Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

PZ Myers Does It Again

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

PZ Myers has, once again, railed against something that he doesn’t understand at his blog Pharyngula. Hi PZ! Notice that he doesn’t actually address the content of Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks’ paper, which you can read here: Conservation of Information in Search: Measuring the Cost of Success, published at the IEEE. Given his argument, he doesn’t know how to measure the cost of success, yet claims that Dr. Dembski doesn’t understand selection. A bit of advice PZ, the argument presented by Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks is very sophisticated PZ, your mud slinging isn’t PZ, you need to step it up PZ. I know this new stuff isn’t ez, but you may want to consider a response that has actual content PZ. Your argument against this peer-reviewed paper is still in its infancy, or, more accurately, still in the pharyngula stage, embryonic in its development.

Since evolution of the kind PZ subscribes to cannot be witnessed, the argument has moved into genetic algorithms with the advent of computational abilities to determine the affair, and the IEEE is an entirely appropriate place to publish on that subject. We’re not going anywhere, we’ll give him time to catch up and educate himself to the tenets of the paper’s actual content. And if/when he does, maybe he’ll write another blog, and possibly write one with active information, that is, actual information, or else his argument will never reach it’s target.

Comments
KF: Lying and deceit are closely related, they both involve deceiving. You have a rhetorical device that you employ on a consistent and regular basis that, when dealing with other peoples attempts to argue against a position that you hold, you will claim that rather than debating the issue they are actually deploying red herrings, making personal (argumentum ad hominem) attacks and trying to distract from the issues under discussion. You also frequently invoke unpleasant historical figures and groups, like the Nazis, and try and link their actions to those who would argue against you. Gutter politics is an ill defined term but, as I understand it, it involves trying to discredit your opponents in the eyes of onlookers by accusing them of deceit, and trying to link their actions to the unpleasant actions of others to whom they have no real relation. I make no apology for making this observation of your behaviour. I believe it is you who owes apologies to, in all probability, the majority of people who have disagreed with you on these forums for your constant accusation of deceit, of lying. Can I suggest that you get a copy of this book called The Bible, there are some really interesting life lessons in there about the value of tolerance, forgiveness and of humility. You now know what you have to do to make amends. Now, can you answer these questions: 1-> Is an explicit, required, latching mechanism the same as a non-explicit, non-required, not-always-latching mechanism? 2-> Is a mutation rate that has to be between zero and one hundred percent the same as a mutation rate that has to be either zero or one hundred percent? 3-> Is a population of one, where no selection can occur the same as a population of many from which one is selected?BillB
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Footnote: I refer onlookers and interested parties to my comment in a follow up thread here. BillB is still well out in the zone beyond the pale of civil discourse and knows what he needs to do to make amends. Good day. GEM of TKI PS: IRQ 231. Thanks for the kind words. And indeed I was threatened/falsely reported to HSD in an earlier thread [by TM English], in the context of pointing out the dangerous implications of the breakdown of civility by Darwinists. On my takign the threat seriously -- it was said tha tit was itnended to get me on travel ban watch lists and a claimed phone conversartion with a HSD agent was reported, it was claimed that it was just a joke and I was a poor sport. Sorry, you don't play THAT kind of joke. And, I have had to point out that he claimed parallel to the WmAD report on Pianka in 2006 is not parallel, for instance by the time Dembski got to HSD, OTHERS had reported the incident in which he gleefully speculated over Ebola killing off 90% of humanity. And you are right, a significant lady in one's life -- mother, aunt, sister, wife, girlfriend or just good friend and counsellor -- does tend to civilise men.]kairosfocus
August 27, 2009
August
08
Aug
27
27
2009
02:31 AM
2
02
31
AM
PDT
I feel that we are quite close to a conceptual breakthrough here, Clive, but, and I am honestly sorry about that: I admit that I fail to understand what your problem really is.Indium
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
Clive, obviously selection entails criteria that must be met in order to reproduce. When Dawkins says that life has no “distant ideal target” or “long-term goal” or “long-distance target” or “final perfection”, does that mean in your mind that life has no fitness criteria?R0b
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:48 PM
4
04
48
PM
PDT
Clive
It seems that without a test, based on a standard, anything goes, que sera sera, whatever will be will be.
How about whatever reproduces most wins? Whatever survives longest wins? How that might be measured and determined might well differ from moment to moment, but as long as the enviroment does not change too fast....Blue Lotus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:36 PM
2
02
36
PM
PDT
Clive
I’m trying my best to get a clear picture of how the Weasel analogy corresponds to life, what it’s supposed to evidence or illustrate, if “life’s not really like that” as Dawkins said.
Could I suggest you consider reading the book, The Blind Watchmaker? It's very good.Blue Lotus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Kariosfocus
Why not try a few runs yourself and see the in-parallel results?
Could I suggest you do the same? Then print both runs here and you'll see for yourself what I mean.
On the original page I have one run at 22, when rates and pop are pushed to extremes. Another ran to something like 2500, most of that being in the tail end as odd effects kept it bouncing around. You will see that as parameters shift, different population (mutation distribution tail . . . recall the filters reward the closest per CRD’s specification, not the average on distance to target ) effects dominate — indeed, my own analysis suggests that different factors and dynamics dominate as a run progresses.
Of the two posts I believe that were addressed directly to me I don't believe you addressed my actual question in any way whatsoever. The runs differ so much in generation 1 to 2 that they clearly are not generated by the same method. Yet rather then explain why that is the case you have created issues of you own (I believe strawmen is the proper word) and talked about them instead. Please feel free to do so, but as a proponent of the view that Dembski/Marks correctly describe Weasel I'd just like to hear from you why the two types generate very different strings in sequential generations??Blue Lotus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
I know it's just a model, I'm trying my best to get a clear picture of how the Weasel analogy corresponds to life, what it's supposed to evidence or illustrate, if "life's not really like that" as Dawkins said. I'm not trying to be difficult. I suspect there is a breakdown in communication or understanding, or both, somewhere. I'm having a conceptual difficulty with the random or non-random efficacy of the affair if there is no standard of comparison. It seems that without a test, based on a standard, anything goes, que sera sera, whatever will be will be.Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
Clive, it is just a model. In this model a certain kind of fitness function is implemented. You could define fitness using other functions. In nature fitness of course is a much more complicated function of many things (fertility, viability, survivability, you name it). That´s why people use models: They reduce a problem to certain core points and make them easier to understand. Somehow it doesn´t work for some people though. Anyway, the Weasel algorithm captures a few important points: - Mutation probability is independent of the resulting fitness - Selection is simulated - The effect of different population sizes can be examined etc. But it is still just a model. A very simple one. Other genetic algorithms use far more sophisticated inheritance schemes (with deletions, insertions, crossover etc) and fitness evaluations, even without a specific target (avida).Indium
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
I'm still waiting for some answers KF, no more excuses, answer the questions, they are simple enough: 1-> Is an explicit, required, latching mechanism the same as a non-explicit, non-required, not-always-latching mechanism? 2-> Is a mutation rate that has to be between zero and one hundred percent the same as a mutation rate that has to be either zero or one hundred percent? 3-> Is a population of one, where no selection can occur the same as a population of many from which one is selected?BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
R0b, Yeah, they're answered in the respect that there are tests to determine what is random or not by comparison to intelligent discernment of intelligently constructed standards, such as the gcd test:
"All we need do is compare the sample distribution from a particular RNG with the standard provided by a number of presumably good RNG’s, ‘presumably good’ meaning that they produce results so close to a single one that the single one may be used as a standard."
But remember the first contention, there is no standard in the Weasel illustration, because nothing exists for comparison if not the phrase itself as a target. Remove it, and you'll have to invent another standard or target of comparison. This is an insurmountable problem.Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
Clive, okay. I take it that your questions in 234 are answered.R0b
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
R0b,
Clive, we’re clearly not understanding each other. How is a non-comparative test a comparison? As for randomness tests, here’s a start.
The test is not a comparison itself, but the test uses a comparison, otherwise, it isn't a test. In a test of any sort, there has to be something used as a standard.Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Clive, we're clearly not understanding each other. How is a non-comparative test a comparison? As for randomness tests, here's a start.R0b
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:38 AM
11
11
38
AM
PDT
Clive, one good randomness test is to check the compressibility.Indium
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
R0b,
Clive, I’m afraid we’re talking past each other. What makes you think a comparison is needed? There are several established tests for randomness, none of which require comparison with a non-random sequence.
Okay, then the "established tests" are the comparison. What are these tests, and how do they distinguish randomness from non-randomness?Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Clive, I'm afraid we're talking past each other. What makes you think a comparison is needed? There are several established tests for randomness, none of which require comparison with a non-random sequence.R0b
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, since you're insistent that M&D's math applies to "implied latching", let's apply it. With a population of 200 and a mutation rate of 5%, the median number of generations is 45, with correct letters being lost only rarely. (This is in line with the WEASEL results in TBW.) Let's see if M&D's math agrees that there is a 50% chance of succeeding within 45 generations. So, what do we plug into Q? 45 or 45*200?R0b
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT
R0b,
C) A function of time, calculated using a complex combination of feedback and feedforward loops. Option A is WEASEL and B is “anything goes,” but those aren’t the only options. Unlike A, C has no long-term target, and unlike B, it doesn’t produce random noise. A and C both produce results that single-step selection cannot.
How do you know it doesn't produce random noise? What are you using to determine that, what are you comparing it to? Random noise, if it is to be considered anything else, must be compared to something that isn't noise, such as music. What is your comparison?Clive Hayden
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
I try to get involved in the discussion, but my last edit (#213) is now in moderation for nearly seven hours...DiEb
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT
It would be much easier to just point me to your answer to my points in #220, kf... Or copy and paste the relevant points here. Otherwise I will just take this response as another sad red-herring-oil-soaked-smokescreen distraction.Indium
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT
kairosfocus, Thank-you for your time, wisdom and patience with this. P.S. Someone threatened you and/or reported you as a terrorist? Sounds like someone needs to get a life/girlfriend.IRQ Conflict
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:28 AM
6
06
28
AM
PDT
Onlookers: I see the ever so sad spin games continue. I must observe thusly, for the record: 1 --> It is in another thread that BillB accused me of "gutter politics" for pointing out the now habitual Darwinist pattern of distractions, distortions and demonisation. Above, he seems to have contented himself with loaded insinuations and distortions. He knows how to make amends. 2 --> The point on "mentioning . . ." is a capital example in point. I have long since pointed out that the above polarising and atmosphere-poisoning darwinist rhetorical pattern critically undermines civility, and so the order of justice and liberty: if we refuse to learn from historical exemplars, we will repeat sad chapters from the past through refusing to heed its lessons in good time. And I have underscored that repeatedly. There are many, many examples ranging from Alcibiades onwards [and Alcibiades as noted long since is the prime example in this thread]. 3 --> As to "rape defendants", BillB knows or should know that I have corrected him on the specific twisting of my words above on turnabout accusation as a compounding form of demonisation of the victim: the sleazy courtroom tactic -- used by shysters -- of blaming the victim. I must draw the sad conclusion that this is willful, as he is far too too intelligent and educated for this to be accidental. 4 -->Indium, if s/he would simply read responses above, will see corrections aplenty. ___________ There is much more than enough above to address the main matter cogently on the merits, and to correct the various side tracks, fallacies and distortions that so sadly charactersised the darwinist arguments above. ++++++++++ And, see how the distraction, distortion, demioonisation polarisation tactic poisons the atmosphere, frustrating serious dialogue? for instead of addre4ssing the significance of a signal achievement of an advance in design theory, we are now reduced to correcting willful distortions and demonisations [which of course will drive away those who want to find out the facts and the balance on the merits]. For such, I suggest you look up at 78 above.] in short, the above is a commentary on precisely the dangers I have been warning against, and for which I was unjustly threatened or actually reported to the US Homeland Security Dept as a terrorist threat. For shame! Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
BTW, and for the record, If anything I wrote on this page has been interpreted as an accusation of dishonesty then I apologise for not expressing myself clearly. When I make such an accusation its meaning and nature will be crystal clear!BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
KF: Please stop inventing excuses to address the issues, which are: 1-> Is an explicit, required, latching mechanism the same as a non-explicit, non-required, not-always-latching mechanism? 2-> Is a mutation rate that has to be between zero and one hundred percent the same as a mutation rate that has to be either zero or one hundred percent? 3-> Is a population of one, where no selection can occur the same as a population of many from which one is selected? I anticipate three one word answers, each of which can either be YES or NO. ------ On the topic of your civility, I am still waiting for you to answer this:
KF, why mention Nazis, the holocaust and the defenders of rape in a diatribe aimed at me if you were NOT trying to associate me with these actions?
I also note that after pointing out that these actions of yours are very offensive, you then accuse me of lying (again) and of only pretending to be offended. faux or manipulated outrage? Let he who is without sin . . .BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT
kf, point me to the corrections of my points in #220 please. Thanks.Indium
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Indium: While, thankfully, you have not been uncivil, it is unfortunately the case that you are recycling already corrected errors. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
BillB: Perhaps you have not got the memo: YOU HAVE MOVED BEYOND THE PALE OF CIVIL CONDUCT, AND KNOW WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO MAKE AMENDS -- BUT REFUSE TO DO SO. Beyond that, you are simply closed-mindedly recycling fallacious talking points [as long since corrected], and are now insisting that the key questions being begged must not be pointed out. This thread is plainly over on the merits. Good bye. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Correction to 222: "I addressed this to Clive " should have been: "I addressed the post to Clive " The disclaimer was intended for you, it is a shame you didn't bother to read it.BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
KF:
That is, it begs the key questions of the origin of basic information-rich, complex functionality,
LOL ROTFL:
This example is designed to deal SOLELY with the concepts of fitness functions and targets. It is constructed to serve this purpose and this purpose alone. It is NOT about how this simulacrum of self replicating agents came to exist, or how biological life first arose – it assumes self replicators exist, as we can observe in nature.
I addressed this to Clive and it specifically dealt with the notion of imposed targets versus implied targets which he was discussing with R0b. This is not avoiding the issue, this is merely discussing the issue being discussed.BillB
August 26, 2009
August
08
Aug
26
26
2009
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
1 2 3 9

Leave a Reply