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
Onlookers: One last note. BillB has just now shown that he is not engaging in a rational discussion on even the tangential matter to the primary issue: the advance in design theory marked by the publication of the paper on the implications of active information and associated ideas. Good day. GEM of TKI PS: Off-topic, but important enough to footnote, pardon Clive: despite much faux or manipulated outrage and many confidently parroted talking points to the contrary, if you the interested onlooker are interested in the truth on some of the less savoury but important historical influences of Darwinst science (including e.g. in the USA through the eugenics movement -- watch the fairground lights display very carefully), you will find the lecture here of some significant interest. We had better face and learn from history, if we wish to progress rather than regress. [HT: BA 77.]kairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
My post (at the moment #160) was directed at kf.Indium
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
I will take that as "Yes, Dawkins uses selection". Now, does Demsbki use selection? Since you seem to be reluctant to do so on this board I will give the answer myself: No. Dembski and Marks present an algorithm as the "Weasel" algorithm that doesn´t even use selection! So, there you have it. Dembski and Marks criticize the wrong algorithm. No selection + no population + wrong treatment of incorrect (!) letters = Completely Different algorithm.Indium
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:31 AM
4
04
31
AM
PDT
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? Well, I agree with Indium that more than enough has been said. KF closed his mind to the evidence a long time ago and all that he has left are sleazy insinuations and red herrings. KF, it would be nice if you would actually answer some of the points I and others have made, like the issue of populations, mutation vs randomisation, and what constitutes the SIMPLEST explanation of the observed behaviour given Dawkins statements on the matter. I have read your linked arguments and found nothing substantial there to back up your position, especially given all the available evidence. I just don't understand how any reasonably intelligent person can believe that these two algorithms, both described and observed to work in substantially different ways, are therefore 'credibly' the same. I doubt I will be responding to any more on this thread - Unless KF manages to evolve some civility and decides to apologise?.BillB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
Pardon, point 6, 134.kairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
Indium: If you were to simply pause and read the highlighted excerpt from BW in pint 6 134, and the commentary in points 7 & 8 -- to name just the latest presentation [it is in my always linked app 7 points 2 and 3 (with colour highlights that make it even more plain), you would have your answer, from the horse's mouth and an explanation of its significance. That you insistently refuse to simply read such already given answers underscores that you are not discussing and so exchanging ideas in a reasonable fashion. Do you understand therefore why I respond like this, by pointing to the already given and substantiated answer above and in the longstanding linked? Given long before you asked the question in a manner suggestive of accusing me of evading it? G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT
PPS: read p. 2 in the linked Google book on Alcibiades.kairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT
I expected no less, you once again latch onto latching, kf. I will stop this latching discussion here, enough has been said about it really. Now, why don´t you say a single word about my other arguments? Maybe we concentrate on one thing first. I will make this as easy as possible for you: Does the algorithm as described by Dawkins involve a selection process? Yes or No?Indium
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
PS: Onlookers (including Clive): Kindly observe BillB's latest accusation is revealing of how he arguing his case by ad hominem laced strawman arguments and even turnspeech accusations: a --> Observe the plain contrast between 148 supra on turnabout false accusation, and the illustrative case in point from 151. b --> I spoke of the turnabout he hit back first/provoked the attack accusation, citing that the former sleazy courtroom tactic used to discredit rape victims is now thankfully abandoned. c --> BillB promptl;y pounced on it in 151 to try to twist my words into "you try to link my actions to those of accused rapists." d --> Err, no. FYI, sleazy courtroom tactics are used by unprincipled trial lawyers; who unfortunately are legion. (It is judges at length, acting on the advice of womens' advocates, who have gavelled down such tactics.) e --> So, plainly, it is not "accused rapists" who badgered witnesses/complainants like this; it was shysters [= unprincipled, devious lawyers]. Plainly, at best, BillB is reading very carelessly and resorting to the judgements of anger and cognitive dissonance, angrily spouting second-hand talking points and tactics that are destructive. At worst, it would be putting him in the company of shysters, if he is willfully distorting fairly simple language to falsely accuse, slander and intimidate those whom he cannot address on the merits in a civil tone. Does he want to keep such company with either of these two groups?] f --> BTW, the only rape accused I have ever known and attended the trial of, was having to deal with an older woman who threw herself at him, then cried rape when things went sour. She discredted herself in the courtroom by showing up in stilettos, stockings and a tight micro-mini. Believe it or not.kairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
Onlookers: The above by BillB amply -- and sadly -- underscores my point about what happens when distractions, distortions, demonisation and polarisation amplified by turnabout accusation and slanders become the habitual pattern of argument by darwinists. (in particular, his accusartions about misrepresentations have been answered, just ignored in the rush tot he defensive rhetorical talking points of cognitive dissonance. So, if you have kids headed off to College, think about what it means to put your College kids into the hands of people who think and act like that, as their professors.) Indium, similarly should note that the primary historical reference I have made above -- cf. 112 -- is to Plato in the Laws, Book X, c. 360 BC. In short, the implications of what happens when an avant garde becomes captivated by ideological evoolutionary materialism and sets out to domineer have long been evident. We can spell that: ALCIBIADES. (Schicklegruber, Stalin, Mao Pol Pot et al are only several more recent cases of refusing to learn from history and repeating its worst chapters.) As to answering the issues on the merits, I have. Long since, in the always linked, appendix 7. (Observe how this has been ever so studiously ignored in th rush to make up strawmen from what I have said.) Specifically, point by point, and several times above too. I even took time to cite and correct step by step a leading paragraph, to 132 above, which has in it the principal errors made by Indium. (For instance there is need to observe carefully the distinctive differences between Weasel output c 1986 and that in the video of 1987. And, having pointed out he evident ratcheting-latching of o/p for showcased runs c 1986, I and otehrs have proposed viable mechanisms, highlighting explicit and implicit latching as ways to explain the data. the contrasting data of 1987 is fairly easily explained by way of de-tuning of parameters and/or a shift of filter for an algorithm that can implicitly latch. And, I have accepted on charity -- even in absence of credible code c. 1986 -- that CRD did not explicitly latch his algor in 1986. just, I have maintained that on the evidence of showcased output and commentary on it, explicit latching is a legitimate interpretation of Weasel c 1986. I also nted that Marks and Dembski's argument dioes not hinge on wheter latching or ratcheting was achieved explicitly, but on whether it was credibly present. Which, the 1986 o/p clearly substantiates,s ave to those who are wiling to be selectively hyperskeptical. As to divergent mutation rates (a point raised abve as though it shows misrepresentation on M & D's part -- itself a bit of turnabout accusation), as I have said already, EIL, the M & D lab, HAS long since given us public access to Atom's adjustable weasel [click on "the GUI" under the heading "Weasel Ware" here], which explicitly allows adjustments of parameters. the example on p 1055 in the paper as published, illustrates not particular rates of mutation, but instead the impact of effective partitioning through ratcheting, however achieved: explicitly or implicitly. ) Enough has plainly been said for those needing pointers on the merits. And, on the want of responsiveness on what has been put up already, it is plain that it is a waste of time to try to further correct the intransigent. And enough has been demonstrated to substantiate that intransigence. G'day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
03:27 AM
3
03
27
AM
PDT
... Oh, and for the benefit of everybody, kf: Please stop using this Nazi/Holocaust argument. This is neither funny nor interesting.Indium
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Ah, and just after posting I notice you try to link my actions to those of accused rapists. Have you no shame? You realise that if I behaved like that on this forum I would be banned in an instant.BillB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT
kf: This time you addressed me directly, but again you concentrate on the latching thing, which is only a small part of my proof that Dembski and Marks use a completely different algorithm. May I suggest to read my post again (#131)? Also, DiEb makes an interesting point in #138 and I would like to add that Dawkins´ algorithm would in priciple be able to cope with a slowly moving target, while the algorithm as proposed by Dembski and Marks would never be able to find a moving target once one letter has changed. Another important reason why your implicit/explicit-latching-are-equivalent-strategy fails. On the other hand you can also go on with this latching thing, it´s funny enough! To give you a good start I can repeat my observations regarding this issue again: The wording in the Blind Watchmaker gives no hint of latching. A video of Dawkins presenting the algorithm 1987 (same algorithm, different parameters) shows no latching. Dawkins says there is no latching. Latching is not needed for the algorithm to work. The algorithm is more complicated when it uses latching. Explicit latching is not something biologists would implement when modelling evolution: Mutation rate is supposed to be independent of the resulting fitness. The only real argument FOR latching I have seen is the fact that no mutation of correct letters is shown in the BW tables, which is easily explained by the fact that only the best members of a few generatios were shown. There is no reason at all to believe one should see fitness reducing mutations in this case. One other "argument" that I find particularly funny proposes that it is "consistent" with the Blind Watchmaker to assume explicit latching. Of course it is! It is also consistent with the BW that Dawkins has 4 arms and 7 legs. So, on we go! I am looking forward to your response!Indium
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT
To conclude: You regards blatant misrepresentation of other peoples work as a non-issue, a distraction and a red herring. You ignore abundant evidence when it contradicts you and regard 'simple explanations' as ones that require extra and unnecessary additional complications. But worse than that you have tried to link my attempts to address the issue on its merits as actions synonymous with holocaust denial and Nazism. Given that my grand parents fought in that war, and my Jewish relatives were murdered, that is absolutely disgusting, deeply offensive, and unforgivable behaviour. An apology will never be enough. All that is left is for me to repeat the key evidence, one last time and adding the more resent points, in the hope that you may one day read, and understand them: ALL THE RESULTS DAWKINS HAVE EVER PRESENTED CAN AND HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED WITHOUT A LATCHING MECHANISM. THE REASONS WHY ARE WELL UNDERSTOOD AND HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED TO YOU DAWKINS DOES NOT DESCRIBE AN EXPLICIT LATCHING MECHANISM DAWKINS DESCRIBES THE USE OF A POPULATION DAWKINS ALGORITHM ALLOWS ANY LETTER TO MUTATE WITH A FIXED PROBABILITY DAWKINS DENIES USING AN EXPLICIT LATCHING MECHANISM However: DEMBSKI DESCRIBES AN EXPLICIT LATCH MECHANISM DEMBSKI DOES NOT USE A POPULATION DEMBSKI RANDOMISES ALL LETTERS THAT DO NOT MATCH THE TARGET therefore: DAWKINS IS DESCRIBING A POPULATION BASED RANDOM WALK (A GA) DEMBSKI IS DESCRIBING A PARTITIONED RANDOM SAMPLER (NOT A GA) Which means: DEMBSKI AND MARKS ARE USING A DIFFERENT ALGORITHM DEMBSKI AND MARKS MISREPRESENT DAWKINS WORK WITHOUT JUSTIFICATIONBillB
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:32 AM
12
12
32
AM
PDT
PS: Since too many will not look up a link they need to attend to: _____________ >> TURNABOUT ("HE HIT BACK FIRST") TURN-SPEECH FALSE ACCUSATION: It is very easy to blame a victim of an ad hominem attack (or worse, an actual physical attack) if s/he attempts to defend himself. In effect "he hit (back) first!" Blaming the victim, who is usually more sinned against than sinning [cf the now thankfully rejected sleazy Courtroom tactic of blaming the victim of a rape for "provoking" the attack . . .], is a compounded -- and often, compounding -- form of the atmosphere-poisoning ad hominem attack. It works by trying to drag the victim down to the level of the aggressor. This, by implying or asserting either . . . (a) [im-]moral equivalency through pretended equality of blame for the "cycle of accusations/ attacks/ violence" or else, worse . . . (b) the full-blooded turnabout false accusation: trying to give the false impression that the victim trying to defend him-/her-self is the one who started (or, "provoked") the quarrel or fight and should therefore bear the lion's share of blame for it. Further, if the defender is getting the better of the argument, quarrel or fight, resort is too often then made to . . . (c ) Ill-founded accusation of "disproportionate response," converting the attacker into the perceived "real" victim. >> _______________ PPS: As to GA's: life function is observed to be based on algorithms and codes; which constitute functional, specific, complex information, i.e we have islands of function in a vast sea of non-function. Such complex algorithms and codes are observed to have but one empirically observed source: intelligent agents. (And, this is apparently for the excellent reason that chance processes run into the same isolated islands of function in a sea of non-functional configurations challenge: you have to first get to the shores of complex, information based function before you can hill-climb. So, apart form intelligence, how does one cross the sea of non-function in a config space attaching to 1,000 or more bits of information, within the scope of the 10^150 or so states our cosmos as observed can credibly scan across its lifetime? That is less than 1 in 10^150 of the accessible space for just 1,000 bits? And, how many good GA's -- not to mention their underlying OSes and interpreters or compilers -- fit within 1,000 bits, i.e about 130 bytes or less than 150 ASCII characters?) Genetic algorithms and the like are plainly not counter-examples, as they are in effect rather complex, artificially designed, programmed constrained hill-climbing searches, within a wider programming context that is already intelligently designed and functional.kairosfocus
August 25, 2009
August
08
Aug
25
25
2009
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
YD: It is plain from the intensity of the debates we have seen in recent months, that Weasel and its more technically evolved -- and equally intelligently designed -- kin have indeed become an icon of evolution; one that seeps out into the mass mind through the confident assumption/ assertion that computer simulations of one kind or another provide "proof" of evolution by random/chance variation plus natural selection. GA's fail in the same core way that weasel does: injection of smuggled in active informaiton., and the assumption of initial functionality. As to the turnabout assertion that pretends that it is IDers who are raising Weasel as an issue and Darwinists who are responing, the truth is that Weasel was raised by Darwinists, who spend an inordinate amount of time defending weasel through underhand rhetorical subterfuges that tell astute onlookers that something is seriously wrong in the state of Darwin-land. Including, the "he hit (back) first" form of the turnabout accusation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT
KF,
Weasel only serves a rhetorical purpose. And it has done that all too well for 23 years now, as the above thread shows all too plainly.
Other than when I first read TBW years ago, I've never seen Weasel alluded to anywhere except here and a few other blogs in response to posts at UD. Weasel would quickly be forgotten if IDers would stop raising the issue, and try analyzing more interesting GA's that correspond better to biological evolution.yakky d
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:13 PM
11
11
13
PM
PDT
Rob: Weasel rewards non-functional "nonsense phrases" on mere proximity to target, through a process of ARTIFICIAL, programmed-in selection on Hamming distance or a proxy for it. THAT is how it exhibits cumulative selection. Tha tis also why Dawkins put up his weasel words on how misleading it is. It should never have been used in a context that proclaims how a BLIND watchmaker can create de novo complex information, as it does no such thing: without the target being preloaded and ignoring the want of reasonable function, there would be no cumulative progress to it. Weasel only serves a rhetorical purpose. And it has done that all too well for 23 years now, as the above thread shows all too plainly. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
10:55 PM
10
10
55
PM
PDT
Onlookers: A few notes: 1 --> Again, BillB has long since put himself beyond the pale of civil discussion, and now sadly wishes to turnabout blame, a compounding form of the ad hominem phase of the increasingly common rhetorical strategies used by too many darwinists. He seems also to have a major problem with misreading and misconstruing, reflective of significant cognitive dissonnance being compensated for by distorting the challenging evidence and demonising its presenters. (I have already long since pointed out he implications of this increasingly common pattern of rhetoric and response to people in our civilisation. Let us just say that I am not optimistic for the prospects of our civilisation, but duty calls for taking a stance in the teeth of the tide.) 2 --> I should point out that just above, I do not describe Weasel c 1986 as a GA proper, but point to the common point between it and GA's i.e what has been aptly called hill climbing; if anything Weasel can be seen as a "missing link." Similarly, in the paper M & D give a simple illustration of how partitioning works rather than presenting a simulation dependent on per letter mutation rate -- so the above that criticises them as if they asre usign a divegent mut rate is happening is a distortion (as was already corrected but not heeded). And, their lab, EIL, DOES give us -- publicly -- a simulation (Atom's adjustable Weasel), which allows variation of pop per generation and mut rate per letter; as I linked in my online remarks in App 7; but BillB is too quick to see points for demonisation to observe carefully and fairly. More can be said on specifics but the corrective point is made. (In short strawmen are being set up soaked in ad hominems and burned, poisoning the atmosphere . . . THAT IS NOW THE STANDARD WAY THAT DESIGN ARGUMENTS ARE "REBUTTED." Do those who act in this way understand that once you set the poison of prejudicial demonisation loose in a civilisation, you are breaking down the civility and mutual respect that are the foundation of justice and liberty? [Cf the discussion above from Plato on the implications of evolutionary materialism, as at 360 BC. this problem of undermining the foundations of morality and justice among a socially or institutionally powerful avant garde sub-culture and its consequence of domineering, destructive behaviour is nothing new, and it has had consequences before, LONG before. Consequences pointed out by one of the leading lights of our civlisation, 2300 and more years ago.]) 3 --> You will observe, further, that I have set my observations in the context of Weasel 1986 as showcased and described by CRD. The output cumulatively progresses to target regardless of want of reasonable functionality based on mere proximity, and in a sample of 200+ letters that could possibly revert, this does not happen once. 4 --> So, ratcheting-latching is the credible output behaviour, and the issue is to explain it. I have offered two possible mechanisms: implicit as well as explicit, and point out that either will achieve the result for what were considered "good" runs c 1986. 5 --> And, explicit latching is a very natural interpretation of what Dawkins published and described c 1986. [The 1987 BBC Horizon videotaped result is very different, taking much longer and most emphatically not latching or quasi-latching. As I have described above and in the always linked, App 7. (That is, had objectors paused to examine the otehr side of the story before making loaded remarks and assertions, perhaps we would have had a very different degree of exchange. Sigh . . . )] 6 --> You will observe that on the subsequent reported testimony of CRD c 2000 [but not buttressed by actual code], I have long since said that on the preponderance of evidence, IMPLICIT latching is the best explanation of the showcased 1986 results, as is in my always linked. However, on fair comment, it is not unreasonable or dishonest to offer a Weasel that is explicitly latched, on the 1986 evidence as it stands. 7 --> Since IMPLICIT latching achieves the same effective result as explicit, Marks and Dembski's brief analysis in their paper will apply to the case of effectively latched, ratcheting, cumulatively progressing output. 8 --> Similar observations hold for Indium's remarks. E.g.:
The wording in the Blind Watchmaker gives no hint of latching. --> CRD's wording -- as has been repeatedly given, highlighted and linked (but obviously ignored) -- includes print runs that credibly SHOW latching, and speak descriptively of wonderful cumulative progress that rewards the slightest -- i.e one-letter- increment in proximity to target --> Such progress in the context of such printoffs may be legitimately described as ratcheting, with latching of progress to date --> And once that is present partitioned search is EFFECTIVELY present, with the mathematics that applies to the case. --> And as has been repeatedly pointed out latching-ratcheting cumulatively progressive o/p can be achieved EXPLICITLY or IMPLICITLY --> for that, it is possible to write an explicitly latched WEASEL that will also show reversions: someone did that as I recall, to prove the point. A video of Dawkins presenting the algorithm shows no latching. --> Correct, for a 1987 BBC Horizon programme. --> This run, however, behaves dramatically different from the showcased and described o/p circa 1986, as has been presented above. Dawkins says there is no latching. --> The latching (as the onlooker can easily enough see for him-/her- self) is highly evident from the o/p and description c 1986. --> The real issue on this side-point, then, is mechanism, and there are two: EXPLICIT, and IMPLICIT Latching is not needed for the algorithm to work. --> In the broader case, yes: there are quasi-latched and far from latched runs if we de-tune the parameters and the filters for that. Inthe specific acse of Weasel 1986, latching and ratcheting progress to target is quite plainly evidenrtsave to those willing to exert selective hyperskepticism to deny or dismiss the inconvenient evidence and where it points. --> However, much of the rhetorical force of this claim by Indium is that several equivocations lurk: (i) ratcheting/ latching behaviour is a credibly OBSERVED o/p in the first instance, (ii) It may arise through mechanisms that can EXPLICITLY latch, (iii) it may arise through interaction between proximity based targetted search, pop size and mutation rate acting with filter. The algorithm is more complicated when it uses latching. --> EXPLICIT latching can use a simple masking filter, on information that will naturally be present. This is not s significant increment of complexity, and in fact it can be argued that the program is simpler in such a case, to conceive and to code. --> IMPLICIT latching will be just as complex/simple as quasi-latched or even far from latched cases, as the matter is the parameter settings. [Cf here Atom's adjustable Weasel] Explicit latching is not something biologists would implement when modelling evolution --> And that is both irrelevant to the reasonable interpretation of Weasel C 1986 as described, and it ducks the point that IMPLICIT latching is not only possible but DEMONSTRATED by an actual linked run. --> Some would argue that the point of say CRD's selfish gene hyp is that once good genes arise, they become effectively locked in, minor variation notwithstanding. (Observe the patern of sudden appearance, stasis and disapperarance as the dominant fearture of the fossil record, suggesting that there is something at work that tends to conserve major themes.) --> the rest of the post follows suit, and the technical points were already answered; I see no need to try to do a further point by point fisking in response to what is already exposed by contrast with a simple straightforward examination and analysis.
9 --> Now, why should I sp[end so much time on a red herring issue led out to strawmen soaked in ad honminems and ignited to poison the atmosphere for discussion? ANS: because it is important to point out what is going on so that we can the more readily detect it and address it in future. 9 --> Also, it should be clear that he rhetorical progression to trashing the person of others is demonstrably dangerous to our civil society and civilisation. 10 --> Indeed, another current thread here is discussion how CRD wishes to equatge denial of "evolution" to holocaust denial. The latter of course just put David Irving in gaol, so it is no laughing matter tosee the comaprison. And let us not forget he threat or act of malicious false therat reporting against the undersigned. ++++++++++++++ We have been warned. And there are dozens of millions of ghosts from all too recent history to remind us of what may all too possibly be at stake. At his point it seem to me that enough has been laid out to show the true balance on the merits, here and int eh already linked. And, there is a clear agenda to indulge in personally loaded rhetoric. I see little reason to further reward such trollish misbehaviour with attention and effort. Good evening. GEM of TKI PS: Rob, Marks and Dembski have used the random walk search as a baseline reference, a yardstick. they have pointed out tha there are no universal search algors that wll find all targets [e.g. there are no universal decoders that will pick up and cut through all cyphertexts.] They have pointed out hat on average algors not treated as horses for courses will be comparable in OVERALL performance to random walks. they have accounted for the superior performance of good horses on the right courses by way of the injection of Active Information, which reliably traces to intelligence and manifests itself in sometimes tacit knowledge of targets and variation of functionality with configuration [aka fitness landscapes]. They point to the vicious regress implied by the search for a search, and its implications for the cost -- resource, effort etc, linked to information injection -- of search. (BTW, this is a bridge to economics and to implications of asymmetry of information and the principal-agent dilemma.) to illustrate, above, I point out how the Weasel-sentence loaded algor will hit the Weasel target phrase, but substitute BEAGLE for Weasel as the actual target without changing the target phrase in the program, and it will be guaranteed not to hit, or to lose the true target. [Horses for courses.]kairosfocus
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT
Clive:
Really? How does Weasel demonstrate that if we keep in mind that there really is no Weasel phrase?
I'm really confused by that question. The WEASEL algorithm defines fitness in terms of a target phrase, and it transfers information from that target to the evolving vector. Biological evolution also transfers information from the environment to biota. In both cases, the mechanism of information transfer is cumulative selection. The point of disanalogy is that WEASEL has a long-term target and life does not. So what was your question again?R0b
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT
R0b,
Cumulative selection, on the other hand, can transfer information from the environment to the output vector, which trumps this otherwise guaranteed randomness. This is what WEASEL illustrates, and it’s true regardless of whether there is a distant target.
Really? How does Weasel demonstrate that if we keep in mind that there really is no Weasel phrase?Clive Hayden
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:33 PM
6
06
33
PM
PDT
Clive:
Sure things accumulate in both, though I doubt we both mean the same thing by “cumulative selection”…
I stated my understanding of the term explicitly: Selection acting on the product of previous selection. This is in contrast to single-step selection, where selection always acts on a newly-generated random string. Dawkins' whole point was to contrast the two.
The letters accumulate.
Letters accumulate in neither WEASEL nor life.
What Dawkins was trying to demonstrate was that they accumulate in a certain way, without that “way” actually being an actual “way”, (for nothing exists to compare how they accumulate as a distant target.)
You seem to be saying again that in order to have an actual "way", fitness must be in terms of a distant target. Single-step selection, for any sizable configuration space, will virtually always yield a vector that is statistically random both internally and with respect to external phenomena. Cumulative selection, on the other hand, can transfer information from the environment to the output vector, which trumps this otherwise guaranteed randomness. This is what WEASEL illustrates, and it's true regardless of whether there is a distant target. Does WEASEL prove that cumulative selection is sufficient to explain all biological structures? Of course not. But it illustrates why the "monkeys at a typewriter" objection to evolutionary theory is not valid. Of course, the ID movement offers objections more sophisticated than "monkeys at a typewriter".* But TBW is a pre-ID-movement book aimed at laypeople. * However, I would argue that Dembski's previous approach reduced to "monkeys at a typewriter" in practice, and his current theoretical approach reduces to it explicitly.R0b
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Allanius @ 116:
Alas for WEASEL, DNA is not alive. Nor does it have any useful function until life appears. To describe DNA in terms of “fitness” is to presuppose life.
That's correct. Alas for WEASEL, the program has no pedagogical value for OOL, or, for cosmology or English lit, for that matter. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WATERLOO.R0b
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
KF: perhaps you should read Dembski and Marks paper. They don't present WEASEL as a GA, they present it as a partitioned random walker, various parts of GA's are described in later sections. You mentioned 'More modern GA's' in the context of WEASEL so you seem to regard it as a type of GA. Would you please explain why Dembski and Marks description qualifies as a genetic algorithm? WEASEL is not an attempt to model biology, just to demonstrate how selection can help searches. Functionality is irrelevant to the purpose behind WEASEL. This whole issue over your fantastical seas of functionality are irrelevant to the point that Dawkins was illustrating with WEASEL - you keep presenting it as a central issue that Dawkins fails to illustrate, but he was not addressing that issue. This is a classic example of a straw-man argument. You present Dawkins algorithm as attempting to explain something he never intends it to explain, then you whine about how it doesn't explain it. I agree that the issues surrounding the origin of life are interesting and important, and the dynamics of evolution are also interesting and complex, but Dawkins simple example of the power of selection is not addressing these issues, they are not his point. It may beg questions for you, just as "It was designed" begs the question "By Whom and How?" but you are erecting a big-red herring skinned straw-man by claiming that Dawkins fails to demonstrate something he is not trying to demonstrate.
the latest red herring on how Dembski uses different rates than Dawkins, is beside the point: Dembski was illustrating partitioning, not mutation rates at that point in the paper
WEASEL, as described by Dawkins does not partition the search space using a letter locking mechanism - letters that are correct are not locked out of the search. If Dembski wanted to illustrate a partitioned search he should have used an example of a partitioned search!
now, after objections were made, there was a statement by CRD that Weasel was not actually explicitly latched — though of course we have yet to see demonstrative code c. 1986, nine years later.
I see you are engaging in civil discourse again by implying that Dawkins is lying, well done! The problem with supplying the code is that you would simply claim that it is not authentic, or that he omitted the bit that contains the mythical latch.
Notre that once a letter in these showcased results goes correct, on the samples above, it NEVER reverts, strongly suggestive per sampling theory that it does not revert.
We have been over this time and time again. You can produce exactly these results with a non latching mechanism just like the one Dawkins describes - in fact this kind of output is exactly what you would expect. And, as DeLurker and Indium have pointed out, latching is only one point on which Dembsi and Marks's algorithm differs from Dawkins. Onlookers will have already noted how KF has steadfastly ignored these important differences along with the mountain of evidence against an undocumented latching mechanism. KF, You may think it is OK to misrepresent other peoples work in peer-reviewed research but most serious academics frown on it, and expect errors to be promptly and politely corrected when they are pointed out. Pointing out the various errors made by D and M is not 'uncivil' or a red herring, or a straw-man, it is how proper academic research is conducted in civil society. Dembski and Marks persistence in representing WEASEL incorrectly, despite their errors being pointed out, will start to look like deliberate deception if they are not careful. If they still believe that their partitioned random sampler algorithm is the same as the non-partitioned population based walk described by Dawkins then they need to provide justification for this IN THEIR PAPER. They are entitled to claim that the two algorithms are the same, but they are required to give their reasons!BillB
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
-Indium in 125 & 128, I raised questions similar to yours. Here's another detail on the mutation rate: Dawkins's algorithm works best with a rate of 4% - 5%, while Dembski's algorithm prefers the maximal possible rate of mutations in each step (as he only allows for beneficial - or at least neutral ones).DiEb
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:51 AM
6
06
51
AM
PDT
DeLurker, "he" would be the correct way to adress me. After looking at my post again I think I have to apologise for all the spelling errors etc! English is not my native language... kf: So many words. I guess none of them are directed at me (I can see no reaction to my arguments), so I will just let you carry on. Your stuff is funny to read, in a strange kind of way! Happy typing!Indium
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
kairosfocus#134&135 Sir, Would you please directly address Indium's #131, directly and as concisely as possible? He or she clearly identified three significant differences between Dawkins work and the representation of that work by Dembski and Marks. The issue here isn't the Weasel algorithm per se, it is the misrepresentation of it by two individuals who have been repeatedly informed of their error.DeLurker
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT
PS: Note onlookers, how there is now a concerted effort to duck the point that the o/p for good runs c 1986 is observed and claimed [cf the highlighted excerpts from CRD in BW again] -- beyond reasonable dispute -- to latch, and that the means by which that can occur are: explicit and implicit.kairosfocus
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
Onlookers: 1 --> Observe the utter lack of concern over documented incivility, as seen again. 2 --> Observe the plain intent to distract attention from and avoid the central matter on the merits arising from the publication of the latest ID-supportive paper in the professional peer-reviewed literature -- the progress of ID in the teeth of the fiercest, and too often distortion-based, fallacy-riddled, uncivil opposition. 3 --> Observe, thus, the cognitive dissonance and distraction, distortion and demonisation-based defense mechanisms deployed in the face of evidence to the contrary of the Darwinist partyline talking points on Weasel 1986. 4 --> Further to this, observe the actual published output of Weasel c 1986: ______________ >> 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 >> _________________ 5 --> Notre that once a letter in these showcased results goes correct, on the samples above, it NEVER reverts, strongly suggestive per sampling theory that it does not revert. 6 --> Observe now Mr Dawkins' description of these results in BW: ________________ >> It [Weasel c 1986] . . . begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL . . . . What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection . . . . 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, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. >> _________________ 7 --> We may see from this that Weasel c 1986 is targetted search based on artificial selection of non-functional phrases per mere proximity to target in a context where the underlying core Hoylean challenge was precisely that there is a threshold of complex functionality -- a la Schutzenberger et al at Wistar 1966 -- that had to be overcome before any credibly mechanism of modest random variation and selection off superior function could credibly trigger hill-climbing to the peaks of Mt Improbability. You have to get to the shoreline of the isle of function before you can climb up to tis hilltops. And, once complex functionality beyond say 1,000 bits of info capacity enters teh situation, not event he resources of hte entire observed universe will be adequate to perform an adequate scan oft e4h configuration space to reasonably get to such a shoreline: 1 part in 10^150 of a config space is to all practical intents and purposes a search of scope zero. And, real bio-systems as observed start int eh 100's of k bits of information just in their DNA. 8 --> That is, Weasel is fundamentally "misleading" -- as CRD acknowledges -- and should never have been used in a context promoting the thesis that a BLIND watchmaker can account for apparent functional complexity highly reminiscent of known cases of design. 9 --> Further to this, the steady march of nonsense -- non functional -- phrases to the target in the published runs c 1986 give a strong hint that something is amiss. that is why they were spotlighted from early on, and seen as an indicator that something was wrong. 10 --> And, observe how CRD dismisses the criterion of complex functionality with the smear-term "single-step selection," using a handy strawman too: we need to get to the shoreline before hill-climbing can start, and this is the fundamental problem of GA's as a model of evolution; they use hill climbing within islands of function [speaking of fitness functions etc], and beg the question of getting to such shorelines. BTW, back to Dec last year when this first came up at UD, that is what I highlighted.] 11 --> Now, within this context, the obvious explanation of the behaviour of Weasel is that it used partitioned, ratcheting search that explicitly latched successful letters. And given the context of showcased results and the meanings of cumulative -- "Increasing or enlarging by successive addition" -- and ratcheting -- "To cause to increase or decrease by increments" -- as well as latching -- "To close or lock with or as if with a latch" -- that is a very reasonable and legitimate interpretation. For, in the observed results and CRD's enthusiastic description, we see evidence for a steady incremental forward march that once a letter is correct it is locked up until the target phrase is complete, whereupon the whole system locks. 12 --> Now, after objections were made, there was a statement by CRD that Weasel was not actually explicitly latched -- though of course we have yet to see demonstrative code c. 1986, nine years later. 13 --> It turns out -- and above I linked an actual demonstration of this -- that if steady marching to target is seen as good results, then we may cahieve this by a program that implicitly latches. 14 --> That is, given per generation population size, per letter mutation rates and particular filter used, there will be a situation such that in almost all generations there will be at least one unchanged phrase from the seed. In that case, with the selection filter set up so that single letter changes dominate the rest, we tend to have either no advance or else a single step forward. 15 --> Further to this, we may see that the published good runs c 1986 are 40+ and 60+ runs indicative that about 1/2 the time, no change won the filtering on closest to target, and that single step advances won the rest. Also, of course, up to the end of each run, most of the phrases were "nonsense." 9And BTW, the latest red herring on how Dembski uses different rates than Dawkins, is beside the point: Dembski was illustrating partitioning, not mutation rates at that point in the paper, as p 1055 will show; as previously noted and predictably ignored by those looking for gnats to strain out while swallowing camels.] 16 --> So, whether the latching-ratcheting action was explicit or implicit, we have a valid explanation, and both will be giving similar patterns of behaviour in the output; both being invalid as models of evolution for the same reason of begging he question of complex information based function. (All of this, of course was documented in my online remarks on Weasel here before the current exchanges began.) 17 --> Now, in the current paper, Marks and Dembski have spoken of a racheting action, which is accurate as a description of the output c 1986 [and which is diverse from the videotaped o/p as at 1987]. They have offered an explanation thereof that highlights the effect of the mechanism used: once a letter goes correct, it is effectively locked in [which is consistent with both implicit and explicit latching . . . as is the associated mathematics], but such is legitimate relative to what we see the description in BW. And so it is reasonable terminology to observe the fact of evident ratcheting-latching int eh o/p c 1986, and to propose mechanisms and analyse the implications of such mechanisms. Wehile not losing sight of the import of targetted search: MASSIVE INJECTION OF ACTIVE INFORMATION, with the consequent drastic reduction in the resources required for likely success in search. Also we note the source of such AcI, intelligence, and the associated challenge of the search for a good search and the issue that mechanical transmission of information at best preserves or partly preserves complex functional information, it does not reasonably transform it into de novo functionality dependent on de novo complex information. 18 --> So, it is fair comment to describe the current huffing and puffing as distractive and distorting. Especially, when the root point is that Weasel is revealed by its latching and quasi-latching, ratcheting and ratcheting with occasional slips action, as targetted search, pre-loaded with the endpoint and so cannot reasonably be seen as creating the information in the target phrase de novo. 19 --> That is, Weasel gives the false impression that it solves the question of origin of complex, functionally specific information. (Save, in that it illustrates that the information came form an intelligence . . . ) 20 --> More modern GA's with their fitness landscape models fall afoul of the problem of flooding the landscape with a vast sea of non-function. (As i noted last December.) 21 --> And while an intelligence can take soundings and move to targets via near- or partial- successes in the face of non function, a blind watchmaker can only reward differential function. So it is helpless to get us to the shores of function. __________________ So, onlookers, you have enough to spot red herrings and ignore them. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT
Alex73#109 My apologies for the delay in replying. I actually had a bit of a real life this weekend.
Dawkins does not lay out the algoritm clearly enough as he did not tell the mutation rate, population size and the exact selection criteria if multiple strings have the same fitness score.
True, but it is very clear from his description that no "latching" of any type is involved. He has confirmed this himself: http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/10/09/today-is-a-fine-day-for-a-woollen-kettle-or-a-copper-sweater/ (look near the bottom for the description of the correspondence with Dawkins). I find your comments on the selection procedure interesting:
What I was talking about can be observed clearly if you examine the best_progeny function. Let me recapitulate: In case of low mutation rate there double mutations will be rare, triple mutations will be even rarer. Depending on your mutation rate no changes and single letter changes will dominate the population. The best_progeny function, therefore, will likely meet the original parent string or another string with just a single letter difference first. From this point you can continue the analysis and will see, that for low enough mutation rates the best_progeny will be strongly biased towards chosing just as if explicit latching was in the code.
Yes! That's exactly the point! This simple example of mutation followed by selection, with absolutely no knowledge of individual letters on the part of the selection algorithm, leads to rapid convergence on the target. That's all the Weasel algorithm is supposed to demonstrate. Dawkins then goes on, in TBW and his other books, to discuss what happens when the long term target is eliminated and fitness becomes whatever allows the most reproductive success in the current, constantly changing, environment. The Weasel algorithm is just the first small step on the journey to understanding evolutionary theory.
This bias can be somewhat mitigated by selecting all the different ones giving the top score and chosing one of them randomly.
I don't think that will matter. The mutation rate is random, so selecting the first in the set of best progeny will be no less random than selecting from the whole set. That is, if there are 100 progeny and numbers 3, 19, 72, and 89 all have the highest fitness, there's no reason to think that 72 has more chance of a reversion than 3. That being said, it would be interesting to preserve the entire set of progeny with the highest fitness and use them to breed the next generation. At the very least it would make it easier to identify how often pairs of deleterious and beneficial mutations occur simultaneously.DeLurker
August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 9

Leave a Reply