Dawkins’ WEASEL: Proximity Search With or Without Locking?

_{William Dembski
March 16, 2009

Darwinism, Evolution, Informatics

3}_{Categories
Darwinism
Evolution
Informatics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

On pp. 47-48 of THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, Richard Dawkins gives two runs of his WEASEL program (note that there were typos in both initial seeds — one had 27 characters, the other 29 whereas they should have 28; I’ve corrected that). Here are the two runs using the Courier typeface, which assigns equal width to each character (spaces are represented by asterisks):

WDL*MNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P
WDLTMNLT*DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO*P
MDLDMNLS*ITJISWHRZREZ*MECS*P
MELDINLS*IT*ISWPRKE*Z*WECSEL
METHINGS*IT*ISWLIKE*B*WECSEL
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*I*WEASEL
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL

Y*YVMQKZPFJXWVHGLAWFVCHQXYPY
Y*YVMQKSPFTXWSHLIKEFV*HQYSPY
YETHINKSPITXISHLIKEFA*WQYSEY
METHINKS*IT*ISSLIKE*A*WEFSEY
METHINKS*IT*ISBLIKE*A*WEASES
METHINKS*IT*ISJLIKE*A*WEASEO
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEP
METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL

These runs are incomplete. The first, according to Dawkins, required 43 iterations to converge, the second 64 (Dawkins omitted the other iterates to save space).

As you can see, by using the Courier font, one can read up from the target sequence METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL, as it were column by column, over each letter of the target sequence. From this it’s clear that once the right letter in the target sequence is latched on to, it locks on and never changes. In other words, in these examples of Dawkins’ WEASEL program as given in his book THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, it never happens (as far as we can tell) that some intermediate sequences achieves the corresponding letter in the target sequence, then loses it, and in the end regains it.

Thus, since Dawkins does not make explicit in THE BLIND WATCHMAKER just how his algorithm works, it is natural to conclude that it is a proximity search with locking (i.e., it locks on characters in the target sequence and never lets go).

Interestingly, when Dawkins did his 1987 BBC Horizons takeoff on his book, he ran the program in front of the film camera:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sUQIpFajsg (go to 6:15)

There you see that his WEASEL program does a proximity search without locking (letters in the target sequence appear, disappear, and then reappear).

That leads one to wonder whether the WEASEL program, as Dawkins had programmed and described it in his book, is the same as in the BBC Horizons documentary.

In any case, our chief programmer at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab (www.evoinfo.org) is expanding our WEASEL WARE software to model both these possibilities. Stay tuned.

Comments

madsen:
The only thing I’m saying is that the two actual winning designs for the ST5 antenna didn’t have to be specified beforehand in order for the algorithm to work.
And the only thing I am saying was the target was a pre-specified result.
They are novel designs, created by, erm, …, well, I’m not sure who created them.
The person/ people who wrote the code. Computers and therefor computer codes are TOOLS, nothing more.
But the point is, you don’t know what you’re going to get until you run the algorithm.
I am pretty sure they knew they were going to get an antenna that matched the results they were looking for.Joseph_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
08:44 AM
8
08
44
AM
PDT}

Joseph, If by "target", you mean the region of the search space where the fitness function is greater than some set value, then I don't disagree. The only thing I'm saying is that the two actual winning designs for the ST5 antenna didn't have to be specified beforehand in order for the algorithm to work. They are novel designs, created by, erm, ..., well, I'm not sure who created them. But the point is, you don't know what you're going to get until you run the algorithm.madsen_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

It is now sadly evident that the much over-used evolutionary materialist advocate selective hypersketicism threadjacking tactic of red herrings led out to ad hominem soaked strawmen and onward to ignition that clouds and poisons the rtmopsphere for sertious discussion has reached the stage of turnabout accusations in this thread.
Say what-y now?crater_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Joseph,
But EAs are written to solve specific problems. Do you think that someone can write an EA that is not specified to solve a problem and somehow it will evolve the capability to do so? I would love to see that.
I agree that GA's are written to solve specific problems. I'm not claiming anything about their ability to evolve any capabilities.madsen_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

correction: for "first-parody" read "first paragraph."David Kellogg_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
06:38 AM
6
06
38
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus [165], Your first-parody seems to be a delightful self-parody of your own excesses. Good for you! I had thought your sense of humor was utterly absent. I'm going to provide translations of a couple other paragrahs here for onlookers who may not see them in terms of the long-term debate:
In the case of Weasel, it is now abundantly clear that it uses a targetted, proximity based search strategy that rewards non-functional configs on proximity without reference to functionality. So, it is yet another misleading icon of evolution.
Translation: I agree that Weasel works as Dawkins always said it did: as "a bit of a cheat."
That is so whether or no it explicitly or implicitly latches or near-latches, and it is so in more modern Genetic Algorithm search simulations that are just as much characterised by active information fed in by designers
Translation: While I, kairosfocus, am not conceding error on the latching issue, I insist that, if I were wrong, it wouldn't matter. Why you spent so much time insisting on your case for an issue that you now say doesn't matter in the least baffles. All you've done is gone back to the notion that it's a targeted search -- which has never been denied.David Kellogg_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PDT}

madsen:
I wonder if he accepts that EA’s can solve problems without the programmer explicitly telling the computer what the answer is beforehand.
But EAs are written to solve specific problems. Do you think that someone can write an EA that is not specified to solve a problem and somehow it will evolve the capability to do so? I would love to see that.Joseph_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
05:49 AM
5
05
49
AM
PDT}

hazel:
That doesn’t mean that someone hasn’t, or can’t, write simulations of some aspects of genetic biology.
Like what, for example?Joseph_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
05:47 AM
5
05
47
AM
PDT}

madsen:
Did you look at the ST5 antenna? There was no ratcheting toward a pre-specified target. Rather, just mutation and selection were involved.
There was a pre-specified target. And as I said I don't think ratcheting was involved.
Furthermore, the two (quite different) best resulting designs were superior to human-designed antennas in certain respects.
You mean unaided human design. Those two antennas were still designed by humans.
The reason I am bringing this point up in the weasel thread is that I want to understand more about this notion of ratcheting toward a specified target you have brought up.
I was talking ONLY about ONE SPECIFIC example- the example that is the topic of this thread.
In particular, I would like to see if we can at least agree that evolutionary algorithms work even in the absence of such targets, the ST5 antenna being one example.
But there was a target- an antenna that could do X. However that does not mean ratcheting was involved.Joseph_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

FOOTNOTE: While I am at it, onlookers need to be pointed to this blog comment on the importance of public standards of decency, which also gives highly relevant context on why Evangelicals stand up for modesty in dress [one of Mr Boyne's points of issue in the series that provoked my response and led to his hit piece that Severski so unwisely decided to cite as though it were the unquestionable truth].kairosfocus_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

PPPS: I am further forced to link two blog remarks on the Boyne affair, here and here [the latter being the rebuttal that I actually submitted to the Gleaner]. I trust that fair minded people will see for themselves the sort of anti-Christian bigotry we are dealing with, and will draw prudent conclusions. Again, I ask that my HANDLE be used in referring to me, or even my initials.kairosfocus_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
03:48 AM
3
03
48
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: It is now sadly evident that the much over-used evolutionary materialist advocate selective hypersketicism threadjacking tactic of red herrings led out to ad hominem soaked strawmen and onward to ignition that clouds and poisons the rtmopsphere for sertious discussion has reached the stage of turnabout accusations in this thread. Such distractive tactics also inadvertently expose just how threadbare the evo mat case is. In the case of Weasel, it is now abundantly clear that it uses a targetted, proximity based search strategy that rewards non-functional configs on proximity without reference to functionality. So, it is yet another misleading icon of evolution. That is so whether or no it explicitly or implicitly latches or near-latches, and it is so in more modern Genetic Algorithm search simulations that are just as much characterised by active information fed in by designers. Further, as it is plain that the evo mat advocates here and at the Anto Evo site are intent on personalities, rather than the merits, no further reasonable discussion with them is possible; sadly. (And if these do not know the implications of trumpeting personal information to one and all online and/or linking one side of a dispute in which the Newspaper in question had to publish a corrective, they are a lot more naive than we have any reason to believe. So, let us learn from their behaviour, the dangers posed by their agenda and its underlying undermining of intellectual and ethical responsibility, to our civilisaiton. then, let us act resolutely in the defense of that which we hold dear.) Let us now focus on correcting the misleading arguments they seem to be ever so fond of, as that will help us in defending ourselves from the epidemic of selective hyeprsketicism that has so many influenced by evolutionary materialism firmly in its grim jaws. 1] On the law of large numbers and practical identification of trends You will observe that, above, I have repeatedly adverted to a key sampling theory concept, the law of large numbers. In effect, as a rule, once we have sufficient samples of a population in hand and no reason to suspect undue bias, the trends of he population will come out in the sample, with pretty fair reliability. A typical threshold sample size for a linear [and that can be curvilinear too . . . ] trend is about 5 - 9 points [recall from school lab exercises] and for more stochastic situations 20 - 30 or so. Once you are much under that sort of range, you have to begin to resort to more and more exotic testing procedures. Of course as samples cost time, effort and money, there is also a practical upper limit. In the case in view, we are dealing with a sample of scale 300 or so, with a trend that comes out in about 200 cases, with NO counter-instances. That's a strong trend in anybody's book. AND, as will be discussed a bit more below, we have good models for why that is so. 2] Mathematical models and simulations vs thought experiments Mathematical and/or computer simulation exercises are interesting, but have this critical flaw: they are no better than their underlying assumptions and dynamical/ logical structure. So, GIGO -- garbage in, garbage out. That is why physicists tend to put a more serious weight on experiments and thought experiments where actually carried out experiments are not directly feasible (or where the thought exercise is sufficient to make the point). So, in the thread above, I gave the cases:
(i) of a loaded die that 2/3 of the time comes up 6's on a run of 300 tosses (this, to show that probabilistic trends can strongly come out in reasonable sized samples), and (ii) dropping darts to scatter holes at random across a bell-chart divided into stripes on a floor (to show how after a reasonable number of samples, trends will be more and more evident and skirts will onward begin to show up as enough sample points make low probability outcomes more likely to become manifest).
The relevance of such to the case in view in the original post, should be plain to all who have ever had much to do with real world data collection and analysis for serious decision making or for scientific investigation across time. A LOT of real science has been based on data sets of scale comparable to -- or a lot smaller than -- the one above in the original post, and many crucial decisions have had to be made on that scope of data or less. And, the decisions or inferences were confidently and often correctly made, too. The thought exercises bring out what is going on pretty well. Namely, selective hyperskepticism in the face of strong evidence that the Weasel program circa 1986 explicitly or implicitly latched [or if you want quasi-latched], as it ratcheted its way tot he target by rewarding mere proximity in the teeth of non-function. That ratcheting off proximity to target in the teeth of non-function, is telling, especially in light of Mr Dawkins' description of what he did, why above. Weasel is utterly irrelevant to, strawmanises and begs the question of the need to generate functionally specific complex information to get TO the shores of islands of functionality. Instead of addressing the blatant fact that even toy-scope modest function [1 in 10^40 not a small searchable fraction of 10^180,000], it starts on the rhetorically convenient assumption that you are at shores of some minimal functionality and can find easy steps all the way to the peaks of optimal function. But event that nicely stepped path to the peak -- post Behe's Edge of Evo -- is a serious question mark! What is clear is that Weasel is plainly NOT the work of the BLIND watchmaker of the title of Mr Dawkins' 1986 book. 3] But Weasel (circa 1986) does not EXPLICITLY latch!!!! On Mr Dawkins' say-so as reported by Mr Elsberry and I believe Mr Kellogg above, we have accepted that; never mind that it is the most natural explanation otherwise of the observed 1986 behaviour of Weasel as reported and published by Mr Dawkins. [Which we can very safely assume was representative of the result of what he then thought of as "good" runs to target.] But, we have also shown that:
1 --> At 5% mutation rate per letter per string per generation, typical strings will show 0 [~ 24% of time], 1 or maybe 2 mutations, with 3 or more being out in the low probability tail. 2 --> Weasel on "good" published runs circa 1986 runs to target in 40+ and 60+ generations which means that no-change is winning some 50% of the time. 3 --> that is consistent with generations of sufficiently large scope that 0-change strings show up reliably, but 2 and more are relatively rare. Otherwise, extreme tail end multiple mutation cases with correct letters would dominate the closest to target filter and runs to target would be fast indeed. 4 --> This is also consistent with the emergence of implicit [quasi-]latching. That is, the numbers of cases in a generation where a letter reverts and another letter advances so that the resulting flicked back population member becomes the advanced champion of the generation is very rare. 5 --> As a result, we see steady ratcheting of progress to target, with letters that make an advance preserved from one generation to the next, i.e latched or effectively latched. 6 --> And, most importantly, since there is no realistic functionality requisite, there is no material resemblance to a process that allegedly uses chance variation plus non foresighted natural selection to move towards function and by hill climbing thence optimal function.
++++++++++++++ The matter is plainly over on the merits, and we need not attend further to selective hyeprskepticiasm as it inadvertently publicly reduces itself to self-referential absurdity and incoherence; also in that exposing the underlying intellectual and ethical irresponsibility that lurk in evolutionary materialism. Indeed, that have lurked in materialism ever since Lucretius' day, some 2,000 years ago. GEM of TKI ____________ PS Re Mr Severski -- if he had followed up just a little more at the Gleaner's site he would have seen that the Gleaner -- no friend of mine [that formerly great newspaper has long since lost its credibility (especially on its commentary pages), sadly; so much so that it is one of the motivators of my advice on spin tactics in the media here] -- was led to publish a corrective article by me shortly thereafter. [And, yes I know the corrective appears above my name. I am forced to do that, given the abuse of my name by Mr Elsberry. Hopefully the spam surge will be short enough to be tolerable. Why spamming seems connected to my name appearing in fairly high traffic locations, I know not, save that there are web crawling bots out there that will search for information on names. I hope the other Caribbean person with that name will not suffer unduly because of this. In any case, it is a matter of basic courtesy to treat people online in light of the handles they use.] (In fact the "corrective" was not a "response" but a PRE-sponse that anticipated what Mr Boyne said, but was [badly] edited by the Gleaner to come across as a response to Mr Boyne's article, without notification to the reader. See what I am speaking about on loss of credibility, Mr Severski? Did you check out the quality of the SOURCE and the implications of the context before you -- and probably others art Anti Evo -- pounced on the convenient quip? Whichever leg of that dilemma, the point on intellectual irresponsibility is underscored. In short: thank you for notifying us of your ill-informed anti-Christian bigotry, so we know what to make of your further comments here or elsewhere.] PPS: Onlookers, FYI: Mr Boyne, in the series of articles in question, was accusing evangelical Christians in Jamaica, utterly unjustly, of being potential theocratic tyrants who were willing to set out on butchery of those who dared disagree with them, much like has become a common blood slander among radical secularists in Europe and North America. For instance here is a gem from Boyne: "[Evangelicals in Jamaica etc are] prone to bigotry, intolerance and the desire to impose their will on others just as the Islamic militants." Does Mr Severski also wish to agree with Mr Boyne's assessment on that claim? On what evidence, please? In fact -- and pointing to this now increasingly inconvenient fact is what provoked the attack by Mr Boyne in the first place -- there has in recent decades been a studious ignoring and/or suppression of the contributions to the rise of modern liberty and democracy by those coming from the Biblical framework, not to mention the religious background of several crucial heroes of Jamaica, or even that of the writer of our National Anthem. [Onlookers, Cf here for a documentation of this point.] In short, Severski (sadly, predictably) has - yet again -- resorted to adverse personal commentary and selective citation or linking, without doing due diligence to first find then present a true, well-warranted and fair view of the truth. Typical of selective hyperskepticsm at work.kairosfocus_{March 22, 2009
March
03
Mar
22
22
2009
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Also, to clarify and be fair to Joseph, I do realize he was referring to natural selection and the weasel program, and not to EA's in that quote.madsen_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
08:52 PM
8
08
52
PM
PDT}

Hi ericB,
Whether you want to call that a “target specified beforehand” or not is a question of defining terms. But they have specified a landscape and at best the algorithm only finds the peaks (maxima) or else finds the low points (minima) that are determined by the model implemented.
Of course I agree that the fitness function determines any maxima and minima in the fitness landscape. But the programmer doesn't actually have to know the locations of these points ahead of time for the algorithm to work. I think we both would agree to that. However, in view of this statement of Joseph's:
The way Dawkins describes cumulative selection and the way he uses it in the “weasel” program, cumulative selection is a ratcheting process. And it is ratcheting towards a specified target.
I wonder if he accepts that EA's can solve problems without the programmer explicitly telling the computer what the answer is beforehand.madsen_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

madsen (and Joseph), first thanks for bringing up the antenna design example I was just alluding to. As a quick comment, these evolutionary algorithms work within the limits of a) the modification/mutations allowed by the programmer, and b) the fitness function defined by the programmer to evaluate each of the resulting candidate designs. This combination defines a landscape with peaks and valleys. The programmer doesn't know where the peaks are in advance. (The working of the algorithm is essentially a search to find highest points in that defined landscape.) However, everything they have specified does indeed specify where those peaks are. Whether you want to call that a "target specified beforehand" or not is a question of defining terms. But they have specified a landscape and at best the algorithm only finds the peaks (maxima) or else finds the low points (minima) that are determined by the model implemented.ericB_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

Joseph,
But anyway, what is your point? This thread is about Dawkins and weasel. I know people can write programs that can do things. What no one can demonstrate is nature, operating freely doing something like that.
Did you look at the ST5 antenna? There was no ratcheting toward a pre-specified target. Rather, just mutation and selection were involved. Furthermore, the two (quite different) best resulting designs were superior to human-designed antennas in certain respects. The reason I am bringing this point up in the weasel thread is that I want to understand more about this notion of ratcheting toward a specified target you have brought up. In particular, I would like to see if we can at least agree that evolutionary algorithms work even in the absence of such targets, the ST5 antenna being one examplemadsen_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
06:52 PM
6
06
52
PM
PDT}

Thanks, Joseph, and I agree with you that real biology at the genetic level is too difficult for comprehensive, meaningful simulations both due to the huge amount of factors involved and to our lack of understanding. That doesn't mean that someone hasn't, or can't, write simulations of some aspects of genetic biology. As I explained before, all simulations work by modeling some simplified version of reality, after which one goes back and tests the results of the simulation against reality. In the results are verified empirically that gives one the confidence that the model has some merit, so that one can refine it a bit. If the simulation results don't match reality, then you change the model until they do. Dawkins "weasel" and similar programs are meant to test and illustrate a point. They are not meant to model real biology. Dawkins knows that, I'm sure.hazel_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT}

madsen, 1) Yes it works 2) Target 1- optimize the Yagi-Uda. No idea how that was handled. But they must have tested the mutants against something. And yes I do understand in antenna design sometimes one-step back- a tweak one way- is required to get a bigger step forward- another tweak or two someplace else. target 2 - more optimizing of a design But anyway, what is your point? This thread is about Dawkins and weasel. I know people can write programs that can do things. What no one can demonstrate is nature, operating freely doing something like that.Joseph_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

hazel: My bad. I should have said all simulations are only as good as our knowledge. So if we take our knowledge of biology computer simulations of any evolutionary aspect wouldn't be very impressive.Joseph_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT}

Joseph, I'm sure you've seen the example of antenna design by means of evolutionary algorithms. http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg/research/antenna.htm Do you agree that: 1) It works 2) The process does not involve "ratcheting" toward a target specified beforehand. Note: I'm not asking whether you believe that this application accurately reflects what happens in nature.madsen_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT}

We have COMPLETE knowledge of flying. That's news to me. In general, what you say is not true. Every day people program simulations based on mathematical models of real-world phenomena of which we have very incomplete knowledge. The computer simulations give us results that we might never expected with the computational power of the simulation. However, and this is critical, we then have to take those results and test them back in the real-world to see if our model is sound enough. If the results don't match the real world, we go back and refine our model. To state the obvious, if we had COMPLETE knowledge of something we wouldn't need to create a simulation. Duh.hazel_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
03:37 PM
3
03
37
PM
PDT}

Seversky, The problem with cumulative (natural) selection is that it only exists in the head of Dawkins. The power of cumulative (natural) selection has NEVER been demonstrated in nature. Take away the target and cumulative (natural) selection is nothing more than a blind, random, meandering walk, right off a cliff.Joseph_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT}

hazel:
Does this mean that computer simulations can never be used to illustrate or explore some aspect of the real world?
In order for a computer to simulate anything the programmer(s) need to have COMPLETE knowledge of that they are trying to simulate. For example we can simulate flying in an airplane because we understand flight well enough to do so. With biology we don't even know what is responsible for the development of our eyes/ vision system so we have no idea how to simulate that. We have no idea what makes an organism what it is. We have no idea how many mutations can accumulate and what that accumulation will do. So again we can only simulate that which we understand.Joseph_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

George:
As you have the book at hand, could you provide a quote that supports this?
Well George, first get yourself a dictionary and look up the word cumulative:
1 a: made up of accumulated parts b: increasing by successive additions

There is a big difference, then, between cumulative selection (in which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future building), and single-step selection (in which each new 'try' is a fresh one).- Dawkins TBW page 49
That's ratcheting.Joseph_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

hazel, Have you ever seen a ratchet in operation? It is a LATCHING mechanism that allows for the ratcheting.Joseph_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

In contrast with the illusions of evolutionary word programs, here are two positive examples, one actual and one hypothetical, that do not commit the same errors. Some have used genetic algorithms to explore possible new designs for improved antennas. Starting with one or more initial functional designs, the ability to modify these in various ways (perhaps change the lengths or angles of the arms, add forks, etc.) , and the ability to analyze the expected effectiveness of the results, such an algorithm can explore the space of possible antennas defined by the fitness function it has been given. It can look for optimal points as defined by that function. Notice that it is doing so by evaluating function at each stage (albeit as defined by the provided function and within the limits of the modifications it can make). One can also design software to compete in games. Though I cannot immediately provide a link, I believe I've seen games based on battles of software tanks. One could make an evolutionary simulation in which one starts with one or more programs for such a software tank, makes truly blind and undirected random modifications to the software, and then sets that generation of tanks into competition. The top surviving tanks are reproduced, potentially with additional modifications. Notice that this also would have a genuine evaluation of competitive function / fitness as the criteria for preservation and propagation. Typically, word games such as Zachriel or WEASEL are illusions in that they do not have a legitimate way of defining preferential preservation in terms of current actual effective function. Since their basis for selection is not based on current function, even as examples of (non-functional) "cumulative selection" they are irrelevant to discussions of biological evolution. Biological evolution simply cannot operate as they do.ericB_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

JT (132), I commend you on not stopping with your first impression of what you thought I was saying. You continued to think about it and eventually arrived at a more accurate understanding. I certainly accept your apology. Yes, if any of these programs were falling under the combinatorial explosion, they simply wouldn't work. See my comments about random typing and Shakespeare's sonnet, a point that Dembski has made. In principle, there can be legitimate ways to evolve incrementally with function based selection giving a huge boost over random search, though unsurprisingly this is subject to conditions, restrictions, requirements and constraints. I know about software and I know there are also illegitimate ways to rig the system so that one gets an unwarranted advantage, i.e. one that steps outside the limitations one supposedly is modeling. So the question is, does a program like Zachriel play within justifiable bounds, or does it step across a line and presumptuously take an unjustified advantage? Just to be clear, I've never supposed that Zachriel is driven by proximity to a single fixed target. I know that Zachriel employs (among other things) a dictionary of possible selectable words, not just a single fixed string. Nor is that distinction (one vs. many) a necessary part of the issue I am raising. I am primarily talking about something else, namely the War Games fallacy, as I explained back in post 75. Please take a look again at post 75 and let me know what part of that post seemed unclear. Thanks.ericB_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus @ 138 Taking your points in turn...
And in so writing a few — pardon — weasel words — the major issue ofer Weasel as yet another a misleading icon of ecvo mat is dodged: the BOOK, the BLIND Watchmaker is about the idea that we do not need design to get to complex info-rich bio-functionality. But a chief illustration in Ch 3 is . . . intelligent design at work.
The Blind Watchmaker, as you say, is the book and discusses many aspects of Dawkins's major thesis. The WEASEL program is not the book. It is an illustration of one aspect of what is discussed in the book, namely, the power of cumulative selection. Whether or not you agree with the main thrust of the argument in TBW should make no difference to whether or not the WEASEL program is an effective illustration of just one point in the book.
PS: YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INITIALS AND A NAME. THERE IS UTTERLY NO EXCUSE FOR THE SORT OF ATTEMPTED RETALIATORY OUTING AGAINST WHISTELBLOWING THAT ANTIEVO AND MR ELSBERRY HAVE INDULGED, PERIOD.
Yes, there is a difference between between your initials and your name. They are three letters which, in the search for your full name, are latched in place.
That my name may be accessed by search in a low traffic site of the Internet [for purposes of responsibility over authorship] is no excuse for putting it up in a high traffic site to be accessible without looking for it, and in effect inviting all and sundry to launch spammming attacks or worse.
An open website is public domain regardless of the volume of traffic.
And, FYI a personal name is NOT public domain information: you nor anyone does not have a right to take it and use it as it if you were me, regardless of how you come by it, or to subject me to harassment or worse — that is called identity theft sir, or worse than mere identity theft.
It would only be identity theft if someone were to use your name and pretend to be you for personal gain. No one here has done that as far as I am aware. Simply using your own name to refer to you is not an offense nor is it even a breach of your privacy. Your name is out there as I found in a simple Google search which retrieved this article by one Ian Boyne in the Jamaica Gleaner which begins comments about you as follows:
But G***** M*******, well-meaning but with a surfeit of zeal over knowledge, implies that there is a necessary conflation between theology and action.
Note that Ian Boyne did not asterisk out your name, I did.Seversky_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT}

Joseph, the issue has been "latching", not "racheting." And kairosfocus's point that the program is intelligently designed is pointless - so is every computer program ever written. Does this mean that computer simulations can never be used to illustrate or explore some aspect of the real world?hazel_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
07:36 AM
7
07
36
AM
PDT}

Moderators, I posted this in the wrong thread: It should go here. Could you kindly delete that version and post this one? For once I am happy to have a post moderated. I am reproducing a section of Wes's refutation of kf's response, with the names changed:
[kairosfocus] is plainly confused about a great many things. His own choice of analogy provides a great example of an IDC advocate shooting himself in the foot. The dart and chart situation that would have some slight analogy with "weasel" isn't one where all the dart-holes count; it would instead be like dropping the dart N times, and then only recording where, say, the right-most dart-hole of those N holes occurred, and shifting the chart to center the drop-point on that hole for the next set of N dart drops. Obviously, the larger N is, the less likely the chart will be moved to the right and not to the left for re-positioning. [kairosfocus]' assertion is like saying that we should expect one or more right-ward shifts of the chart during a process where N=50 dart drops, and the chart is re-centered on the right-most dart-hole after each N drops some modest number of times. [kairosfocus] is obviously clueless; the "law of large numbers" is a perfect counter to his argument, not a vindication of it. 300 characters in a printout of the best candidates per selected generations are not subject to change, not unless one is applying a 100% mutation rate. For a reasonable mutation rate of 4%, one would be greatly surprised if just 24 characters in so many ordinary, not best, candidates had actually undergone change of any sort in the unknown derivation from their parent strings. But the whopper in [kairosfocus]' maunderings is the bland assertion that "we have reason to believe" [the sampled best candidate strings from various generations] "are credibly uncorrelated to the system". No, [kairosfocus], we have a tremendous expectation that those results are "correlated to the system": they are the result of a selective process from a population of candidate strings, taken from a pool of N such candidates at each generation. And the odds for very reasonable population sizes and mutation rates are that best candidates from N alternatives are strongly in favor of keeping "correct" bases from the parent string unaltered. I specifically analyzed the situation, provided the equation that delivers the probability at issue, and [kairosfocus] cannot be bothered to address those facts.
David Kellogg_{March 21, 2009
March
03
Mar
21
21
2009
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Next