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
yakky d: "But Dawkins states that targets don't exist in ToL." So do we take his word for it? If his algorithm is supposed to model evolution, then evolution does involve a targeted search. Dawkins is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. Where in The Blind Watchmaker does Dawkins explicitly deny ratcheting? In the example he gives (METHINKS...), ratcheting appears to take place. So why not give Dembski the benefit of the doubt?kibitzer
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
10:54 AM
10
10
54
AM
PDT
kibitzer,
So what’s the big deal? If Dawkins has a different algorithm that does not involve ratcheting, then Dembski and Marks simply need to amend their calculations.
The only big deal is that Dr. Dembski was alerted of this issue almost 9 years ago. Why haven't the calculations been amended in the meantime?
But does anyone seriously doubt that any such analysis won’t show that Dawkins inputted huge amounts of “active information”?
I think you mean "will show", here, but I don't doubt that. Of course the weasel algorithm performs better than a random search. The question is whether or not Dembski's analysis says anything about evolution. The notion of "active information" is defined in the context of a search for a target, but Dawkins states that targets don't exist in ToE.yakky d
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
If Dawkins has a different algorithm that does not involve ratcheting
Dawkins DESCRIBES his algorithm in the book, it does not include ratcheting!!!!!
it appears that correct letters are being ratcheted.
Yes!, that's what happens when you implement the algorithm Dawkins describes without adding any latching mechanisms!!!!!BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
kibitzer#37
I’ve also looked at The Blind Watchmaker, where, in the absence of the actual computer code, it appears that correct letters are being ratcheted.
You can't determine that from simply looking at the progeny produced every 10 generations. Read the actual algorithm that Dawkins describes. Nothing like latching is mentioned. The last time this was raised here (before I delurked), David Kellogg pointed to a website that goes step-by-step through Dawkins description to develop a version of the Weasel program (it's here: http://www.softwarematters.org/more-weasel.html). This version, with no latching since latching was never mentioned in The Blind Watchmaker, produces very similar output to what Dawkins showed. Dawkins himself has said that no latching was implemented: http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2007/10/09/today-is-a-fine-day-for-a-woollen-kettle-or-a-copper-sweater/ There's even a video showing Dawkins running the program and it can be seen that correct letters do revert to incorrect letters on occasion. (Sorry, no link.)DeLurker
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
I just looked at the paper in question: http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/2009_ConservationOfInformationInSearch.pdf. Dawkins is cited and the partitioned search for his target phrase is portrayed as "ratcheting" in the correct letters. I've also looked at The Blind Watchmaker, where, in the absence of the actual computer code, it appears that correct letters are being ratcheted. So what's the big deal? If Dawkins has a different algorithm that does not involve ratcheting, then Dembski and Marks simply need to amend their calculations. But does anyone seriously doubt that any such analysis won't show that Dawkins inputted huge amounts of "active information"?kibitzer
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
10:16 AM
10
10
16
AM
PDT
DATCG,
If I am wrong, then tell me what his program demonstrates. If you say it demonstrates a natural selection process, we will argue.
I don't think it demonstrates natural selection very well. Maybe it works a bit better as a demonstration of "artificial" selection, I don't know. But of course we already know artificial selection works from experience. We don't need a computer simulation to verify that "guided evolution", if that essentially amounts to artificial selection, works. Nevertheless, if we agree that weasel has little or nothing to do with real, unguided evolution, then Dembski's critique becomes moot.yakky d
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
If you say it demonstrates a natural selection process, we will argue. If you say it demonstrates an artificial selection process, then we are in agreement.
It demonstrates the power of selection with an example of selection for proximity to a fixed target - which Dawkins points out is biologically unrealistic. In ID speak a computer program can never demonstrate natural selection because it is designed. They can demonstrate artificial selection though, and its natural equavalent, alongside reproduction with variation, are all observed in nature. Do you dispute this and is the difference between setting an artificial goal and the existence of real fitness selection in nature so big as to render artificial vs natural selection devoid of any equivalence?
his program proves absolutely nothing.
I will soon tire of banging my head against your brick wall. Dawkins programme demonstrates, it doesn't attempt to prove.BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
DATCG,
His argument about the WEASEL program is a charade. He wants to use it to show that “cumulative selection” can work. He knows it is a charade, so he falls back and says in the end, in case anyone smart enough catches on – we know this is not how evolution really works – doh!
I agree that weasel doesn't show how evolution really works, but again that undermines Dr. Dembski's claim that his paper is pro-ID.
Honestly guys, why follow such mish-mash?
Good question, but who keeps bringing up the topic of weasel?
So, you tell me, why does Wiki state it “demonstrates… natural evolutionary systems” Do you believe WEASEL “demonstrates… natural evolutionary systems”?
I think weasel, along with Dawkins' subsequent disclaimers about targets etc, does a reasonable job of introducing how evolution works. Unfortunately, the disclaimers tend to be ignored and people end up reading more into it than they should. I don't think weasel demonstrates natural evolutionary systems at anything more than a very superficial level.
But his use of the program shows that by utilizing BluePrints, Guided Evolution can work. He has unwittingly helped ID.
Are you saying here that you believe that the Designer might have used the weasel algorithm or some variant to create life on earth?yakky d
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
DATCG#31
He wants to use it to show that “cumulative selection” can work.
In the simplified scenario of the Weasel algorithm, using strings of characters and an easily computed fitness function, cumulative selection is, in fact, shown to work much better than random selection. If you read the rest of the book, you'll see how Dawkins addresses more complex scenarios. Weasel is just an appetizer.DeLurker
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
09:05 AM
9
09
05
AM
PDT
Slight edit... "So, his program proves absolutely nothing" for unguided evolution, nor for cumulative selection. It proves artificial selection. It proves nothing for natural evolutionary systems. It is only an assumption on the part of Wiki. If I am wrong, then tell me what his program demonstrates. If you say it demonstrates a natural selection process, we will argue. If you say it demonstrates an artificial selection process, then we are in agreement. He, nor Wiki can have it both ways. I wish I had more time. Check in later.DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
yakky d, His argument about the WEASEL program is a charade. He wants to use it to show that "cumulative selection" can work. He knows it is a charade, so he falls back and says in the end, in case anyone smart enough catches on - we know this is not how evolution really works - doh! Honestly guys, why follow such mish-mash? So, you tell me, why does Wiki state it "demonstrates... natural evolutionary systems" Do you believe WEASEL "demonstrates... natural evolutionary systems"? We know it demonstrates artificial systems. This is no surprise. In Darwin's day, nor 4000 years ago when artificial breeding was known to have taken place. But his use of the program shows that by utilizing BluePrints, Guided Evolution can work. He has unwittingly helped ID.DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
Some references to Dawkins program on Wiki: "The weasel program is a computer simulation written by Richard Dawkins in order to demonstrate the power of random variation and non-random cumulative selection in natural and artificial evolutionary systems." It does no such thing as highlighted in bold. That is merely an assertion. It does demonstrate however artificial selection. Again, thanks for adding weight to ID. Me Thinks His Intepretation of How Evolution Works is a FARCE His program does not demonstrate cumulative selection of "natural evolutionary systems" If you have a problem with this, take it up with Wiki. Not me. And for implications to biology... "The program is a vivid demonstration that the preservation of small changes in an evolving string of characters (or genes) can produce meaningful combinations in a relatively short time as long as there is some mechanism to select cumulative changes, whether it is a person identifying which traits are desirable (in the case of artificial selection) or a criterion of survival ("fitness") imposed by the environment (in the case of natural selection). They're trying to have it both ways. It doesn't model, but it does model! Which is exactly what Dawkins is trying to do, have it both ways. Talking two sides. Why do they sound like Obama? Simple enough BillB and Indium? He is assuming the answer that he wants and then saying, see, this is how it might work if we speed it up artificially. But then, you point out he admits its a cheat, so its not how it works. In his own words... "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." Actually, not sure where he gets human vanity other than from arrogant atheist who deem themselves self-important enough to rule the world, eliminate religion and reprogram children based upon his or their wish list. "In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success" Ah yes, nice. Back to reproductive success of survival. Yet he believes this produces the long term output of humanity, lowly as he considers us all. How many billions of years did it take Mr. Dawkins? So, his program proves absolutely nothing. Am I right? If not, then tell me what it proves. And tell me why Wiki asserts it as a demonstration for natural evolutionary systems - where this point is critical for the sucess of evolution. Without it, evolution stops. Thus, he is using this program to support his assertions for how evolution works. This still ends up being a farce. He admits it, great.DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
DATCG,
This is a farce. Whatever Dawkins attempted to do, the analogy fails for unguided evolution from the very get-go.
Yes, as Dawkins wrote in TBW,
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.
And I think you've pointed out a problem for Dembski's argument. He claims that his paper is pro-ID because it contains a critique of weasel, which he characterizes as a search for a target. But, as Dawkins pointed out, evolution is not a search for a target. So what does Dembski's analysis of weasel have to do with evolution?yakky d
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
As to whether letters are changing or not… this seems to have been covered ad naseum previous discussions…
Yes it has.
Until Dawkins, who professed to be a Scientist for Public Understanding unveils his program, we’ll never know.
See my comment @ 17.
Are you stating that Dawkins wrote this program in effort to NOT SUPPORT evolution?
See my comment @ 25.BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
DATCG It does exactly what it says, it demonstrates ".. the power of a search where incremental improvements are rewarded with reproductive success". Text strings that are a better match than any others to a target are 'rewarded' by being copied and mutated. Dawkins uses this to introduce some of the underlying concepts of biological evolution. He IS using it to help explain the mechanisms that underpin evolution. He IS NOT providing it as an example or proof of evolution. Re Partitioned search:
Why does it matter? End Goal or not?
It matters when you write papers for peer review about search algorithms that your descriptions of different algorithms are correct. WEASEL is not part of a peer reviewed publication, it is part of a popular science book designed to inform and educate. There is no need for him to supply the code, the algorithm he describes contains all the information you need to reproduce the system in whatever language you like. You mentioned an Elephant?BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PDT
DATCG#24
But lets move on to the bigger reality of targeted goals as proof of Design Concepts for DNA Blueprints. I think Dawkins did ID a favor.
Again, from my #9 above, Dawkins' own words:
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.
Dawkins was very clear in The Blind Watchmaker that the Weasel algorithm is just a very simple example of one aspect of evolutionary theory. It demonstrates the power of selection over randomness. That's it. As you can see, he also notes that "Evolution has no long-term goal." That's not supportive of ID at all.DeLurker
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
BillB, I didn't except your explanation. Care to try again? Are you stating that Dawkins wrote this program in effort to NOT SUPPORT evolution?DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:07 AM
8
08
07
AM
PDT
As to whether letters are changing or not... this seems to have been covered ad naseum previous discussions... In similar comments, See KairosFocus #45 for a wrap up: Comment 45 Kairos wrap up Until Dawkins, who professed to be a Scientist for Public Understanding unveils his program, we'll never know. But the fact is, he admits its a bit of a cheat. Fine, kudos to admitting he is cheating. But lets move on to the bigger reality of targeted goals as proof of Design Concepts for DNA Blueprints. I think Dawkins did ID a favor.DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT
"The algorithm Dembski describes performs a partitioned search, Dawkins WEASEL algorithm does not." Why does it matter? End Goal or not? And why doesn't Dawkins as a "scientist" for Public Understanding open up his program for review by all? You're quibbling over tidbits and looking past the elephant in the room.DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
BillB, Indium, Aha... "It was written to demonstrate the power of a search where incremental improvements are rewarded with reproductive success" Boy, thanks, that clears it up. And this does not attempt to support evolution in what way again?DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PDT
Joseph:
Dawkins example was one of “cumulative selection” in which once something is found the search for it is over. That is exactly what Wm Dembski stated in that paper.
The algorithm Dembski describes performs a partitioned search, Dawkins WEASEL algorithm does not.BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT
Joseph, that´s exactly the point under debate: The search is not over once a correct letter is found. Correct letters are still mutated sometimes. A video of Dawkins presenting the algorithm demonstrates this. If the population size is large enough and the mutation rate small, than the behaviour is very similar, however. DATCG: I think BillB is correct: The program was not written to prove evolution. It was written to demonstrate the power of a search where incremental improvements are rewarded with reproductive success. It is all explained very nicely in the book. Maybe you can have a look at the original text?Indium
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
DATAG:
OK, anyone else care to explain what Dawkins original intent is for WEASEL?
Whaaaa? LOL - he explains its purpose in his book!BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PDT
The question of whether Dawkins included latching has been taken up with the man himself. See this page for the details. The relevant bit is (in relation to Dembski being informed about his erroneous representation):
I even corresponded with Dawkins to make sure that there were no editions or versions of “The Blind Watchmaker” that incorporated anything arguably like Dembski’s inventions.
That leaves only two possibilities, Dembski is mistaken or Dawkins is lying. If Dawkins suddenly produced the code that showed no latching mechanism, would he then be accused of fabricating this code to cover his back? How would he prove that it was really the same code? Given that other peoples attempts to recreate his algorithm are known to produce correct results, Dawkins own non-latching code, fabricated or not, would also produce correct results.BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT
BillB, Huh? So Dawkins wrote this program to not prove evolution? Whaaaa? LOL. OK, anyone else care to explain what Dawkins original intent is for WEASEL? Is BillB's version correct?DATCG
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
DiEB:
Dr. Dembski has opened his defences as he stated at Uncommonon Descent that he used Dr. Dawkin’s weasel-algorithm as an example, though the search described in his paper differs from the search Dawkins proposed.
Dawkins example was one of "cumulative selection" in which once something is found the search for it is over. That is exactly what Wm Dembski stated in that paper. With "weasel" the latching occurs as a matter of the program. That much is obvious to anyone who has looked at it.Joseph
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
DATCG, I guess everybody knows that the Weasel program is not a good model for how evolution works in every aspect. It shows that a search that is guided by some kind of environmental feedback can be surprisingly efficient and is especially much more efficient than a blind search. No more and no less. Maybe we/you can come up with better and still very simple model of evolution?Indium
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
I believe that you think the earth is flat. Nothing in what you have written contradicts this statement.
I believe that he dictates his posts to a typist who enters them into his computer, everything he posts is consistent with this.BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT
Alex73, 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. I believe that you think the earth is flat. Nothing in what you have written contradicts this statement.Indium
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT
Alex73:
Now it is getting really tiresome.
I agree, In the absence of any code all we have to go on are Dawkins own words. Far from being vague they actually describe the algorithm quite well - it is hardly complicated after all. The results printed in the Blind Watchmaker are indeed consistent with a latching mechanism but they are also consistent with the non latching algorithm Dawkins describes. Which is the better explanation, that WEASEL is supposed to use latching even though it isn't needed, or that it doesn't use latching? Latching as a component of the WEASEL algorithm is not an 'interpretation' of Dawkins description, it is an unwarranted addition to his algorithm. Dawkins describes his algorithm clearly enough for it to be replicated, and for the results he publishes to be replicated - this has been done on multiple occasions.BillB
August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9

Leave a Reply