Mark, evidently hoping others might succeed where he failed, continues to be a shill for anti-Dembski “authors”. Give it up, Mark. There’s no such thing as a Free Lunch.
10 Replies to “Mark “The Commies Ate My Patents” Perakh Shills Anti-Dembski Article”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Has Dr. Dembski responded to Erik Tellgren’s rebuttal of “No Free Lunch”?
Is there anything worth a response in it?
“Has Dr. Dembski responded to Erik Tellgren’s rebuttal of ‘No Free Lunch’?”
As a matter of fact he has. Go here.
Possibly a response to the right Erik but not to the critique by Erik mentioned here which is dated today. -ds
Thanks Crandaddy. DaveScot, philisophically the ID position is the challenging position. ID scientists must be prepared to defend their theses, and cannot afford to be dismissive.
I tried to read the sited paper, but it had too much greek in it for me to follow, especially on a friday afternoon. However, I did follow some of Tellgren’s argument reguarding UPB. The need for some sort of threshold beyond which “almost impossible” becomes “miracle” is necessary. Dembski’s 10^150 is a plenty generous number, I don’t care how big the universe actually is. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to biology, the number of organisms that ever existed on planet earth should be quite adequate as a UPB. I bet that number is more like 10^50 or something. However, it hardly matters. If UPB were set at 10^1000, abiogenesis as currently understood, would still be in the miracle class.
It isn’t the challenging position. It’s the established position believed by a majority of the earth’s intelligent inhabitants since they still were still living in caves. But even if not that far back Paley’s watchmaker argument predates Darwin by 50 years. ID is the watchmaker argument using the most recent scientific and engineering knowledge. The challenge for Darwin’s propenents is to support the larger claims with empirical evidence, a task they’ve failed at for 150 years and counting. The only progress they’ve made is to bully their way into basic science class to teach Darwinian theory in a vacuum devoid of criticism. -ds
There’s a good chance the paper is a spoof and Perakh has been had. I made sure to check the publication date to make sure it wasn’t April 1st.
How does one respond to equating search spaces to cheeses, soups, and coffeemakers?
The author is sneaks in information about the search space. He likens it to swiss cheese and noodle soup. In reality, unless you sneak in information about the search space, it starts out not as a swiss but rather a cheddar and the noodle soup is just a clear broth – i.e, all points equal. Thus no search algorithm can pick a better starting point than any other in the absence of information that would bias the selection. The second way a search algorithm can stand out is if it learns something from its mistakes. The evolutionary search algorithms in question by definition have no prior knowledge of the search space and they do not learn anything from previous samples.
So basically Tellgrens critique, if I may continue the food analogies, is a crap sandwich minus the bread.
The trend with integrity & math challenged Darwinists is to set up a mathematical Straw Man and then to proceed to knock him down. So the relevant math is never refuted in the first place. Just a caricature.
Emile Borel actually suggested a UPB of 10^(–50).
Such a small number? I’ve counted more sheep than that trying to get to sleep!
The editorial remark about Perakh’s parent is quite unkind. Surely you can make your point without such a personally affrontive remark.
That’s patent not parent. -ds
Yikes. My apologies, Dave. Very poor reading and overly quick posting on my part.