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

Now it is getting really tiresome. Could someone, please, especially one those who defend Dawkins, provide a reference where the actual code (BASIC or Pascal) written by Dawkins himself and used for the results in the Blind Watchmaker (ref [12] in the paper) are published? Any confusion could be dispelled with a single link. In the absence of the original code it is arguable that the results in the pages 47-48 of the Blind Watchmaker are consistent with latching to the correct letters, even if it is not mentioned in the book or denied by Dawkins himself. I do not say that he is dishonest: it is possible to write a piece of code that appears not to latch, however it is algorithmically identical to latching. Now on the BBC programme there is no latching in the sense that correct letters are also allowed to mutate, however the generation count is also much higher than the one mentioned in the book. It is indeed consistent with the statement that different codes or parameters were used for the two documents. I personally do not care anything about various third party implemenations of the described procedure in the book, because the description itself is way too vague. The latching interpretation is not in contradiction in any ways what the book referred to in [12] says. If it is not latching and this property is important, then Dawkins could have been more careful and show evidence for it. So Dembski and Marks are not in contradiction with the book, nor are they misrepresenting what it says. I think until the author himself clarifies the situation with solid evidence (i.e. the code), their interpretation is valid, even if some people do not like it.Alex73_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT}

Indium, Thanks, I found more info before seeing your reply. PZ Meyers and the rest are huffing and puffing over nothing. Honestly, they should all be embarrased by this, especially Dawkins. What a charade. If anything, Dawkins program infers ID is correct. He unknowingly stepped in it. He is confirming the exact opposite of his professed beliefs. DNA is a blueprint - an end goal. As is his Weasel sentence - an end goal. Cumulative steps are part of any normal design process for step by step building up of parts into a Final Design. In the case of life - whether it is skin or liver cells. The cellular functions build according to the End Goal of DNA BluePrint. So his program once written would not change, only Dawkins End Goal(BluePrint) of "Me thinks..." to "Me don't think carefully at all, except much ado about nothing." for it to produce a different End Goal(BluePrint). Essentially, he has just eliminated evolution altogether. He has effectively replaced evolution with blueprint driven outcomes that are inserted by an Intelligent Designer. He has made it harder to believe in unguided life without blueprints and easier to believe in guided life with blueprints(end goals). Now, how did DNA blueprints(end goals) come to exist? Well thats Origins and the only thing we have as concrete evidence today is Life begets Life. We have no evidence of DNA Blueprint Spontaneous creation, nor of the machinery that must spontaneously be created to read it, edit and create the cellular life forms, tissues, organs, etc., in the unguided evolutionary scenario. All of this must be very disconcerting for someone like a Dawkins or PZ Meyers. I guess Dawkins can take solace in belief of advanced civilizations having evolved before us seeding the planet. At this point, it is all that is left to him.DATCG_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT}

Long time lurker, first time poster. Hi, all! DATCG#7
what a joke. he compares, builds, compares, builds, all the while rewarding as it builds a closer version of the target.
You should read The Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins explains that the Weasel algorithm is just a simple example of selection, not a simulation of evolutionary theory. In his own words from TBW:
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.
The point of the Weasel algorithm is to show the power of selection. This relates to another of DATCG's statements:
Latching, cumulative, whatever, he’s locking in better versions each iteration after comparison is made to the target and deemed successful.
There is no latching in Dawkins' Weasel algorithm. That's the primary interesting point it makes. Simply selecting the most fit individual in a generation will lead to increasingly greater fitness. It is mathematically possible that a child in the Weasel algorithm will be less fit than its parent -- in fact this does happen. It is less likely, but still mathematically possible, that all of the children in a generation might be less fit than their parent. Over a number of generations, though, fitness does increase. If you'd like to see a more complex example, read the book and play with Dawkins biomorphs.DeLurker_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

DATAG WEASEL is an example of a search algorithm and its stated purpose is to demonstrate how cumulative selection can find a target quicker that a random search. You are right to express surprise at the farce - it is not an example of 'unguided evolution' or anything but the most grossly simplified analogy to it. This is why Dawkins describes it as 'A bit of a cheat'. Dawkins description of it as a cheat is correct when trying to apply it to biological evolution because WEASEL involves a search for a specific target. Biology does not, that this is what Dawkins is acknowledging. By using WEASEL as an example (regardless of whether they modify it to include latching) Dembski and Marks also remove any relevance to biological evolution.BillB_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

oh my gosh... what a joke. he compares, builds, compares, builds, all the while rewarding as it builds a closer version of the target. Latching, cumulative, whatever, he's locking in better versions each iteration after comparison is made to the target and deemed successful. This is a farce. Whatever Dawkins attempted to do, the analogy fails for unguided evolution from the very get-go. This is a designed program built upon assumptions of what he thinks has occurred over time. Yet in order to build a successful trial, he must compare to the end goal. This is no different than having a blueprint of DNA already available to you. Then turning it over to all the cellular functions ready to edit, translate, transcribe and build a new organ. He is recreating design steps, not blind steps. Geeeeez this is foolish stuff. Thank God this man is no longer in charge of Public Understanding of Science.DATCG_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

Yes, he did.Indium_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Did Dawkins program compare intermediate steps to an end goal? Yes or No?DATCG_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT}

As far as I know latching and non-latching versions of the program behave very similar for large enough population sizes (and small enough mutation rates). But even if Dr. Dembski misrepresented Dawkins* the bottom line is still correct: Active information is present and guides the algorithm to the target phrase. After thinking about that however, for me this seems to even strengthen Dawkins´ argument with regard to the power of mutation and selection: It is almost like a partitioned search! As Dr. Dembski notes in his paper, the active information of evolution enters when the fittest members of a generation are chosen. I think some of this active information is more or less an endogenous parameter of the organisms: How healthy are they, can they produce fertile offspring etc. Quite obviously, some of this active information also comes from the environment, which "chooses" the fittest members of a generation (selection!): When fast predators are present, the slowest or weakest members of the prey population will probably not be able to reproduce. This way, the average running speed of the prey population increases. In a certain way, the information "fast predators are present" then has been transferred into the prey genome. One could therefore argue that organisms in a specific environment contain information about the environment. In fact, this can be used scientifically: If they find bones of an ancient creature, scientists can draw a lot of conclusions about the specific characteristics of the place the creature lived in. * I think he did. 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.Indium_{August 21, 2009
August
08
Aug
21
21
2009
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT}

Clive, I'm wondering how Dr. Dembski closing down comments on his thread bears on your assertion that UD is an open forum for criticism.Tajimas D_{August 20, 2009
August
08
Aug
20
20
2009
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

PZ's critisism concerns the representation of Dawkins WEASEL algorithm in Dembski and Marks paper. Dembski and Marks represent the algorithm incorrectly. If D and M want to claim that WEASEL actually includes extra components that Dawkins never included in his description, then they need to make these claims clear in their paper, and provide some argument or evidence to support them. As it stands the description of WEASEL in their paper misrepresents Dawkins algorithm. A reader who is familiar with Dawkins book, or who follows up the reference, will also see that is is misrepresented, and that can cast doubt on the validity of D and M's conclusions. A bit more checking and it would become clear that D and M have had this pointed out to them prior to publication, and yet they never corrected the mistake, or acknowledged that their representation was unorthodox. The bottom line is that it is wrong to misrepresent other peoples work. Dembski and Marks are providing a very good reason for readers doubt or dismiss their papers conclusions so they really haven't done themselves any favours.BillB_{August 20, 2009
August
08
Aug
20
20
2009
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT}

Clive,
Given his argument, he doesn’t know how to measure the cost of success, yet claims that Dr. Dembski doesn’t understand selection.
Well, I think it's fair to ask why Dr. Dembski again erroneously asserts that the weasel algorithm involves "latching", in view of the fact that he calls special attention to this part of the paper in his post. I won't comment on anyone's understanding of "selection", but it seems to me any evolutionist would agree that latching 1) is unnecessary and more importantly 2) would make the algorithm even more biologically unrealistic than it is to begin with. Mutations are supposed by evolutionists to be random wrt fitness; latching completely contradicts this principle.yakky d_{August 20, 2009
August
08
Aug
20
20
2009
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT}

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. This is the point Dr. Myers exploits.DiEb_{August 20, 2009
August
08
Aug
20
20
2009
09:31 PM
9
09
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply