to stop the implications if such increasingly habitual incivility -- e.g. a sitting Pesident of the USA all but names his just past V Pres opponent (evidently incorrectly on the merits) as a liar, and a Congressman blurts out "liar" to him in response on live TV before the World-- is unchecked across our civilisation. F] I promise to forego the benefits and work product of people who teach evangelism, if you promise to forgo the benefits and work product of people who develop pharmaceutical products. False dichotomy, resting on a strawman. (And BTW, as the lead up above suggests, I have spent far more time teaching sci and tech than giving pointers on evangelism; which as a practising Christian is my right and even duty. Not to mention there is a certain little observation by a historically important evangelist that runs thusly: “What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul?” [Matt 16:26] So, I would think that since material prosperity is generally speaking a good, but plainly it should not get out of hand into becoming a god; there is a legitimate place for both. [Not to mention, if you wish to forego the benefits of a culture that respects humans as having rights inherent in their being created equally by God and endowed with certain rights such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness [e.g. a certain evangelist named George Whitefield had more to do with motivating and grounding the American revolution than many are wont to acknowledge, and the First Congress was itself a preacher of revolution as an expression of repentant reformation and revival [cf the collection of Congressional proclamations of days of prayer, fasting and penitence or thanksgiving here, esp those of 1776, 1777 and 1779; my notes in discussion are here], you may have surprising consequences that may even prove destructive to the long term benefits of sci and tech.]) G] CY, 345: I tried Atom’s “Proximity Reward Search” for the phrase “ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL” several times, and each time a correct letter was attained, that letter stayed latched. Not so for Dawkins’ video demonstration of the “weasel” program. Vary Atom's parameters from the default settings, which were set up to with high probability give an implicitly latched case “out of the box.” Try low population versions, say 5 – 10 per generation first. Then try high pop ones of 500 – 999, the max-out. Then push the mutation rate per letter high [up to 25 % or more] and low. H] Did anyody else notice this? Has there been an explanation? You are taking the right approach: look at the facts – which I have long observed is a characteristic for you. [When I see your comments here at UD, I take time to look.] Try App 7, the always linked. (Dawkins' 1987 video run is probably something like a loose quasi-latched case, with a focus on the internal members of the population. On balance of evidence and claims, the showcased 1986 runs – original code by Dawkins is hard to find, hence the prize offer -- were probably pretty much like Atom's out of the box setup.) I] BillB, 346: When you have a population size and mutation rate in the right range the chances are that at least one of these offspring will have the same correct letters as the parent, possibly more, which will usually make it the ~~‘fittest’~~ [“the mutant nonsense [thus non-functional, i.e. fitness language is highly misleading] phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase . . . which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL, ” Dawkins, BW, 1986] and so it gets selected. This is how ~~the appearance of~~ [implicit] latching happens, even though there is nothing in the code that prevents the letters from reverting – it is the effect of mutation, population and selection, and of only viewing the fittest member of each generation. With two modifications to take out loaded references, we can see that there is substantial agreement on the technical reality at such length of discussion here. ______________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{September 12, 2009
September
09
Sep
12
12
2009
04:18 AM
4
04
18
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply