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

it will probably be easy enough to tell if the code was written recently.
Not really, so long as the person writing it knows how to write in apple basic (which I don't) and doesn't use variable names that relate to current events or trends then there is no way of telling. Typically variable names in a programme like this would be obvious things like 'Population' and this would be consistent with code written then, or yesterday.BillB_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:10 PM
3
03
10
PM
PDT}

Anthony09, In place of your list, let's try 1. Why are there still Darwinists given the pathetic state of their theory? 2. Do Darwinists reproduce in the ordinary way or by parasitizing the wider public and by siphoning their tax dollars?kibitzer_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT}

Programs implement algorithms, and algorithms are not cooked up after the fact to describe what programs happen to do. Those of you familiar with commercial software development might think in terms of "That's not a bug, it's a feature." Those of you familiar with Peewee Herman might think in terms of "I meant to do that." Something I forgot to mention is the convenience of turning Dawkin's algorithm into the algorithm Dembski and Marks analyze. This makes them look so bad. It is much easier to come up with the active information of the D&M algorithm than the Dawkins algorithm. If we ID proponents want to gain credibility, we are going to have to exhibit exemplary scholarship, not look for excuses for what we do. Demanding program code when the algorithm is the issue is really shabby excuse-making.Oatmeal Stout_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

Whoops, haste makes waste. I meant: "I thought the next few questions would be:"Anthony09_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:02 PM
3
03
02
PM
PDT}

After the "Accidental Origin of Life" contest question, I think the newxt few questions would be: 1. Why are their still apes, if we evolved from apes and evolution is true? 2. Why don't dogs ever give birth to cats if evolution is true? But this latest one is almost as good.Anthony09_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

BillB, I'm sure we would all trust if Richard D. himself assured us that the code in question was his original. Also, like the forged Air National Guard documents surrounding George Bush in "Rathergate," it will probably be easy enough to tell if the code was written recently.kibitzer_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus#39
I can also point out that in 1986, the o/p of Weasel was showcased as cumulatively marching to the target, and with samples that in 200 of 300 places, and in EVERY case where a reversion was a priori possible, we never saw ONE reversion.
That is because the few strings shown in The Blind Watchmaker are the most fit daughter strings from every tenth generation. You're doing your math incorrectly. Dawkins' Weasel algorithm, unlike that used by Dembski and Marks in their recent IEEE paper, uses a relatively low mutation rate across all letters in the string and population size much greater than 1. Taking a typical population size of 200, the number of strings generated in 43 generations (the time required to converge to the target string in TBW), there were 8600 strings generated. Of those, only 4 were shown in the book. In his second run, the target was found in 64 generations, for a total of 12,800 strings, of which only 6 were shown. You are considering only approximately 0.047 percent of the strings in both cases. The likelihood of seeing a reversion is, of course, very low. Since the output shown in TBW clearly cannot be used to claim that correct letters are locked in place once found, please explain based on Dawkins' description of the algorithm how you can possibly come to the conclusion that they are.DeLurker_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

O’Leary: How will you tell if the code is genuine, given that it will be just pasted into this discussion? Should I just write out the algorithm Dawkins describes in Apple Basic and submit it? It would produce the results he published.BillB_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Okay: Mrs O'Leary, I can point to the EIL weasel programs and I do believe the software is available. But alas that is by Atom, and it is associated with Dembski not Dawkins. I can also point out that in 1986, the o/p of Weasel was showcased as cumulatively marching to the target, and with samples that in 200 of 300 places, and in EVERY case where a reversion was a priori possible, we never saw ONE reversion. Such a significant sample suggests that the o/p effectively ratchets its way to the target, ansd that the successful letters are therefore latched. The real issue is HOW, and the answers are that there are two ways: explicitly, and implicitly. The latter working by virtue of there being a match of pop per generation, mutation rate per letter ansd fulter to select even the slightest advance to the target. For under relevant cases, no-change members will be by overwhelming odds present, and so if 1 change members are frequent, no-change and one step increments will dominate in such a way as to preserve currently correct letters. Nor is this theory, there are actual runs that do that. (HT: Atom and EIL.) Now, in 1987, the video runs most definiteoly do not have the latching action that is credible for 1986. This is suggestive of detuning of parameters and possibly a different filter. That should not even be controversial, but since the ratcheting-latching issue highlights the targetted search that lies at the heart of Weasel, and this in turn turns it into a "misleading" --Dawkins' word! -- example, this has become a focus for red herrings and strawmen, soaked in ad hominems and ignited. Sad. But sadly revealing. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

tsmith @27, I know, right? I think I may be able to improve upon your code some: int main() { printf (”METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL “); } Look, I couldn't resist.HouseStreetRoom_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:14 PM
1
01
14
PM
PDT}

Sorry, a bit OT. Here's Dawkins near the end of the "weasel" chapter - referring to the other simulation. Oh the excitement! the drama!
When I wrote the program, I never thought that it would evolve anything more than a variety of tree-like shapes... Nothing in my biologist's intuition, nothing in my 20 years' experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can't remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed, generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance... I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes. I distinctly heard the triumphal opening chords of Also spiach Zaiathustia (the '2001 theme') in my mind. I couldn't eat, and that night 'my' insects' swarmed behind my eyelids as I tried to sleep.
Of course, in the excitement of the action, it would be easy to miss the man behind the curtains operating the buttons and levers!steveO_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

I can't speak for Dawkins of course, so I am in the position of offering external criticism. Like many here (presumably), I have been a programmer for several decades. The trivial nature of the Weasel "demonstration" is what irks me. It seems clear to me that the algorithm misses the mark in what it apparently seeks to show. I'd therefore like to propose an alternative, which might be closer to the mark in the sense of demonstrating natural selection from an evolutionary perspective. My first suggestion is that the number of mutations should be set to a value that is consistent with what we actually know about the frequency of mutations (i.e. the likelihood that any one letter would be mutated in any generation). My second suggestion revolves around the idea of using a dictionary (electronic of course). As the letters are 'mutated' in the text, sections of the text should be compared to the dictionary to see if they are a functional word. For example, if the string RIKE gets mutated to BIKE or to HIKE then that is now a functional bit of text and will be highly conserved. The possibility that it will be converted to LIKE (part of Dawkins' preferred outcome) is now greatly reduced. These modifications would seem to go some of the way towards addressing criticisms of Dawkins' algorithm, however the downside from his p.o.v. is (in my estimation) that the algorithm will now be extremely unlikely to produce "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" and so of course his purpose in introducing it in the first place, which is apparently to hide from the general public the very real probability problems that evolutionary theory must overcome, would be frustrated ... and why would he want to demonstrate the very point he is trying to hide in the first place?Spiny Norman_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

kibitzer#30
We’re all beating our gums. Please, let’s see the original code.
As I noted above in #20, it's entirely possible that the code hasn't survived changes in technology of the past 23 years. Dawkins' very lucid description of the algorithm, however, has survived. Please explain how that description can be logically construed to involve explicit fixing of letters in place once they are correct.DeLurker_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

I have tried to reconcile the performance seen in TBW with the no-selection-partitioned-search described by D&M. D&M explicitly state that the mutation rate for correct letters is 0%, and they state the number of progeny = 1; they do not, however, explicitly state that the mutation rate (for unlatched letters) has to be 100% (I know, I am being generous in my reading of "so we take 26 new letters"). So I tried to adjust the mutation rate such that a partitioned search would perform in a manner consistent with the performance seen in TWB. Err, it cannot be done. Forget about latching, you cannot have a partitioned search that changes only one element in its first iteration, and reaches a solution within 43...DNA_Jock_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

Why does the original code matter? The fact is algorithms which use latching and non-latching have been coded by others and are easily found on the web. Do these programs prove anything of substance relative to evolution or intelligent design? I tend to think not.fmarotta_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

kibitzer, I guess you may have missed my question. If you don´t mind: What is your evidence FOR a latching weasel? The output tables of resulting strings?Indium_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

kibitzer, none of us have it. Have you asked Dawkins?R0b_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Ladies and Gentlemen, We're all beating our gums. Please, let's see the original code. Why is that so much to ask? To paraphrase Ben Stein, Does anyone have it? Anyone?kibitzer_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT}

Denyse:
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).
Then why does Dembski continue to say that it's the former? Dawkins also doesn't say whether WEASEL includes code that steals my credit card numbers. Until he provides the code, it's a toss-up. Should I cancel my credit cards?R0b_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:53 AM
11
11
53
AM
PDT}

do I win a prize????tsmith_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT}

I always find it interesting when a darwinist uses INTELLIGENT DESIGN to try to prove some component of evolution....but here's my stab at it... printf ("METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL ");tsmith_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

kibitzer, may I ask, what is your evidence FOR a latching weasel? The output tables of resulting strings?Indium_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT}

kibitzer:
But Dawkins’ throughout The Blind Watchmaker prefers “cumulative selection” to “natural selection.” Cumulative suggests ratcheting. So Dembski’s interpretation is hardly as far-fetched as you make out.
"Cumulative" and "natural" are orthogonal. In nature, selection is both cumulative and natural. In WEASEL, it's cumulative but not natural. As Dave Wisker mentioned in another thread, Dawkins explicitly stated what he means by cumulative selection, and it has nothing to do with latching. From TBW page 45:
The essential difference between single-step selection and cumulative selection is this. In single-step selection the entities selected or sorted, pebbles or whateverthay are, are sorted once and for all. In cumulative slelection, on the other hand, they ‘reproduce’; or in some other way the results of one sieving process are fed into a subsequent sieving, which is fed into into…and so on. The entities are subjected to selection or sorting over many ‘generations’ in succession. The end-product of one genration of selection is the starting point for the next generation of selection, and so on for many generations.
And Dembski's interpretation, which he has maintained throughout the years, mutates every unlatched letter and involves no selection. This contradicts both the description of the algorithm and the output reported in TBW, so I would call it not only far-fetched, but clearly wrong.R0b_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

kibitzer#21
You wrote: “Please read the full description of the Weasel algorithm in TBW and explain how anyone could come to the conclusion that letters are fixed once correct.” Glad you asked. Look at the output of the program in The Blind Watchmaker, and you find that once a letter corresponds to the target sequence, it doesn’t change.
You are not taking into consideration the full description of the algorithm. Looking at the most fit daughter strings every 10 generations is obviously very unlikely to show reversions. Please show how the full, clear, detailed explanation of the Weasel algorithm can possibly be interpreted to even suggest that letters are fixed once correct.DeLurker_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT}

DeLurker, You wrote: "Please read the full description of the Weasel algorithm in TBW and explain how anyone could come to the conclusion that letters are fixed once correct." Glad you asked. Look at the output of the program in The Blind Watchmaker, and you find that once a letter corresponds to the target sequence, it doesn't change. And sorry, the book didn't refer to the subsequent 1987 video in which letters do change after they match the target. So the question remains, did Dawkins write the program so that it ratchets correct letters or not. I'll grant you, probably not. But Dawkins' throughout The Blind Watchmaker prefers "cumulative selection" to "natural selection." Cumulative suggests ratcheting. So Dembski's interpretation is hardly as far-fetched as you make out.kibitzer_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT}

Arrgh , English, that should be "The only evidence" and "algorithms that do NOT have any latching mechanism. SorryDNA_Jock_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:14 AM
10
10
14
AM
PDT}

It only evidence to support the idea that the BW weasel has a latching mechanism, is that it appears to latch. Many people have subsequently shown that this behavior is readily achieved by algorithms that do have any latching mechanism. Now if anyone wants to argue that Dembski and Marks are accurate in their characterization of the BW weasel, they need to explain the observed difference in behavior of the BW weasel and the partitioned search that D&M describe.DNA_Jock_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

kibitzer#19
Of course, as programs go, Dawkins’ WEASEL is trivial and it’s easy enough to reconstruct something that’s close to it. But given the controversy surrounding it, let’s see the original program. Why is that so difficult?
The program was originally written in Apple BASIC over twenty years ago. Neither the language interpreter nor the computer itself have been available for some time. I suspect that, even if Dawkins has a copy, there are no disk readers still available for that format. The algorithm is very clearly described in The Blind Watchmaker. The only people I know of who have misunderstood it are Royal Truman, Dembski, and Marks. The only "controversy" I have ever seen over this simple, well documented algorithm is here on UD. Please read the full description of the Weasel algorithm in TBW and explain how anyone could come to the conclusion that letters are fixed once correct.DeLurker_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT}

DeLurker, Of course, as programs go, Dawkins' WEASEL is trivial and it's easy enough to reconstruct something that's close to it. But given the controversy surrounding it, let's see the original program. Why is that so difficult?kibitzer_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT}

kibitzer#16
Ah, it’s the METHOLODOLOGY that’s important. And how do you figure out the methodology without the original code.
By following the very clear description in The Blind Watchmaker, of course. Many people have done so successfully.DeLurker_{August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply