New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL

_{William Dembski

March 9, 2010

Evolution, Informatics, Intelligent Design}

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

Winston Ewert, George Montañez, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II, “Efficient Per Query Information Extraction from a Hamming Oracle,” Proceedings of the the 42nd Meeting of the Southeastern Symposium on System Theory, IEEE, University of Texas at Tyler, March 7-9, 2010, pp.290-297.

Abstract: Abstract—Computer search often uses an oracle to determine the value of a proposed problem solution. Information is extracted from the oracle using repeated queries. Crafting a search algorithm to most efficiently extract this information is the job of the programmer. In many instances this is done using the programmer’s experience and knowledge of the problem being solved. For the Hamming oracle, we have the ability to assess the performance of various search algorithms using the currency of query count. Of the search procedures considered, blind search performs the worst. We show that evolutionary algorithms, although better than blind search, are a relatively inefficient method of information extraction. An algorithm methodically establishing and tracking the frequency of occurrence of alphabet characters performs even better. We also show that a search for the search for an optimal tree search, as suggested by our previous work, becomes computationally intensive.

[ IEEE | pdf ]

Comments

Also, the LCI is was discussed here: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/scienceblogs-praises-disses-dembski-marks-paper-on-conservation-of-information/Patrick_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT}

hrun0815, 1. I don't know what discussion you're referring to since I rarely visit UD nowadays. It's possible you were talking past each other, with you referring to a basic definition of information (which can include noise) and bornagain77 was referring to CSI or FCSI. In that case imprecision in the usage of terminology would underly that discussion. I don't know. But if bornagain77 was claiming that no type or category of information can be derived from "evolution" then he'd be mistaken. 2. "By the way, the supposed ’second law of information’ states that information can only be created by an intelligence. How is that squared with your post?" Speaking of imprecise terminology...you're referring to the "Law of Conservation of Information" which also refers directly to specified complexity (CSI) and not just "information" in a base sense. My first post in this thread was long. Can you specifically point out how it conflicts?Patrick_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Part of the reason I rarely participate on UD now is because I feel like I'm merely repeating myself most of the time. And the Darwinists are repeating the same mistakes...sometimes from the same people. An old discussion from 2008 covers most of the tangential issues that this current discussion has missed so far: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/two-forthcoming-peer-reviewed-pro-id-articles-in-the-matheng-literature/ Besides the flying squirrel example here's another example relevant to this new paper: "The indirect pathway is presumed to be composed of small changes since that is what is required by MET in order to reach long-range targets. And each step is considered independently in reference to the EF. For a specific example, the Explanatory Filter can take multiple types of inputs (which also makes it susceptible to GIGO and thus falsification). Two are (a) the encoded digital object and (b) hypothetical indirect pathways that lead to said objects. My name “Patrick” is 56 informational bits as an object. My name can be generated via an indirect pathway in a GA. An indirect pathway in a word-generating GA is likely composed of steps ranging from 8 to 24 informational bits. Let’s say you take this same GA and have it tackle a word like “Pseudopseudohypoparathyroidism” which is 30 letters and 240 informational bits. It can be broken down into functional components like “pseudo” (48 informational bits) and “hypo” (32 informational bits). Start with “thyroid” (56 informational bits). For this example I’m not going to check if these are actual words, but add “ism”, then “para”, and then “hypo”. “hypoparathyroidism” is a functional intermediate in the pathway. The next step is “pseudohypoparathyroidism”, which adds 48 informational bits. Then one more duplication of “pseudo” for the target. That may be doable for this GA but what about “Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis” (360 informational bits) or, better yet since it’s more relevant Dembski’s work (UPB), the word “Lopadotemakhoselakhogaleo kranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmato silphiokarabomelitokatakekhymeno kikhlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonopto kephalliokigklopeleiolagiosiraiobaphtraganopterýgn” (1464 informational bits [which may have been corrupted in the database]). I’m not going to even try and look for functional intermediates." To make it clear why this old example is relevant today, an oracle would be required for this english-based evolutionary search to function. The oracle in this case would be the function that recognizes valid parts of an English word. This oracle, which allows for simpler words to be reached, could be likened to the oracles which function in nature which also allow for simple targets to be reached. In my example a different category of oracle is required to reach the English word that's 1464 informational bits. What kind of oracle is required for nature to do similar? At this point ID proponents would refer to ID-compatible hypotheses. Darwinists, apparently based upon this thread, are reduced to flinging insults and sniping at minor issues.Patrick_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

We’re all fully aware of the real-life simplistic examples involving low information content. No one is every denying those and it gets quite tiring to see people like you refer to them constantly as if they end all discussion.
The reason for that is simple. There are always ID proponents that claim that NO information can be created by evolution. See for example bornagain77:
basically falsification boils down to no demonstration of any information generation from material processes whatsoever, (a fact which you will vehemently attack but alas you cannot produce any empirical evidence to the contrary)
In fact, I went through just that very painful process of producing examples where information is actually produced... but alas, bornagain77 abandoned that discussion, rather than admitting that he was wrong. Because of those cases, you have to start by showing that ANY information can be created. Once that is established, you can move on. By the way, the supposed 'second law of information' states that information can only be created by an intelligence. How is that squared with your post?hrun0815_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT}

Are you seriously asserting that we do not observe random mutation, genetic drift, and differential reproductive success in populations of real biological organisms?
Let's ground this discussion in reality, shall we? You know he's not saying that. We're all fully aware of the real-life simplistic examples involving low information content. No one is every denying those and it gets quite tiring to see people like you refer to them constantly as if they end all discussion. We know that Natural Selection is the causal component of Darwinism. We can look at GAs, or evolutionary searches, and see that fitness functions do work when properly balanced (aka nature providing the oracle in the context of this paper). The problem is that Darwinists presume this balancing act and thus that natural selection is capable of operating uniformly. As in, for ALL targets in a search space there exists environmental factors capable of creating diversifying or directional selection to the extent that features become fixated within a population. I have no problem with the assertion that this works for SOME cases, just not ALL. The reason I think this is an issue is since selection usually relies on environmental factors (I say usually since there is artificial selection like with dogs). While some factors are generalized, some factors must be very specific in order for the funneling effect to work. What if, like with these peacock feathers, the factors are very rare or don’t even exist? That means that in order for Darwinism to work not only does Functional Complexity have to emerge it must be paired with a rare event that offers selective pressure. Now ID proponents don’t dispute the notion of stabilizing selection. They dispute the notion that there’s a kind of selection other than stabilizing selection that can operate successfully to the point of macro-evolution. This does not mean that selection in general does not happen per se (think finch beaks, blind cavefish, malaria, ice fish, etc.) but Berlinski would probably say it’s not special enough that should not warrant a separate categorization. Or at least that directional selection is exceedingly rare and can only operate under limited conditions/environments and thus for a very short amount of time (or at least it better be short lived…directional selection tends to decimate a population as was seen with the finches). Personally I’m fine with people making these categorical distinctions since they’ve only been shown to be capable of trivial changes. Now as I’ve pointed out before the major issue is that natural selection is essentially a funnel, and it must be balanced in order to function as an oracle that can produce results. For an example, a while back I had an experiment with a GA that performed word searches. Going from memory here, so short version is that there were multiple versions of the fitness function: a) pseudo-random search b) a function that attempted to emulate Darwinism c) a function that incorporated some active information about the target d) explicit directed front-loading. The target was less than 200 informational bits but only C and D were capable of finding it. The most difficult target at 360 informational bits required D. The point is that selection must be constrained and balanced long enough that the trait becomes fixated. The problem with the finch example is that once the environment changes back to normal the finch population also reverts back to being a mixed population based upon continuous variation. As in, the changes purportedly funneled by directional selection don’t stick (they are not fixated). Some Darwinists like to say that in order for such changes to fixate that the environment must be permanently altered as well. Well…in the finches case it’s apparent by their dwindling numbers that this might likely cause extinction of that population within that environment. Even if they did survive and the trait did fixate within the population it’s unknown whether the finches would permanently lose the ability to produce beaks of different sizes if the environment changed once again far off into the future. A Darwinist put it this way: “sufficient conditions for long-term improvement [and fixation, I might add] to be likely are quite complicated.” Tell me about it… Here’s an example with flying squirrels, which have numerous balanced morphological changes in order to properly glide. Dawkins speculated that falling from trees provided the environmental funnel. As in, death by falling acted as the oracle. How many squirrels died jumping out of trees before some of them found out that they were lucky enough to have mutant extra skin along with modifications to the spine and ligaments in order to allow them to glide? How many squirrels have to fall to their deaths for such a change to become fixated in the population? Do we have any data at all on deaths caused by falls or is it all speculation? The automatic tendon locking mechanisms of such creatures should keep most of the corpses of natural deaths up in the trees I would imagine. What environment would provide this selective pressure? Unfortunately for such speculations, ordinary squirrels have been observed to fall from great heights with little or no injury. So are we now forced to hypothesize a limited set of environments which may include trees that would regularly cause death by falling? The reason I ask all this is because evolutionary biology claims to have all this predictive power, so answering these questions should be easy. If this particular hypothesis (death by falling providing the environmental pressure; or the causal factor in nature that is the oracle) does not match reality what scenario is plausible? After all, there needs to some sort of plausible scenario since these traits are shared in divergent species and are supposed to be the result of convergent evolution. The fairly recent article HOW TO MAKE A FLYING SQUIRREL: GLAUCOMYS ANATOMY IN PHYLOGENETIC PERSPECTIVE (2007) makes the suggestion that since leaping distance scales with size that a smaller species would benefit more from gliding. So perhaps the selective pressure would be a smaller species competing with a larger species? Unfortunately, no data is provided for this hypothesis so we cannot evaluate whether this would provide enough selective pressure. It might be another peahen story-telling session... (if you don't know what I'm referring to search UD regarding sexual selection) They also briefly mention that evolving from a ground-based ancestor would be unlikely, presumably because of the low positive selective pressure for gliding. But again, we’re back to the problem of needing regular directional selection in order to fixate these changes in the population. Also, in order for these changes to be beneficial in the first place they have to be balanced (look up that squirrel article to see just how balanced). And if they’re not balanced they’re unlikely to provide much benefit (it’s neutral) and thus will be lost. Having said all that, in general I don’t see an issue with unguided Darwinian mechanisms being capable of making these particular changes considering their “relative” simplicity and apparent modularity (then again, it may be front-loading) which “I” think “might” allow for a stepwise pathway. I just think it disconcerting that the focus of that recent article–which should represent the latest findings on this subject–seemed to be on making comparisons between samples. Neo-Darwinian mechanisms as the source of evolution were generally assumed to function, without any evidence of this being the case. The problems related to natural selection were never addressed. This is ironic since the article is entitled “HOW To Make a Flying Squirrel”. Now Darwinists almost always start with the assumption of simplicity giving rise to higher complexity (I say almost since there are plenty of examples of systems being broken yet providing a survival benefit in a particular environment). Some ID proponents present this alternate scenario: What if ALL of the original squirrels could glide? After all, it’s far easier to suffer a deleterious mutation, and the survival benefit from this particular feature is negligible in most circumstances. The same could be said of the bat, where some species have echolocation and others do not. What if the original bat had echolocation and then over time some divergent lines lost it? Now before anyone accuses me of being a YEC, which I’m not, while this scenario is compatible with YEC/OEC there could be ID-compatible front-loading hypotheses where the change program self-terminates at the final form and then deleterious mutations eventually occur. Of course, that would be specific to only one of the variants of front-loading hypotheses where the final form is completely preloaded instead of just a morphological matrix of viable components.Patrick_{March 29, 2010
March
03
Mar
29
29
2010
08:40 AM
8
08
40
AM
PDT}

I've a problem with your mutation rates: what you describe as mutation rate μ isn't what is observed when looking at the outcome of your algorithm - the effective mutation rate is just μ * (N-1)/N... You got the effective mutation rate right in your earlier paper Conservation of Information in Search - Measuring the Cost of Success ? where you looked at a bit string: here, you toggled a bit with rate μ, sensibly forbidding that a bit changes into itself. I think that this is the usual procedure.DiEb_{March 16, 2010
March
03
Mar
16
16
2010
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PDT}

Clive Hayden at 86, We most certianly do not observe them Are you seriously asserting that we do not observe random mutation, genetic drift, and differential reproductive success in populations of real biological organisms?Mustela Nivalis_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Mustela,
If the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory were not capable of operating in the real world, we wouldn’t observe them. We do observe them. If your model says we shouldn’t, it is your model that is lacking.
We most certianly do not observe them, that is precisely why evolutionary algorithms like Avida were conceived, because of the lack of observation in real time. Your argument strikes me as saying that simulation either way, for or against evolutionary algorithms, has no purchase on reality, but this would cut both ways, and render Avida et al useless and non-explanatory too.Clive Hayden_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT}

WinstonEwert at 78, We have this model of evolution as a search process. All search processes are clearly restricted by the NFLT and similar results. Let's be very clear. The No Free Lunch theorems only apply to the performance of a particular strategy averaged over all possible search spaces. Those theorems do not "restrict" "all search processes." There is one very complex, dynamic fitness landscape provided in nature. This is, as you say, a given. So, under this idea nature works well with an evolutionary search even though on average a randomnly selected landscape would not. Essentially, we have a good landscape. It seems that we are in agreement that the physical world represents one particular search space in your model. That's good progress. I would phrase your statement about "nature works well" differently. It isn't that nature works in some sense with an evolutionary search; the core observation is that the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory are sufficiently effective at allowing the fitness of subsequent populations to reflect the environment in which they find themselves that those populations frequently are viable and produce viable child populations. It is possible to model those mechanisms as a strategy for searching the viability space close to the current population. The model is not the reality, though. It isn't meaningful to talk about a "good landscape", reality is what it is. Two questions arise as a result of this. Is it true? Why is it true? First, the question, Is it true? Does the natural fitness landscape really work well with the evolutionary search process? The landscape is a given. It doesn't "work" with anything. The evolutionary mechanisms we observe in the real world can, as it turns out, be modeled to a certain extent as a search strategy. That model strategy is, unsurprisingly, better than blind search when applied to the search space modeled on the real world. The reason it is unsurprising is that we wouldn't observe these mechanisms if they didn't work in the real world. We'd either observe different mechanisms or we wouldn't be here to observe anything. Here is where I was saying that the computer simulations are irrelevant. They tell me nothing about whether or not nature has a fitness landscape suitable for genetic algorithms. That's not actually the case. If the fitness function in the model is based on the real world and the search strategy is modeled on evolutionary mechanisms, it would be surprising if the simulations didn't produce useful results (e.g. finding the target in your model). However, upon further reflection I suppose that it is possible that some property X of a fitness landscape exists. If we can show that property X applies both to nature and some computer simulations those simulations could help demonstrate that property X gives rise to fitness landscape where evolutionary search performs well. Close. It's not that the property gives rise to fitness landscapes, it's that a strategy modeled on observed evolutionary mechanisms performs better than blind search on search spaces modeled on the real world. As for the fossil record, evolution has clearly been very successful. The question is why? One possible explanation is that it has had a fitness landscape which works well with a Darwinian search process. Again, we have to be careful not to confuse the model with what is being modeled. Just because it is possible to model some aspects of evolutionary mechanisms as a search strategy does not mean that they are a search strategy. The map is not the territory. The particular issue under consideration here is whether or not the fitness landscape really looks like that. That's not an issue at all. We observe certain mechanisms that result in differential reproductive success. We observe that those mechanisms operate in the real world. That can give us data to formulate a model of a fitness landscape, but whether we can model it or not, eppur si muove. We can only use the success of evolution to prove that point if we assume or can show that this is the only possible explanation. I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you mean by this statement. As for the second question, Why is it true? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the fitness landscape is well suited for evolutionary search, Again, this is backwards. The real world is what it is. If the mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory were not capable of operating in the real world, we wouldn't observe them. We do observe them. If your model says we shouldn't, it is your model that is lacking. we then must ask why? If the fitness landscape were chosen randomly from a uniform distribution of all fitness landscapes then NFLT says we should expect no algorithm to do better then random sampling. That is not what the No Free Lunch theorems say. Regardless of the fitness landscape, some strategies will perform better than blind search and others will perform worse. What the NFL theorems say is that no strategy will perform better than blind search over all possible fitness landscapes. Clearly, we are doing better then random sampling. Yes, and the NFL theorems don't provide a reason to be surprised at this. Once again, there is just one real world to which we have access. If the mechanisms we observe didn't work in that world, we wouldn't observe them in the first place. Are we just lucky? Is there some particular property in the way that the fitness landscape is generated that makes it produce more useable landscapes? These are the questions that need asking. Like I said above, you might be able to make a cosmological ID argument from those questions, but if you want to support the idea of ID in biological evolution, the NFL theorems aren't going to help you.Mustela Nivalis_{March 14, 2010
March
03
Mar
14
14
2010
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

Mr. Ewert:
If the fitness landscape were chosen randomly from a uniform distribution of all fitness landscapes then NFLT says we should expect no algorithm to do better then random sampling. Clearly, we are doing better then random sampling. Are we just lucky? Is there some particular property in the way that the fitness landscape is generated that makes it produce more useable landscapes? These are the questions that need asking.
What you're asking is why the fitness landscape looks like figure 1 instead of figure 2 in this paper. In other words, why does nature have a paucity of algorithmic information? That question is beyond the reach of both science and math, even though the EIL seems to think that they have the answer. But would an information-rich universe require an explanation any less than our information-poor universe? It's ironic that low algorithmic information entails high active information, especially since Meyer characterizes CSI as having high algorithmic information (the opposite of Dembski's definition of CSI). One final note: I can't conceive of any state of affairs that couldn't be modeled as having positive active information. So when the EIL asks for an explanation for active information, they're asking why there is something instead of nothing, as Haggstrom pointed out awhile back.R0b_{March 13, 2010
March
03
Mar
13
13
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

Sooner @ 77 I'll be gone for a week with no access to a computer. I'll read the article you linked when I get a chance. I assumed that as a scholar you would be interested in engaging my argument. Particularly since it opposes your world view. I like to mix it up. If you have a better argument then so be it. But I don't know what it is or how you defeat mine. Anyway, I'm out of here too. Regards... p.s. meanwhile I suggest you reread bornagain77 @ 80 until you get it. I will be.tgpeeler_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
10:47 PM
10
10
47
PM
PDT}

scordova:
Evolutionary algorithms don’t solve passwords in computer security and neither do they solve the passwords of lock-and-key systems in biology.
Nor do designers. If no information is available (as the word "password" implies), designers are no better than evolutionary algorithms at finding a target. And if information is available, intelligence is not necessarily required to obtain or utilize it. Information transfer may consist of nothing more than a causal relationship.R0b_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Mr. Ewert @ 23:
The search space is the space of all biological forms. The simplest way of looking at the target is to view it as a moving target always targeting something better then the current point.
We can certainly model nature this way. We should note that this model, as it stands, makes no predictions. Had we, for instance, defined the search space to be smaller, we might observe nature stepping outside of it, and we would know that our model was inaccurate. But we know by definition that biological forms will always fall within the space of all biological forms. And there is no empirical observation that could falsify any choice of target. Which raises a question: How do we know that our assessments of active information and the goodness of oracles are correct if we can't test the models on which those assessments are based? That fundamental problem aside, your choice of target is interesting. Given biological form X, which is known to replicate imperfectly, how improbable is it that a slightly better (which I assume means more likely to replicate) form will arise?
That is a neat trick you can pull but its not going to help evolution find a way to let the deer escape from the lion.
True, but it does help someone who's looking for active information in nature. In fact, it renders the task trivial.R0b_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

Sooner Emeritus, From your handle I believe you are a teacher. Let me express my personal dismay that someone as close minded, as you have demonstrated yourself to be, has any hand in teaching our young children. You expressed: "I’m “accusing” Winston of being bright enough to see that his mentors adduce “arguments” to their preconceptions" And then you went on to attack his mentors, which I shall not reopen that wound: Yet to turn this around, are you bright enough to see where your own personal preconceptions adduce your arguments?: For example, You readily admitted that you follow methodological naturalism, so let's unpack the preconception that you readily admit to: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." William Shakespeare - Hamlet The artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has blinded many scientists to the inference of God as a rational explanation in these questions of origins. In fact, the scientific method, by itself, makes absolutely no predictions as to what the best explanation will be prior to investigation in these question of origins. In the beginning of a investigation all answers are equally valid to the scientific method. Yet scientists have grown accustomed through the years to the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method. That is to say by limiting the answers one may conclude to only materialistic ones, the scientific method has been very effective at solving many puzzles very quickly. This imposition of the materialistic philosophy onto the scientific method has indeed led to many breakthroughs of technology which would not have been possible had the phenomena been presumed to be solely the work of a miracle. This imposition of materialism onto the scientific method is usually called methodological naturalism, methodological materialism, or scientific materialism etc... Yet today, due to the impressive success of methodological naturalism in our everyday lives, many scientists are unable to separate this artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy from the scientific method in this completely different question of origins. A Question for Barbara Forrest http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2009/06/question-for-barbara-forrest.html In fact, I've heard someone say, "Science is materialism." Yet science clearly is not materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which makes the dogmatic assertion that only blind material processes generated everything around us, including ourselves. Materialism is thus in direct opposition to Theism which holds that God purposely created us in His image. Furthermore science, or more particularly the scientific method, in reality, only cares to relentlessly pursue the truth and could care less if the answer is a materialistic one or not. This is especially true in these questions of origins, since we are indeed questioning the materialistic philosophy itself. i.e. We are asking the scientific method to answer this very specific question, "Did God create us or did blind material processes create us?" When we realize this is the actual question we are seeking an answer to within the scientific method, then of course it is readily apparent we cannot impose strict materialistic answers onto the scientific method prior to investigation. In fact when looking at the evidence in this light we find out many interesting things which scientists, who have been blinded by the philosophy of materialism, miss. This is because the materialistic and Theistic philosophy make, and have made, several natural contradictory predictions about what evidence we will find. These predictions, and the evidence we have found, can be tested against one another within the scientific method. For a quick overview here are a few: 1.Materialism predicted an eternal universe, Theism predicted a created universe. - Big Bang points to a creation event. - 2. Materialism predicted time had an infinite past, Theism predicted time had a creation - Time was created in the Big Bang. - 3. Materialism predicted space has always existed, Theism predicted space had a creation (Psalm 89:12) - Space was created in the Big Bang. - 4. Materialism predicted at the base of physical reality would be a solid indestructible material particle which rigidly obeyed the rules of time and space, Theism predicted the basis of this reality was created by a infinitely powerful and transcendent Being who is not limited by time and space - Quantum mechanics reveals a wave/particle duality for the basis of our reality which blatantly defies our concepts of time and space. - 5. Materialism predicted the rate at which time passed was constant everywhere in the universe, Theism predicted God is eternal and is outside of time - Special Relativity has shown that time, as we understand it, is relative and comes to a complete stop at the speed of light. (Psalm 90:4)- 6. Materialism predicted the universe did not have life in mind and life was ultimately an accident of time and chance. Theism predicted this universe was purposely created by God with man in mind - Every transcendent universal constant scientists can measure is exquisitely fine-tuned for carbon-based life to exist in this universe. - 7. Materialism predicted complex life in this universe should be fairly common. Theism predicted the earth is extremely unique in this universe - Statistical analysis of the hundreds of required parameters which enable complex life to be possible on earth gives strong indication the earth is extremely unique in this universe. - 8. Materialism predicted much of the DNA code was junk. Theism predicted we are fearfully and wonderfully made - ENCODE research into the DNA has revealed a "biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.". - 9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth - The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford) - 10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from "a warm little pond". Theism predicted God created life - The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD) - 11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) - We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth - 12. Materialism predicted the gradual unfolding of life to be self-evident in the fossil record. Theism predicted complex and diverse life to appear abruptly in the seas in God's fifth day of creation. - The Cambrian Explosion shows a sudden appearance of many different and completely unique fossils within a very short "geologic resolution time" in the Cambrian seas. - 13. Materialism predicted there should be numerous transitional fossils found in the fossil record, Theism predicted sudden appearance and rapid diversity within different kinds found in the fossil record - Fossils are consistently characterized by sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record, then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. - 14. Materialism predicted animal speciation should happen on a somewhat constant basis on earth. Theism predicted man was the last species created on earth - Man himself is the last generally accepted major fossil form to have suddenly appeared in the fossil record. - As you can see when we remove the artificial imposition of the materialistic philosophy, from the scientific method, and look carefully at the predictions of both the materialistic philosophy and the Theistic philosophy, side by side, we find the scientific method is very good at pointing us in the direction of Theism as the true explanation. - So Sooner Emeritus, I know my words will probably have little effect on correcting you on your "beam in the eye" blatant hypocrisy you have chosen to criticize the speck in your brother Dembski's eye with, but at least I hope my words will bring the point home that you are not nearly on as firm a footing as you think you are. Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Materialism - The Hijacking Of Science By Methodological Naturalism - Dr. Thomas Kindell - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4168423/materialism_the_hijacking_of_science_by_methodological_naturalism/bornagain77_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

I’ll contribute instead a link to prior work Ewert et al. should know about: I don't have access to it right now, but I'll read it when I get a chance.WinstonEwert_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

You’re just repeating yourself, not explaining your reasoning Sorry, allow me to try explaining myself more clearly and carefully. We have this model of evolution as a search process. All search processes are clearly restricted by the NFLT and similar results. Your claim is that we escape this implications because we do not care about the average performance of a evolutionary search across all search problems just the one in nature. There is one very complex, dynamic fitness landscape provided in nature. This is, as you say, a given. So, under this idea nature works well with an evolutionary search even though on average a randomnly selected landscape would not. Essentially, we have a good landscape. Two questions arise as a result of this. Is it true? Why is it true? First, the question, Is it true? Does the natural fitness landscape really work well with the evolutionary search process? Here is where I was saying that the computer simulations are irrelevant. They tell me nothing about whether or not nature has a fitness landscape suitable for genetic algorithms. However, upon further reflection I suppose that it is possible that some property X of a fitness landscape exists. If we can show that property X applies both to nature and some computer simulations those simulations could help demonstrate that property X gives rise to fitness landscape where evolutionary search performs well. As for the fossil record, evolution has clearly been very successful. The question is why? One possible explanation is that it has had a fitness landscape which works well with a Darwinian search process. The particular issue under consideration here is whether or not the fitness landscape really looks like that. We can only use the success of evolution to prove that point if we assume or can show that this is the only possible explanation. As for the second question, Why is it true? If we assume, for the sake of argument, that the fitness landscape is well suited for evolutionary search, we then must ask why? If the fitness landscape were chosen randomly from a uniform distribution of all fitness landscapes then NFLT says we should expect no algorithm to do better then random sampling. Clearly, we are doing better then random sampling. Are we just lucky? Is there some particular property in the way that the fitness landscape is generated that makes it produce more useable landscapes? These are the questions that need asking.WinstonEwert_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

[off-topic] tgpeeler, This happens to be a thread regarding a paper in a field about which I know a great deal. Why this "I'm calling you out, dude" bit about naturalism? Itchy trigger finger? From scientific method to methodological naturalism: the evolution of an idea
In response to the appearance of Scientific Creationism and its growing popularity in conservative Protestant circles in the 1960s, Paul de Vries proposed a way of thinking about the scientific enterprise that he named "methodological naturalism." As a professor of philosophy at Wheaton College, de Vries found himself at the intellectual center of American evangelicalism and sought to offer his students an alternative to Scientific Creationism on the one hand and "evolutionistic scientism" on the other, both of which de Vries thought distorted science and manipulated faith. (1)
As a methodological naturalist, I must object to the notion that science is a means of arriving at knowledge of all things. If I did not, I would be an ontological naturalist. So telling me that naturalism does not permit explanation of this, that, or the other thing you want explained is vacuous. Bang. You're not dead. But I'm outta here.Sooner Emeritus_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT}

tgpeeler at 69, Mustela @ 64 "The mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory explain the observed fossil record as well as empirical evidence from genetics and many other disciplines. All of those different sets of observations lead to the same set of conclusions. There is no circularity." I’m aware of only two mechanisms in modern evolutionary theory and they are the laws of physics and genetic mutations. Are there others? Oh yes, natural selection. The laws of physics are at a different level of abstraction and so may not be convenient to use in the analysis. At one appropriate level, I would include mutation, genetic drift, and selection in the list of evolutionary mechanisms. At a more detailed level, I'd include Allen MacNeill's list of sources of variation. I am ready and willing to read an account of how physics accounts for the genetic code and the biological information contained in that code. I'd suggest starting with a good organic chemistry text and working your way up to graduate level biochemistry to get the basics. There are a lot of directions to go from there depending on your interests.Mustela Nivalis_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Atom, First, thank you for letting me know that Dembski and Marks have a basis for saying that they have partially satisfied their obligation under the IEEE Code of Ethics to correct their errors. I think they'd be on better ground if "the authors" were explicitly identified on the WeaselWare web page, and on better ground yet if the footnote were added to the TSMC-A paper disseminated by the EIL. There are also obvious mathematical errors that have been identified at RationalWiki, and I recommend that Dembski and Marks toe the ethical line by placing corrections in other footnotes, with citation of the source. --------------- The idea of making a search tree the canonical representation of an infinite class of deterministic search algorithms that "do the same thing" is due to me. I in fact shared that way of looking at search algorithms with one of the authors of the latest paper a couple years ago. It's not a deep insight, but it makes concrete a number of aspects of "no free lunch" that are otherwise abstract and difficult to understand. And the "search for a search" is greatly simplified by searching over trees instead of algorithms. In my opinion, my contribution of information -- considerably more than that regarding search trees -- has led to confusion of basic matters I thought were straightened out a number of years ago. You keep asking me for specific criticism, but you should understand why I'm reticent to supply more information. The matter of Winston Ewert truly does put me in a bind. I have been struggling to reorganize and condense a critique of the work of Dembski and Marks, and I decided last night that it might help me if I explained to you and Winston at least their misinterpretation of the so-called conservation of information theorems. I'm on short leash now, so I'll have to keep the benefit of the writing to myself. I'll contribute instead a link to prior work Ewert et al. should know about: A Study of Some Implications of the No Free Lunch Theorem (2008)
Andrea Valsecchi and Leonardo Vanneschi Abstract We introduce the concept of “minimal” search algorithm for a set of functions to optimize. We investigate the structure of closed under permutation (c.u.p.) sets and we calculate the performance of an algorithm applied to them. We prove that each set of functions based on the distance to a given optimal solution, among which trap functions, onemax or the recently introduced onemix functions, and the NK-landscapes are not c.u.p. and thus the thesis of the sharpened No Free Lunch Theorem does not hold for them. Thus, it makes sense to look for a specific algorithm for those sets. Finally, we propose a method to build a “good” (although not necessarily minimal) search algorithm for a specific given set of problems. The algorithms produced with this technique show better average performance than a genetic algorithm executed on the same set of problems, which was expected given that those algorithms are problem-specific. Nevertheless, in general they cannot be applied for real-life problems, given their high computational complexity that we have been able to estimate
Sooner Emeritus_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

LOL tgpeeler @ 71, Cool Hand Luke "Failure To Communicate." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_aVuS7cOIQ I wish someone would communicate to me exactly how "mind" is explained naturally when the double slit experiment has shown that the "quantum information wave" will not collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D material-particle state until a conscious observer is present. Exactly how does a 3-D material entity give rise to the consciousness upon which the 3-D material entity is dependent on for its own existence? Can a son be his father's father? Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/dr_quantum_double_slit_experiment_entanglement/bornagain77_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

LOL tgpeeler @ 71, Cool Hand Luke "Failure To Communicate." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_aVuS7cOIQ I wish someone would communicate to me exactly how "mind" is explained naturally when the double slit experiment has shown that the "quantum information wave" will not collapse to its "uncertain" 3-D material-particle state until a conscious observer is present. Exactly how does a 3-D material entity give rise to the consciousness upon which the 3-D material entity is dependent on for its own existence. Dr. Quantum - Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579/dr_quantum_double_slit_experiment_entanglement/bornagain77_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

scordova @ 65 "The evolutionary community should have been far more welcoming of objective criticisms from the engineering community." And what? Admit defeat? Abject and ignominious defeat? Total and unconditional defeat? The word "engineer" connotes design every bit as much as the word "design" does! Of course they will ignore the engineers. I recognize that this is not news to you. :-)tgpeeler_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
12:04 PM
12
12
04
PM
PDT}

Toronto @ 59 "Why do you need to have “minds” excluded?" I do not. Indeed I argue for Mind/mind as the source of all information. It's the naturalist who insists upon denying ontological status to 'mind.' I am merely pointing out the insanity of that position. "As a computer analogy, the brain is the CPU, RAM and ROM, while the “mind” is what happens when the brain starts executing the scheduled processes." Hmmm. Computer analogies don't really do much for me in this realm as they always leave unmentioned the intelligence contained in the CPU. As an EVO, how do you explain the intelligence in the CPU? "The mind is explainable naturally, so if you’re going to take a naturalistic point of view, you have to take it all." What do you mean that the mind is explainable naturally? And I am decidedly NOT taking a naturalistic point of view. Do I have a massive failure to communicate here?tgpeeler_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

Clive, Please don't ban Sooner before he responds to my screed on naturalism. :-)tgpeeler_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

Mustela @ 64 "The mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory explain the observed fossil record as well as empirical evidence from genetics and many other disciplines. All of those different sets of observations lead to the same set of conclusions. There is no circularity." I'm aware of only two mechanisms in modern evolutionary theory and they are the laws of physics and genetic mutations. Are there others? Oh yes, natural selection. Aptly described by Dawkins in this way "All appearances to the contrary, the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way." In other words, natural selection is code for "physics that looks like design." As opposed to what, the 'regular' physics? I am ready and willing to read an account of how physics accounts for the genetic code and the biological information contained in that code.tgpeeler_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT}

My interest in this thread is to discuss the applicability of the paper referenced above to biological evolution. If you’re just going to continue to make baseless assertions that ignore the past 150 years of scientific progress, then this will be my last response to you.
150 years of ideas that don't even account for the problems that are the focus of the problems such as those in this paper. I hardly call the circular reasonings of 150 years of evolutionary theories (which you repeat over and over) as scientific progress, but rather evidence of illogical and uncritical thinking. Hardly the stuff of real science.
this will be my last response to you
That's fine, but I'm free to respond and highlight when you resort to circularly reasoned talking points and appeal to the literature put together by a community of evoltuionary biologists unqualified to speak on the evolution of information in machine archtictures such as biological systems. You've appealed to circularly reasoned, unqualified opinions form the evolutionary community (such as you did with the fossil record), and I merely pointed out they fail as objections to the paper publised in the IEEE since the objections you put forward mis-state the real situation, namely, evolutionary theories are on shaky ground via many lines of empirical evidence. To criticize the paper succefully, you'll need direct empirical observation of selection in the wild in real time that resolves complex structures. Since no such data exists, you appeal to the large body of speculations (such as evolutionary theories) developed over 150 years, rather than direct empirical observations. Speculations are fine, but call them what they are, speculations, not scientific facts.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT}

scordova at 66, Evolutionary theories don’t explain the fossil record, actually the fossil record accords better with the notion of sudden independent emergence than gradual evolutionary sequence! My interest in this thread is to discuss the applicability of the paper referenced above to biological evolution. If you're just going to continue to make baseless assertions that ignore the past 150 years of scientific progress, then this will be my last response to you.Mustela Nivalis_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT}

Mustela Nivalis: The mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory explain the observed fossil record as well as empirical evidence from genetics and many other disciplines. All of those different sets of observations lead to the same set of conclusions. There is no circularity.
Similarity of form does not necessarily imply common ancestry. We don't even know if prokaryotes and eukaryotes share a common ancestor. Woese said we might have to drop the hypothesis of common ancestry of the first prokaryotes and eukaryotes. The similarities need explanation by other mechanisms. Evolutionary theories don't explain the fossil record, actually the fossil record accords better with the notion of sudden independent emergence than gradual evolutionary sequence!scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:33 AM
8
08
33
AM
PDT}

As a scholar, I would love to learn of pre-1970 biologists saying that evolution constitutes a search.
If evolutionary biologists failed to realize the importance of the problem defined by the question of searches, then that only reinforces how incompetent and clueless the evolutionary community was/is to opine that they've solved the problem of the evolution of complexity and design. If what you hint at is true, then it is high time evolutionary biology be subject to more scientific scrutiny and rigor from outside the field of evolutionary biology. As the premeire organization for the science of information, the IEEE's involvement in this question is thoroughly appropriate. The evolutionary community should have been far more welcoming of objective criticisms from the engineering community.scordova_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT}

WinstonEwert at 53, If the properties that make evolutionary search algorithms work are particular to the world of physics and chemistry, the success of all evolutionary simulations is irrelevant. You're just repeating yourself, not explaining your reasoning. At 42 you responded to my argument that "There is no ’search for a search,’ the fitness landscape, while dynamic, is a given." with Nothing theoretically prevents the fitness landscape in nature from being well-matched with an evolutionary search strategy. However, some points are in order. 1. If you are going to take that stance all computer simulations of evolution are irrelevant. This does not follow. I'm not sure it's even coherent. "Irrelevant" to what, specifically? The fact remains that the No Free Lunch theorems are not applicable to discussions of biological evolution because the fitness landscape is a given. There is no search for a search. Just because a particular strategy isn't better than blind search on average over all search spaces does not mean that the strategy cannot perform better, even significantly better, than blind search on the particular fitness landscape we find in the real world. "We have empirical evidence that these mechanisms open up new niches to those subsequent populations (see the peer-reviewed literature on nylonase, Lenski’s citrate consuming e. coli, and antibody resistence, to name just three). Those are neat, but very small compared to the large complexity of biological creatures. We have empirical evidence in both the fossil record and the comparison of modern genomes that these mechanisms operate successfully over deep time." That reasoning only works if we know that the biological change recorded in the fossil records is the result of an evolutionary search mechanism. Darwinian theory is proposed as an explanation for what we find in the fossil record. It is circular to argue from the fossil record that the mechanism must work. The question is whether the mechanism can explain the record. The mechanisms identified by modern evolutionary theory explain the observed fossil record as well as empirical evidence from genetics and many other disciplines. All of those different sets of observations lead to the same set of conclusions. There is no circularity. If your model says that what we observe in the real world can't happen, the problem is more likely with your model than with the real world.Mustela Nivalis_{March 12, 2010
March
03
Mar
12
12
2010
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply