Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do

_{Denyse O'Leary

August 13, 2015

horizontal gene transfer}

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

Talk to the Fossils.jpg From Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more:

Richard Dawkins: For over a century, Darwinism was the “must be” explanation, the only “scientific one.” As Dawkins put it (p. 287, Blind Watchmaker, 1986):

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of the Darwinian theory (there is, of course) we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

But Darwinism is not “the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life.” Claims that were formerly merely preferred must be tested against HGT. True, some of the example findings given above may need revision or replacement. But many more will likely turn up, as research uncovers HGT in many genomes.

Anything HGT does, Darwinian evolution did not do. As more and more pieces are carved out of Darwin’s territory, just think of the impact on the vast project of “Darwinizing the culture.” More.

See also: Links to the rest of the series at Talk to the fossils: Let’s see what they say back

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Box. Do you think the genotypes close to a git genotype are more likely to be themselves be fit than random genotypes? If you do, and and so selection keeps organisms from the fitness valleys/holes. Or you don't, and the fitness lanscape if full of adaptive regions and evolution is easy as anything. I should have guessed that brining up the Weasel algorithm would lead to a side-track circus. If you are interested in real evolutionary biology (and not just a demonstration of one key point) on realted topics you could start with Wright(in the 1930s), Fisher on his so called geometric model and if you really get into it Gavrilets book on landscapes and speciation.wd400_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

That's not what I wrote at all. I object to your suggestion that natural selection steers organisms to greener pastures far away from "unprofitable parts of the landscape". My objection is that there is no basis whatsoever for your expectation in reality — as opposed to Dawkins' oracle fantasy land.Box_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

Oh, you mean fitness landscapes are full of adaptive regions and just wandering off in any which way will find them? That's not a normal ID position...wd400_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT}

WD400: As long as there is a fitness landscape and and genotypes that are close to each other have similar finesses then natural selection will prevent your “team” from exploring unprofitable parts of the landscape.
Unprofitable parts of the landscape? There is no way of knowing. My eliminated team may have been on to something and maybe your team of winners got itself isolated. In the real world one cannot count on Dawkinian oracles.Box_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT}

Zachriel:
We do hope you have come to the understanding in general that resources are necessarily limited (e.g. physical space, energy sources), so natural selection leads to adaptation for acquisition of resources.
Your rhetoric isn't evidenceVirgil Cain_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

Box,
I do hope that you guys have come to the understanding in general it’s unhelpful to decimate the search team (natural selection) even if that frees up resources
No. It's not even really about rescoures. As long as there is a fitness landscape and and genotypes that are close to each other have similar finesses then natural selection will prevent your "team" from exploring unprofitable parts of the landscape. I don't think this can be put more clearly, but it seems unlikely you are going to modify your position so I guess I'm done.wd400_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

Box: I do hope that you guys have come to the understanding in general it’s unhelpful to decimate the search team (natural selection) even if that frees up resources. We do hope you have come to the understanding in general that resources are necessarily limited (e.g. physical space, energy sources), so natural selection leads to adaptation for acquisition of resources.Zachriel_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
05:32 AM
5
05
32
AM
PDT}

WD400 and Zach, I do hope that you guys have come to the understanding in general it's unhelpful to decimate the search team (natural selection) even if that frees up resources. Such barbarism is only beneficial when you get extremely lucky or when circumstances have been tampered with — see Dawkins' Weasel.Box_{August 18, 2015
August
08
Aug
18
18
2015
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT}

Mung: The program already peeks behind the curtain. You might say I just peek and then remember what I saw rather than pretending that no peeking went on. eigenstate: No it doesn’t and you can examine the source code to establish this with certainty for yourself. First, I can't examine the source code, be cause it no longer exists. So you are wrong about that. Second, Yes it does "peek" and I provided two clear instances of how it does, and you even go on later to admit that this is in fact the case. eigenstate:
Making Weasel guess at the string length, and making the string candidates any UNICODE character would not change anything but make the search space larger, and take longer for Weasel to run. The dynamics would be the same, and the pedagogy the same, it would just make you wait longer to see it work.
So yes, there it is in your own words, the program is in possession of information about the target that would otherwise be hidden to it and encapsulated in the oracle. This is the mistake that Carpathian made and never did manage to bring himself to admit. So you're one up on Carpathian. [Only up one because you earlier denied what you now admit.] It's not that you might have to wait longer to see it work, it's more like it may never be seen to work, and thus lose the alleged value it has, pedagogical or otherwise. There's not "power of cumulative selection" if there's no cumulative selection to demonstrate. Can you revive the weasel? I'd like to see you at least make the attempt. Tell you what, I'll even spot you a couple modifications to the oracle: 1.) You can let the oracle give a higher fitness to strings that are closer in length to the length of the target phrase. 2.) You can let the oracle give a higher fitness to strings that are contain only ASCII characters. Anything more than that and I will go back to claiming you're a stacking the deck by sneaking in information that does not proceed from the oracle as a fitness value. Do try.Mung_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
06:48 PM
6
06
48
PM
PDT}

Only intelligent agents can select. And because of tat "weasel" is an example of intelligent design evolution.Virgil Cain_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: It’s not a model of evolution, it’s just a simplified model of evolutionary selection. There's a mathematical set which includes instances of evolutionary processes. Biological evolution is an element of this set. Weasel is not a model of *biological* evolution. It is a simplified model of selection.Zachriel_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

Z
It’s not a toy model of biological evolution, but is a simplified model of selection.
Nice manipulative double-speak. It's not a model of evolution, it's just a simplified model of evolutionary selection. The selection is intelligent, but that's only in the model. Evolution does it without the intelligence. It's not a toy. It's a toy model of simplified selection, but not real selection. It's just an excellent pedagogical tool for how evolution works. No, not how evolution really works. It just proves that evolution really does work if evolution worked like the toy does. Which it doesn't, but that's ok. I mean, come on - it's just meant to prove something!Silver Asiatic_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

It’s not a toy model of biological evolution, but is a simplified model of selection.
Only intelligent agents can select. So thank you for admitting "weasel" is an example of intelligent design evolution.Virgil Cain_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT}

wd400- Yours cannot explain anything. Not the origin of life. Not the universe and not the diversification of life. Not only is natural selection impotent, it is useless as a research heuristic.Virgil Cain_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT}

tion. Okay, so the environment supplies the information needed to drive biological evolution. But where did the environment get that information? From itself?
This is among my favourite creationists/ID tactics. Not just the trusty retreat tot the origin of life, but now to the origin of the universe!wd400_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT}

Box: In your example, NS eliminates half the search team. What’s the gain? More resources available to the remaining half, what else can be said? It eliminates half the search space, making the search more tractable. Box: Massive loss of valuable information. You defined it as valueless information. Silver Asiatic: Weasel doesn’t model selection, unless you think matching and locking to a pre-defined target is “selection”. The phrase "Methinks ..." represents an arbitrary environment. Silver Asiatic: eigenstate already correctly explained that Weasel is not even good enough to be a toy model. It's not a toy model of biological evolution, but is a simplified model of selection. Box: where did these well-wrought fitness landscapes come from, such that evolution manages to produce the fancy stuff around us? The fitness landscape is the relationship of the organism to the environment.Zachriel_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

WD400: What is it that about that algorithm that makes people say such strange things. I’ve never claimed Weasel is a good model of real biological evolution — just a good demonstration of an important idea. Which is all Dawkins uses it for. It is a very simple model of a sort of selection, and it’s enough to demonstate that Box is wrong. I guess that’s why he or she refuses to answer this simple question.
Suppose an Easter egg hunt on a round island. The search team starts at the center of the island. The search team consists of replicators who each move in a straight line in a random direction. These replicators need food in order to replicate. The replicators need to replicate every 10 minutes. There is not enough food for all replicators. More food implies more replication. The Easter egg is located somewhere at the border of the island. The shortest route (straight line) for a replicator from the center of the island to the Easter egg takes 30 minutes. Let’s start the search! The replicators take off in all directions. After 10 minutes into the search we see that only a few replicators have positioned themselves in a position from which the Easter egg can be reached in approximate 20 minutes. Now suppose that “natural selection” steps in and the fitness landscape is so that it kills off all the replicators that are positioned 21 minutes or more from the Easter egg. This means more food for the ‘20 minutes replicators’, which means more replication by the ‘20 minutes replicators’. It follows that directions from the ’20 minutes position’ on the island will be better explored — a larger search team is formed than expected without natural selection. This will indeed increase the chance of finding the Easter egg. Suppose that the same thing happens after 20 minutes into the search. A small percentage of the replicators find themselves at a 10 minute distance from the Easter egg. And again natural selection steps in to increase the number of replicators that find themselves at 10 minutes distance. This is IMO an alternative version of Dawkins' Weasel. And I do admit that under this unlikely scenario natural selection enhances chances for a successful search. Allow me to step aside and let Dembski explain the problems with this depiction of natural selection:
Dembski: Kauffman writes in Investigations:
If mutation, recombination, and selection only work well on certain kinds of fitness landscapes, yet most organisms are sexual, and hence use recombination, and all organisms use mutation as a search mechanism, where did these well-wrought fitness landscapes come from, such that evolution manages to produce the fancy stuff around us?
According to Kauffman, "No one knows." Kauffman's observation here is entirely in keeping with conservation of information. Indeed, he offers this observation in the context of discussing the No Free Lunch theorems, of which conservation of information is a logical extension. The fitness landscape supplies the evolutionary process with information. Only finely tuned fitness landscapes that are sufficiently smooth, don't isolate local optima, and, above all, reward ever-increasing complexity in biological structure and function are suitable for driving a full-fledged evolutionary process. So where do such fitness landscapes come from? Absent an extrinsic intelligence, the only answer would seem to be the environment. Just as I have heard SURVIVAL as a one-word resolution to the problem of generating biological information, so also have I heard ENVIRONMENT. Ernan McMullin, for instance, made this very point to me over dinner at the University of Chicago in 1999, intoning this word ("environment") as though it were the solution to all that ails evolution. Okay, so the environment supplies the information needed to drive biological evolution. But where did the environment get that information? From itself? The problem with such an answer is this: conservation of information entails that, without added information, biology's information problem remains constant (breaks even) or intensifies (gets worse) the further back in time we trace it. [my emphasis] [W. Dembski, Conservation of Information Made Simple]
Box_{August 17, 2015
August
08
Aug
17
17
2015
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT}

If weasel merely eliminated the less fit, ie the furthest from the target, the target would never be reached.Virgil Cain_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

eigenstate:
The “goal” in evolution, to use telic language, is survival and fecundity.
Clueless.
It’s just pedagogy, Joe, a way to understand an important principle about the efficacy of random variation and cumulative processes.
Clueless, it's a way to understand intelligently designed, goal-oriented processes. Or, in your case, it's a way to teach dishonesty and equivocation.Virgil Cain_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

@Mung
The program already peeks behind the curtain. You might say I just peek and then remember what I saw rather than pretending that no peeking went on.
No it doesn't and you can examine the source code to establish this with certainty for yourself. The search never has access to the target value and only goes on the feedback given to it by the oracle. If it could do what you are suggesting you would do, it too would have the answer in one step. You've just misunderstood what is being kept hidden from the search function and how it incorporates the feedback it gets from the oracle (which doesn't give it access to the target itself) to eventually converge on the target.
To begin with, the target is a fixed length string. It consists of a specific number of characters. How does the program know to only generate strings of that specific length? Let’s just say it “peeks behind the curtain.”
As Dawkins points out, for any subtantial length of string (more than a dozen chars, say), the search space is so large that targets cannot expected to be found in any practical time frame. If we wanted to make Weasel more complex (not advised for its purposes), we could have the string lengths be unknown as well, and the oracle would just return champions based on a matching algorithm that would incorporate character matching and string length.
That significantly reduces the size of the search space.
Doesn't matter. The search space as defined is already way beyond huge enough to make the point it is trying to make, which is that a cumulative search radically accelerates the speed at which we move toward the target. A dumb search would never get there in our lifetimes. Making the search harder would provide nothing that's not already there, pedagogically.
Second, the characters that are generated are quite limited. 26 plus a space iirc. How does the program know to include only those specific characters in the candidate strings it generates and no others? Let’s just say it “peeks behind the curtain.” That also significantly reduces the size of the search space. That’s the magic of “cumulative selection.” It works by peeking behind the curtain.
See above, the search space as is already many orders of magnitude beyond what it needs to be to make the point it is trying to make. Oy, I think you've missed the whole point of Weasel's pedagogy. It's precisely because it can't 'peek behind the curtain', to see the target, that a cumulative query process against an oracle is so effective. Making Weasel guess at the string length, and making the string candidates any UNICODE character would not change anything but make the search space larger, and take longer for Weasel to run. The dynamics would be the same, and the pedagogy the same, it would just make you wait longer to see it work.eigenstate_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

Yes, Mung. Very clever. Not at all relevant but well done. Box, you know that everyone can read the rest of my comments right? Not just the bits you quote?wd400_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT}

wd400: How quickly will you find a sentence like the target without selection? Immediately. By cutting out the middleman, as it were. I don't need selection and I don't need to do a search. Instead of generating strings at random to start with I just generate the target phrase. Done. eigenstate: How do you determine the target on your first attempt without “peeking behind the curtain” of the oracle? The program already peeks behind the curtain. You might say I just peek and then remember what I saw rather than pretending that no peeking went on. To begin with, the target is a fixed length string. It consists of a specific number of characters. How does the program know to only generate strings of that specific length? Let's just say it "peeks behind the curtain." That significantly reduces the size of the search space. Second, the characters that are generated are quite limited. 26 plus a space iirc. How does the program know to include only those specific characters in the candidate strings it generates and no others? Let's just say it "peeks behind the curtain." That also significantly reduces the size of the search space. That's the magic of "cumulative selection." It works by peeking behind the curtain.Mung_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
03:19 PM
3
03
19
PM
PDT}

WD400,
WD400: I’ve never claimed Weasel is a good model of real biological evolution (...)
Have you come to the understanding that Dawkins' weasel is bogus? If so, do you also understand that — on principle — you cannot prove anyone wrong based on a bogus argument?Box_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT}

The target sequence creates a fitness landscape. Since you claim is that selection will be slow to find regions of high fitness there is necessarily a fitness landscape in your claim. So...wd400_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
02:50 PM
2
02
50
PM
PDT}

What is it that about that algorithm that makes people say such strange things. I've never claimed Weasel is a good model of real biological evolution -- just a good demonstration of an important idea. Which is all Dawkins uses it for. It is a very simple model of a sort of selection, and it's enough to demonstate that Box is wrong. I guess that's why he or she refuses to answer this simple question.wd400_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

WD400, I think you know my answer already. I fully agree with 'creationist' Dembski. Here goes for the record: If "selection" [read: elimination] is tampered with, if information is smuggled in — as is the case with Dawkins' weasel — then ...
... yes, this algorithm does a much better job, with much higher probability, of locating the target. But at what cost? At an even greater improbability cost than merely locating the target sequence by blind search. [W. Dembski, Conservation of Information Made Simple]
Box_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT}

Selection doesn't find targets. Weasel doesn't model selection, unless you think matching and locking to a pre-defined target is "selection". In that case, Dawkins found the target sentence before he needed any algorithms to select it. So, much faster without Weasel. eigenstate already correctly explained that Weasel is not even good enough to be a toy model. Do you really want to waste more time defending it?Silver Asiatic_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
02:38 PM
2
02
38
PM
PDT}

So you can't answer the question?wd400_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT}

Zach: Assuming binary survival, then it reduces the search space in half, making the search more tractable.
In your example, NS eliminates half the search team. What's the gain? More resources available to the remaining half, what else can be said? What are the negatives? Massive loss of valuable information. And the eliminated part of the search team might have been on to something which was right around the corner — we'll never know. You guys can try to spin the Darwinian nonsense anyway you want, but eliminating half the search team doesn't improve chances for a successful Easter egg hunt.Box_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Box: “Less useful” such as the pathways related to warm weather? Assuming binary survival, then it reduces the search space in half, making the search more tractable.Zachriel_{August 16, 2015
August
08
Aug
16
16
2015
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply