PZ Myers Does It Again

_{Clive Hayden

August 20, 2009

Darwinism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Science}

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

Indium: Good point about the mutation rates - this is a third significant difference between the two algorithms.
How somebogy can argue that Dembski and Marks used the Weasel algorithm is beyond me. Including a reference to this stupid algorithm in a published paper was a really strange move anyway…
A very good point. There are reams of peer reviewed papers about the many many varieties of Genetic Algorithms available for them to reference, so why would they choose an old popular science book. WEASEL, as described by dawkins, is a type of genetic algorithm, but Dembski and Marks describe a partitioned random walker and reference Dawkins WEASEL. This is patently incorrect - they should have referenced a partitioned random walker example not a genetic algorithm.BillB_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
02:51 AM
2
02
51
AM
PDT}

Once again: The wording in the Blind Watchmaker gives no hint of latching. A video of Dawkins presenting the algorithm 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 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 to believe one should see fitness reducing mutations in this case. So, let´s compare the examples given by Dembski and Marks and Dawkins again, shall we? 1. Correct letters Correct letters don´t stay fixed in the algorithm as intended by Dawkins. Demski and Marks fix correct letters explicitly. I think everythinmg has been said about this latching behaviour. I will just add that the Dawkins version is much more representative of biological evolution. 2. Incorrect letters Dembski and Marks replace *every* wrong letter with a new random letter. This means that subsequent search results are completely different at the beginning: 1: SCITAMROFN*IYRANOITULOVE*SAM 2: OOT*DENGISEDESEHT*ERA*NETSIL Dawkins algorithm works in a completely different way: From the parent search string he computes a population of daughter strings which are exact copies except for a fixed (and low) mutation rate per letter: 1: WDLTMNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P 2: WDLTMNLT*DTJBKSIRZREZLMQCO*P This is of course much more in line with biological evolution. 3. Population This is related to point 2: Dembski and Marks have a population size of one. From a parent string exactly one daughter string is computed. There is no selection involved! Dawkins generates a large population of daughter strings and selects the best one as the parent string for the next generation. Again, while it is an extremely simplified model of evolution it at least models the selection part. Summary: The two algorithms are completely different in almost every aspect. The one that Dawkins said he used (and everybody can reproduce the results easily) is a much better model of biological evolution: - Correct letters are not fixed: Mutation rate is independend of resulting fitness: Dawkins: ca. 5% for every letter, Dembski and Marks use an extremely unrealistic rate of 0%/100% for correct/incorrect letters. - Selection is modelled - The effect of population sizes is modelled in the Dawkins version. So, once again, the algorithms are completely different and the latching behaviour is only a small part of this difference. How somebogy can argue that Dembski and Marks used the Weasel algorithm is beyond me. Including a reference to this stupid algorithm in a published paper was a really strange move anyway...Indium_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:49 AM
1
01
49
AM
PDT}

And of course ever since, multitudes of algorithms have been presented to “prove” that Weasel c. 1986 did not latch explicitly or implicitly. But all such are plainly irrelevant. Only credible code and a clear, cogent accounting for the statements and the published “good” runs would suffice.
So you happily dismiss all the evidence against you? <Only credible code and a clear, cogent accounting for the statements and the published “good” runs would suffice.
Only credible code and a clear, cogent accounting for the statements and the published “good” runs would suffice.
THIS HAS BEEN DONE AGAIN AND AGAIN! What is wrong with you man! Talk about rose coloured spectacles - yours are practically opaque. PLEASE remove your blindfold and blinkers and I'll spell it out for you nice and simple: 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 DENIES USING AN EXPLICIT LATCHING MECHANISM DEMBSKI DESCRIBES AN EXPLICIT LATCH MECHANISM DEMBSKI DOES NOT USE A POPULATION therefore: DEMBSKI AND MARKS ARE USING A DIFFERENT ALGORITHM DEMBSKI AND MARKS MISREPRESENT DAWKINS WORK WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION Re satire: Please present evidence that Pianka ever advocated the destruction of the human race. Simply quoting Dembskis claims is not evidence of anything other than Dembskis claims.BillB_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

Footnote: I see there is an attempt by BillB to blame the victim for taking a stated threat [or actual fact] of making a malicious false report with potentially serious consequences seriously. Sorry, that does not pass the smell test. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers might want to compare the Actual Dembski thread that is being passed off as moral equicvaleincy -- pulled up from a Yahoo search just now -- with the characterisations above. I think it is fair comment to say that my warning on what happens when abusive rhetoric of polarisation runs out of control is light years away from Mr Pianka's reported inappropriately gleeful -- "he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture" -- discussion on Ebola killing off 90% of humanity. Notice Dr Dembski's report on the matter:
. . . blogged yesterday about UTAustin professor Eric Pianka (aka “Dr. Doom”) and his advocacy of killing 90% of the world’s human population with airborne Ebola. Could Pianka be charged with terrorism/conspiracy to commit a terrorist act? What happens if a student actually takes his suggestion to heart and kills a bunch of people? Why shouldn’t we think that Dr. Doom himself would commit the act of human destruction he is advocating? How is what he is saying any different from somebody at an airport saying that he plans to plant a bomb there. Note: This is not a matter of saying he actually has planted a bomb but saying that he plans to plant one — that surely would be enough in the current climate to get him arrested. So what about Pianka? At what point do his remarks advocating human destruction constitute a terrorist threat that get him arrested? And if not arrested, how about committed? As soon as this is posted, I’m going to have a chat with the Department of Homeland Security. [Called them -- They are aware of it; it will be interesting to see if they do anything about it.] For your information, I’ve posted an article below by a reporter who was there at Pianka’s remarks . . .
That makes the excuse offered above that the threat against myself was a lighthearted parody, and that I am a poor sport or ignoramus not to spot it, even more grotesque. [Observe, per WmAD's report, the HSD was ALREADY aware of the issue when he called in to ask about it; understandable in light of the following attached journalistic report [formatting messed up on Firefox].] The dismissal is sadly revealing on the increasingly typical poor attitude of Darwinist advocates to the reputation and rights of those who differ with them. That trend of incivility is precisely what I warned about in the first place, provoking the threat or act of malicious false reporting. In Caribbean vernacular: "Fun fe yuh is death to me . . . " (a frog speaking to a small boy approaching, stone in hand). For shame!kairosfocus_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PDT}

And just another difference between the searches: The fitness of a string in Dawkins's example is given by a number between 0 and L, i.e., by log(L) bytes. To describe the fitness of a string in Dembski's process you need L bytes!DiEb_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

PPPS: Re DiEb. In the 2009 paper, p. 1055, WmAD presented an illustrative example of PARTITIONING, not of mutation rates. We must also recall that the runs from 1986 as published were "good" ones showcased. So, they would be expected to perform better than the average. For instance the 40+ gens case has three letters correct from the outset. Similarly, it has been SHOWN, not just speculated, that we can have Weasel runs that latch implicitly. The question of ratcheting/cumulation of the output of the program is settled based on CRD's statements to that effect, and the showcased runs; the real issue then is how that can be, for which we see two viable paths: explicit and implicit latching. And, if one wants, one can do an explicitly latched version of Weasel in which one does a significant pop in each generation and filters for the closest to target to seed the next generation, but he result would not be materially different, save for perhaps speeding up the run to target somewhat (i.e this is a red herring). (I note, that all of this is on side trails distractive from the substantial contribution documented in the paper and summarised at first level in 78 above.)kairosfocus_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT}

A footnote: On re-examinig the thread, I saw that some have thought that the BBC Horizon 1987 videotaped Weasel is the same as that of 1986. I simply note for general information, that the showcased runs of 1986 [cf 47 above and my long since linked discussion] hit target in 40+ and 60+ generations, and without apparent reversion in the letters that go correct (across 200+ cases) . . . and note, Wikipedia as at the time of composing the original discussions, presented the same basic 1986 runs data as we have used. [Wikipedia, notoriously, is not a Design Theory friendly site. Sadly, too often to the point of not just bias but misleading and accusative distortion.] In 1987 by contrast -- kindly observe, Mr Patrick May! (and those who confidently linked him above) -- the runs go on much longer, there are FREQUENT reversions and we can see a weird winking effect as correct letters revert and return rapidly. So, we should not naively assume that what was videotaped in 1987 was the same as what was showcased and discussed in 1986, despite the similarity of the target phrase. And of course ever since, multitudes of algorithms have been presented to "prove" that Weasel c. 1986 did not latch explicitly or implicitly. But all such are plainly irrelevant. Only credible code and a clear, cogent accounting for the statements and the published "good" runs would suffice. (None such has been forthcoming -- including Mr May's linked article that starts with a slanderously loaded conflation of Intelligent Design with Creationism, with of course the onward hints of theocratic tyrannical intent addressed in Weak Argument Corrective no 8. that alone is utterly discrediting, and the analysis fails to address the substantial issues long since raised.) We therefore need to treat the 1986 and 1987 data as materially different on that evidence. (On the implicit latching model, this can be reasonably accounted for by shifts in parameters such as pop per generation, per letter mutation rate and filter characteristics. Atom's adjustable weasel will show how this can happen.) GEM of TKI PS: Re BillB. Again, this commenter knows he has gone beyond the pale of civil discourse and what he needs to do to make amends. PPS: Re the focal issue issue The central context for this discussion is in fact that Marks and Dembski have put forth an advance on the technique of design theory in a peer reviewed publication, active information and its context (including the cost of search), and this in the wider circumstance that for the past 23 years computer simulations portrayed as demonstrations of the way evolution has happened have become a major field; never mind thart simulation worlds -- even seemingly plausible ones -- are notriously hard to be brought into a good match with reality. Observe Mr Hayden's remark in the lead of the original post: >>Notice that he [PZM] doesn’t actually address the content of Dr. Dembski and Dr. Marks’ paper . . . >> Since that content is somewhat technical and since I have relevant background to remark on it, I have thought it helpful to he wider context of the discussion to put on the table a few points on the significance of the published work "for the rest of us," e.g. at 78 above. Surely, imparting some understanding of what is at stake in general is germane to assessing why for instance PZM's critiques are off the mark, and similarly why the critique of choice here is also off the mark. And, a glance above will show that I and others have given adequate explanations for why Dembski and Marks were justified to use the ratcheting -- thus, latching (which can be implicit) -- action reading of Weasel circa 1986. [I repeat, cumulative progress to target with ratcheting-latching of degree of success to date can be achieved implicitly (especially for showcased "good" runs!) An actual example from Atom's adjustable Weasel is here . . . ) This, by co-adapting pop size, per letter mutation rate and filter characteristics, as I discussed long since and have linked from the outset. (Those who will look there will see that out of context, twisted snippets and caricatures are being used to advance teh objections tot he concept that Weasel c 1986 credibly latched and ratcheted, and that this can be done implicitly as well as explicitly. remember: implicit latching is an inferred explanatory dynamic for an OBSERVED result, as can be seen from the runs, and also for CRD's statements about cumulative progress and reward of smallest increment) The paper of course is being attacked, but not on the merits of its main argument -- as the original post remarks -- and instead side issues and a now characteristic pattern of abusive darwinist rhetoric are being resorted to. One of these resorts is the false, ad hominem laced accusation that the partitioned search ratcheting analysis of Weasel circa 1986 presented is not a legitimate interpretation. Such is being sustained in the teeth of any and all contrary evidence from the published runs and the direct statements of Marks and Dembski. Such are hallmarks of cognitive dissonance in the face of unwelcome reality. Sad, but instructive, to see.kairosfocus_{August 24, 2009
August
08
Aug
24
24
2009
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PDT}

Just to summarize: i. Dawkin's algorithm seems to have a low mutation rate between generations, while Dembski's rate is much higher: Compare the first two generations of the first example by Dawkins 1) WDLTMNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P 2) WDLTMNLT*DTJBKSIRZREZLMQCO*P with Dembski's example: 1) SCITAMROFN*IYRANOITULOVE*SAM 2) OOT*DENGISEDESEHT*ERA*NETSIL (changes in bold) ii. Dawkin says that his algorithm doesn't use latching, while Dembski's algorithm latches. iii. Dawkins's describes the use of a population (though of unknown size), while Dembski uses only one string iv. Dawkins gives 43, 64 and 41 as the number of trials his algorithms uses in three runs. The expected number of trials for Dembski's algorithm is 104.55 Methinks, it is another weasel.DiEb_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

R0b,
It was lame of me to say you made a concession. I’m unimpressed when others crow when I drop a subject, so it was stupid of me to do the same. I apologize.
Apology accepted. I dropped the subject because I had said all that I wanted to say on the matter, and it was beginning to get redundant.
Does cumulative selection (selection acting on the product of previous selection) occur in Weasel? Does it occur in life? If the answer is yes to both, then they have something in common. This is pretty simple.
Sure things accumulate in both, though I doubt we both mean the same thing by "cumulative selection"....but so do they accumulate with the monkeys typing. The letters accumulate. 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.) So cumulative selection could occur in any fashion, with no discernment between any one accumulation compared to another in any meaningful way.
“No long-term goal” does not mean “not even fitness as a goal.” You seem to be of the opinion that fitness must be evaluated against a long-term goal. If so, you’re wrong. In life, as well as in many virtual environments, fitness is not forward-looking at all. Perhaps organisms need only be better than their cousins at something in order to reproduce, and that “something” may even change over time.
Which is another way of saying anything that ever does, or doesn't do, anything at all, which is entirely vacuous as an explanation, and vacuous as a description. Perhaps this and perhaps that. Perhaps anything in between. This is not valid as an explanation of anything.Clive Hayden_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

KF, To start I will point out again that the issue under discussion here is the degree to which Dembski and Marks misrepresent WEASEL. I note that you begin by claiming that my attempts to remain on topic are actually "red herrings, led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere." Yet again you are accusing me of dishonesty, of lying when I say that the issue under discussion o this thread is the way WEASEL is portrayed in the paper. Your double standards are nothing if not consistent so I will turn the other cheek (again). I will just point out briefly again that you are the only one who mistook the obvious parody of Dembskis actions in reporting an academic to the US homeland security, for an actual threat against yourself. I find it hard to believe that you cannot see this, and a less patient person could be forgiven for thinking that you are deliberately misinterpreting the situation in order to make a fuss, stamp your foot and throw a tantrum. Moving on to the issue being discussed: As I have already demonstrated Cumulative is used to refer to a process of keeping track of increases in a value whilst ignoring decreases, it does not forbid decreases it just ignores them when keeping account. Accumulating wealth does not imply that you can never spend money or that your bank balance will fluctuate from hour to hour, it implies that your wealth shows an increasing trend over time. The same goes for accumulating height of accumulating height in a fitness landscape. Anyone with a basic understanding of algorithmic searches ought to know this. Dawkins never describes WEASEL as having a mechanism that locks in correct letters once they are found, his use of the word cumulative does not constitute a description of a letter locking mechanism and the results he publishes are entirely consistent with an algorithm that does not lock letters; this is a simple matter of empirical fact. It is certainly true that you can replicate the results with a different algorithm, one that removes the use of a population of candidates and includes a letter locking mechanism, but Dawkins does NOT describe his algorithm as having these features, and to suggest that the simplest interpretation of his description is an algorithm that includes extra mechanisms, that he does NOT describe, and which are NOT required to produce the published results, is certainly taking liberties with the idea of a 'simplest explanation'. Now add to this the FACT that Dembskis algorithm does not include the production of a population of candidates for the next parent, but Dawkins explicitly does, and the credibility of your claim that Dembskis description is somehow the most obvious interpretation just stretches to breaking point. Finally you should add to all this the fact that Dawkins has denied ever including an explicit latching mechanism in WEASEL. Summing up: Dembski and Marks description of their algorithm is not WEASEL. Their algorithm differs on two distinct points: The use of a latching mechanism to partition the search and the lack of a population of candidates for the future parent phrase. Constructing a different algorithm than the one Dawkins describes, but which can be made to produce similar looking outputs, does not make that algorithm WEASEL. The fact that an electric motor can produce motion in a car does not make an electric motor a type of internal combustion engine! (BTW, that was an ANALOGY, not an oil of ad hominem soaked straw-man.)BillB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT}

Joseph: Good point, some ratchets do work to accumulate forward movements by ignoring reverse movements. The ratchet mechanism however is one that locks out reverse movement - If you drive a ratchet will a drill you don't need the forward and backward movement. Pointing out that even ratchets do not have to move exclusively in one direction does not really help your case.BillB_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

jerry, What I gave you was cumulative selection. I couldn't care less what anyone, especially IDers think about it. As for trivial, yes, the effects of cumulative selection are trivially obvious.Dave Wisker_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT}

-Indium yes, the algorithms are indeed completely different. For instance: Dembski's algorithm doesn't need a big population, a single individual takes on average 104.6 generations to complete the search. In his book, Dawkins's examples terminated afte 43, 64 and 41 generation. To get numbers in this range with Dembski's algorithm, the size of the population should be less than four.DiEb_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker, You have just trivialized the concept by saying any form of replication is cumulative evolution since all organisms are subject to selection. Do you really want the pro ID people to say, "We asked for examples of cumulative selection and this is what they gave us." The pro ID people will say QED! And there are some basic flaws with your explanation because it is possible for the next generation to have less than what was there before and one would hard pressed to use the word "cumulative" for such a situation.jerry_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT}

Dave Wisker:
Any example where the survivors from one round of selection are the source of the next generation. That’s cumulative selection.
What is accumulating? With sexual reproduction there isn't any guarantee what either parent has (for a beneficial mutation) will get passed to any offspring. So the bottom line is there isn't any evidence for cumulative selection.Joseph_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Hi jerry, Just out of curiosity, what are some good examples of cumulative selection/evolution in nature? Any example where the survivors from one round of selection are the source of the next generation. That's cumulative selection.Dave Wisker_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

“In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success.” Don’t be silly. There are no “criteria for selection” in nature per se. That’s anthropomorphism. Nature for its own sake is perfectly value-neutral. Even Darwin knew this—hence his uneasiness over the term “natural selection,” which is an oxymoron. The only possible selection criterion the Darwinists have been able to conjure up for nature is fitness for survival. 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. Nature presupposes nothing. “Methinks it is a weasel” is meaningless until we invest it with meaning. Dawkins thinks it has value only because he recognizes it as language. In the same way, DNA has no meaning apart from the language of life. To claim that DNA acquired the “fitness” of language before life appeared is a non-sequitur. Dawkins believes that gradualism produced the wonder of life by “blind” or undirected means. Could be, but to use such terms as “selection” and “fitness” to justify his belief is tendentious. What he really needs to show is that nature can produce DNA without selecting. Back to zero.allanius_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT}

BillB, Have you ever used a ratchet? Do you undertsand how a ratchet works differently from a regular wrench? With a ratchet the reverse motion is not counted. IOW ratcheting fits in perfectly well with your definition of cumulative elevation gain. BTW with weasel all we are concerned with is the ONE output. Nothing else matters.Joseph_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

After looking at the algorithms again, it is unbelievable easy to see that they are completely different (and still I did not notice it myself at first): Just look at the examples given. In the Dawkins version letters that are not correct are still very often (in the majority of cases) transferred to the daughter generation. The reason is simple: The letters are changed only when a mutation event forces them to. This means that parent and daughter generations are always very similar. Now look at the example as provided by Dembski and Marks: The daughter and parent generations are *completely* different except for the 2 correct letters. This is the perfect proof that Dembski and Marks use the wrong algorithm. The one they use might be interesting in itself but it is certainly not the one from the Blind Watchmaker.Indium_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT}

PS: Evolutionary Materialism crca 360 BC: ______________ >> Ath. They [the avant garde evolutionary materialists of that day] say that the greatest and fairest things are the work of nature [i.e. phusis -- the mechanisms of the world in effect] and of chance, the lesser of art [ i.e. techne], which, receiving from nature the greater and primeval creations, moulds and fashions all those lesser works which are generally termed artificial. Cle. How is that? Ath. I will explain my meaning still more clearly. They say that fire and water, and earth and air [i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals [revall, we too are animals, rational ones] and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. Art sprang up afterwards and out of these, mortal and of mortal birth, and produced in play certain images and very partial imitations of the truth, having an affinity to one another, such as music and painting create and their companion arts. And there are other arts which have a serious purpose, and these co-operate with nature, such, for example, as medicine, and husbandry, and gymnastic. And they say that politics cooperate with nature, but in a less degree, and have more of art; also that legislation is entirely a work of art, and is based on assumptions which are not true. Cle. How do you mean? Ath. In the first place, my dear friend, these people would say that the Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them [i.e radical relativism on law, culture, and ethics]; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others [i.e evo mat c 360 BC was seen as a gateway to abuses and tyranny of the strong over the weak], and not in legal subjection to them. >> ________________ Some details differ, but the pattern sounds fairly familiar.kairosfocus_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

Alex73: While CRD did not give explicit details on the algorithm or code, he did provide showcase runs and commentary that identifies on preponderance of evidence [and that is all the degree of warrant that a reasonable person can demand on this], that cumulative selection circa 1986 did have full ratcheting action on "good" runs as then conceived [there is no evidencve of occasional slips,a nd a significant sample thas tin context points to smooth progress . . . ]. That a debate over the implications of such latching-ratcheting (i.e it highlights the fact that the search is a targetted search based on mere proximity not a plausible proxy for bio-function) has subsequently shifted our estimation of what a "good" run should look like does not change the circumstances as at 1986. And given that fact, it is a legitimate interpretation of Weasel circa 1986 to use a program that acts like that. As noted, it can be done explicitly or implicitly, with the same effective result in the relevant point of reference, the output: Once a letter goes right, it does not revert, i.e we have partitioning of the search and ratcheting, thus latching too. Moreover, all of this is on at best a tangent to a point of signal achievement by Drs Marks and Dembski: they have extended the scope and power of ID analysis through the concept of active information and its implications on the known source of complex functional information and the issue of cost of search whereby since searches are horses for courses, then the search for a good search imposes a prohibitive cost on proposed unintelligent mechanisms that are put up as possible ways to get to CSI -- and especially cases where the specification is functional -- without intelligent action. As to where that leads, let's just say that the classical analysis of cause points to the fundamental, originating causal force of the creative, volitional intelligent, intending agent who finds means to effect his goal that require and use mechanisms and materials. To what Plato speaks of as the soul, e.g. in The Laws, Book X. There the Athenian Stranger critiques the evolutionary materialists of that day -- yes, that is correct -- inm part thusly: ----------- >> Ath. Nearly all of them, my friends, seem to be ignorant of the nature and power of the soul [[ = psuche], especially in what relates to her origin: they do not know that she is among the first of things, and before all bodies, and is the chief author of their changes and transpositions. And if this is true, and if the soul is older than the body, must not the things which are of the soul's kindred be of necessity prior to those which appertain to the body? Cle. Certainly. Ath. Then thought and attention and mind and art and law will be prior to that which is hard and soft and heavy and light; and the great and primitive works and actions will be works of art; they will be the first, and after them will come nature and works of nature . . . . Ath. . . . when one thing changes another, and that another, of such will there be any primary changing element? How can a thing which is moved by another ever be the beginning of change? Impossible. But when the self-moved changes other, and that again other, and thus thousands upon tens of thousands of bodies are set in motion, must not the beginning of all this motion be the change of the self-moving principle? . . . . self-motion being the origin of all motions, and the first which arises among things at rest as well as among things in motion, is the eldest and mightiest principle of change, and that which is changed by another and yet moves other is second. . . . . Ath. If we were to see this power existing in any earthy, watery, or fiery substance, simple or compound-how should we describe it? Cle. You mean to ask whether we should call such a self-moving power life? Ath. I do. Cle. Certainly we should. Ath. And when we see soul in anything, must we not do the same-must we not admit that this is life? [[ . . . . ] Ath. And what is the definition of that which is named "soul"? Can we conceive of any other than that which has been already given-the motion which can move itself?>> ------------- Of course, this raises a string of underlying worldview level issues: a --> Plato here comes to the pivotal issue, and subtly argues for the admission into our worldviews, of the living, self-directing soul as the first cause of change; in effect noting that soul- in- action is an item of our undeniable conscious living experience and observation: we are en-souled and we also "see" the soul in other "things." b --> This is of course precisely the point that materialists most vigorously wish to object to, but only to end in self-referential incoherence challenges. c --> The decision cannot be settled on the declarative authority of materialistic "Science" or on putting up a question-begging (but plausible) "definition." d --> Plato, we may note, avoids such a begging of the question: he seeks instead to ground the definition he offers in the world of experience and observation of en-souled life. e --> A similar line of reasoning is thus also connected to the aspect of "soul" we call mind: do we experience and observe mindedness? f --> If so, mind is real, and -- as an intelligible reality -- is thus also subject to that process of seeking a precise, insightful, accurate description we call definition. g --> And, we therefore face a case of William James' forced, momentous, living option: we must each choose, in light of the balance of comparative difficulties and challenges we find to be acceptable; knowing and respecting -- even when we think they are in error -- that others will see things a different way. ___________ Okay for now . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
05:19 AM
5
05
19
AM
PDT}

BillB: Again, you have gone beyond the pale of reasonable, civil discourse and dialogue. You know how to make amends. Remember, turnabout accusations intended to incriminate the VICTIM are a compounding of the rhetorical tactic of red herrings, led out to strawmen soaked in ad hominems and ignited to cloud, confuse, poison and polarise the atmosphere. [That's what is being done to Dembski and Marks in his thread, BTW.] And, to try to turn my correctively pointing out the above rhetorical tactic being routinely used by Darwinist advocates at UD and elsewhere into grounds for false accusations of "gutter politics" is far, far beyond the pale. Remember, as well, I am CURRENTLY dealing with a threat of or actual malicious report to the US Homeland Security that was declaratively intended to get me on a security watch list. Do you see why I am insisting that shooting the messenger is not good enough? (If you know Jamaican History, you should be aware of a certain member of the Assembly, who for years warned of the follies being undertaken and how they would predictably end in an explosion as Jamaicans are not inclined to starve to death quietly. He was ignored, derided and demonised by the usual idea hit men. Then, when the explosion happened, after an idiot in the Colonial dept mishandled a petition for help in the face of famine, he was taken by force to where martial law was in effect and kangaroo courted without access to key exculpating evidence from his physician [he was too sick to attend the relevant vestry meeting that absence form was the supposed proof of complicity with the "rebellion" -- riot really -- and hanged with indecent haste. It so happens that that is not just national history for me, it is FAMILY history. So I know in my bones where this sort of destructive rhetorical tactic can lead.) You know how to make amends. _______________________ Onlookers: Observe how, above, at 78 and 91, I refocussed attention on the achievement of the paper by Marks and Dembski in the main. That being inconvenient, a red herring was led off along the Weasel tangent to an ad hominem laced strawman. (Joseph's catch where he outlines what cumulative and partitioned means and someone proceeded to agree while indicating disagreement is a classic.) Joseph, at 101 summarises the tangential matter aptly, reflecting also my own earlier summaries. (And as to the assertions, accusations and loaded questions in 88, they have long since been answered on the merits, and will be answered again in the below. meanwhile, do remember to check at and for the summary of what M & D have done, at non-technical level. I of course do not say much on the technicalities of conservation of information, apart from the point that complex functional info originates with intelligence in our experience, and that stochastic undirected contingency is not a credible approach to get to FSCI.) I excerpt and comment in bracketed nortes: _______________ >> 1- Dawkins uses the weasel program to illustrate cumulative selection [CRD's term of choice c. 1986] 2- Cumulative means to increase by succesive additions [Dictionary, normal meaning; entails that progress to date is preserved completely or in material part, and further increments are progressive in the same direction. So, when I have discussed explicit latching, implicit latching and quasi latching as possible dynamics of algorithms that can be used to "do a weasel" one or more of them will come in under tighter and looser readings of "cumulative." (And, remember onlookers, I have had the discussion in those terms linked one click away all along so soon as this topic came up. It is obvious that objectors are not reading to understand and dialogue towards the truth but in the main to find "likely" spots to put in their distractive talking points.)] 3- Dawkins used cumulative selection to show that once something is found you don’t have to keep searching for it- you have it. You don’t keep searching for something you already have. [The printoffs c. 1986 intended to illustrate good cases of "cumulative selection in action, show not one letter that, having gone correct, reverts, across a sample of 200+ such letters. When this is taken with terms like cumulative selection and the remarks on selecting of the slightest increment to target, it is hard to imagine how CRD could have spoken of ratcheting action with concomitant latching effects more explicitly without giving something like pseudocode.] 4- Dembski/ Marks used the words “partitioned search” and “ratcheting”. [Correct, and descriptive of what was in front of them in BW. that other Weasels can be constructed that do not have latching effects and ratcheting to the target is a red herring off the first red herring. In otehr words, over the past 23 or so years, it is plain that many legitimate interpretations of Weasel are possible. Marks and Dembski have gone with a reasonable interpretation of the original.] 5- In a partioned search once you have something needed you don’t need to search for it any more/ [Correct] 6- Ratchet means to move in degrees in one direction only. [Correct] So the bottom line is anyone familiar with the English language can see that Dembski and Marks were not wrong and their reference to TBW supports their claim. >> ___________________ The matter is clear enough, save to those who are in captivity to defense techniques against cognitive dissonance in the face of evidence that does not suit the Darwinist life origins story and its popularisations and icons, of which Weasel is one. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{August 23, 2009
August
08
Aug
23
23
2009
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT}

Just out of curiosity, what are some good examples of cumulative selection/evolution in nature?jerry_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

DeLurker, Thanks for taking the time to reply my post. Respectfully, I disagree with you. 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. As I said earlier, certain combination of these will result in an algorithm thats output is indistinguishable from the explicit latching method. However, I agree with you that the C code you quote is a valid interpretation of the book. 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. This bias can be somewhat mitigated by selecting all the different ones giving the top score and chosing one of them randomly. It is because during later generations a fixed letter may more often come together with a ruined one, and if there is no higher score than that of the original string then this way obviously non-latching ones will have a higher chance to appear in the results.Alex73_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
11:27 AM
11
11
27
AM
PDT}

Dawkins did not stop at the primitive Weasel illustration. Dembski did.Sal Gal_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT}

Joseph: There is a big difference between not needing to search for something and to stop looking With WEASEL any correct letter in the parent phrase can be mutated when producing children. In a partitioned search correct letters CAN NOT be mutated.
Dawkins whole point about cumulative selection was that once it is found the search for it is over.
Yes, once you find something the search for it is over BY DEFINITION. With WEASEL the things that are found have a probability of being lost again. With a partitioned search they do not. If you run WEASEL and examine the members of each generation you will see correct letters mutating all the time, the fittest candidate will almost always be the one with the least reversions, or none at all.
And please tell me how “cumulative elevation gain” is of any relevance to the weasel program?
You said it here:
Cumulative means to increase by succesive additions ... Dembski/ Marks used the words “partitioned search” and “ratcheting”. ... Ratchet means to move in degrees in one direction only.
Do you understand from the wikipedia quote how the word cumulative is not the same as the word ratcheting? In this context the cumulative value refers ONLY to the sum of gains and not the sum of gains AND losses, it does not however prohibit losses.
cumulative elevation gain refers to the sum of every gain in elevation throughout an entire trip. ... Elevation losses are not counted in this measure.
Now lets swap Elevation for Fitness:
cumulative fitness gain refers to the sum of every gain in fitness throughout an entire run. ... Fitness losses are not counted in this measure.
Any clearer yet?BillB_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

Given realsitic numbers Dawkins’ weasel will never show a reversal.
We all agree that Dawkin's weasel is an unrealistic algorithm, just made to demonstrate a principle. So, there are no ''realistic numbers'', a mutation probability of 4% per letter and a moderate number of individua (50 or even 100) shows reversals sometimes - at least in my implementation. (These numbers seem to be near enough to the ones Dawkin's used, judging from the number of generations it takes to complete the search)DiEb_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:33 AM
9
09
33
AM
PDT}

And please tell me how "cumulative elevation gain" is of any relevance to the weasel program?Joseph_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:11 AM
9
09
11
AM
PDT}

BillB, Given realsitic numbers Dawkins' weasel will never show a reversal. Never. IOW for all intents and purposes it is latched in place. I said: In a partioned search once you have something needed you don’t need to search for it any more Toi which you replied:
Wrong. In a partitioned search once you have found something you permanently stop looking for it.
How is that any different from what I said? Then you say:
In WEASEL when a letter is found it is not removed, locked or latched out of the randomisation mechanism.
If reaslistic numbers are used there will never be a reversal. Dawkins whole point about cumulative selection was that once it is found the search for it is over. That is the big difference between that and a random search.Joseph_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

Joseph:
Cumulative means to increase by succesive additions
From wikipedia on 'cumulative elevation gain':
In running, cycling, and mountaineering, cumulative elevation gain refers to the sum of every gain in elevation throughout an entire trip. It is sometimes also known as cumulative gain or elevation gain, or often in the context of mountain travel, simply gain. Elevation losses are not counted in this measure.
Also:
Dawkins used cumulative selection to show that once something is found you don’t have to keep searching for it
Dawkins used WEASEL to demonstrate how and why cumulative selection was better than random searching.
In a partioned search once you have something needed you don’t need to search for it any more
Wrong. In a partitioned search once you have found something you permanently stop looking for it. In WEASEL when a letter is found it is not removed, locked or latched out of the randomisation mechanism. So the bottom line is anyone familiar with the English language can see that Dembski and Marks have misrepresented Dawkins work.BillB_{August 22, 2009
August
08
Aug
22
22
2009
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply