Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Selling Stupid

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Granville Sewell’s sin is pointing out the obvious that anyone can understand. This represents a tremendous threat. As David Berlinski has observed, Darwinists — who have invested their worldview and even their careers in Darwinian storytelling — react with understandable hostility when told that their “theory” is simply not credible.

It’s really easy to figure out that the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection cannot possibly do that with which it is credited. Life is fundamentally based on information and information processing — a software computer program and its associated, highly functionally integrated execution hardware. Computer programs don’t write themselves, and they especially don’t write themselves when random errors are thrown into the code. The fact that biological computer programs can survive random errors with remarkable robustness is evidence of tremendously sophisticated fault-tolerance engineering. The same goes for the hardware machinery of life.

One of my specialties in aerospace R&D engineering is guidance, navigation and control software. The task of designing GN&C algorithms and the associated hardware that would permit an ornithopter to land on a swaying tree branch in gusting wind is so far ahead of our most sophisticated human technology that we can only dream about such a thing. Yet, birds do this with ease.

Darwinists want us to believe that this all came about through a process of throwing monkey wrenches in working machinery and introducing random errors into highly sophisticated computer code.

In addition, they argue that because the sun provides energy available to do work, all the obvious engineering hurdles can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion.

This is simply not credible.

In fact, it’s downright stupid.

Selling stupid is a tough assignment.

No wonder Darwinists have their panties in a bunch.

Comments
WilliamRoache to KF: Funny how “explicit” latching became “implied” latching.
No, it isn't funny. The way these Weasel programs are designed guarantee a nearly 100% latching for a given matching character since for any given iteration it A) usually avoids the (necessarily low) mutation rate and B) adds to the fitness score. In effect, the fitness function rewards the string if it contains more characters that would be latched if we were explicitly latching them. Through the backdoor or through the front, the effect is the same. The randomness part of Weasel is an unnecessary complication given that the method of random generation and the fitness function guarantees the outcome within a statistically predictable number of iterations. And might as well just latch the characters and get it done faster. The outcome is the same and it still demonstrates cumulative selection.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
p.s. As near as I can tell the two links refer to the same program.Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
WR:
I like this version of Weasel: 5. Base a new generation population of size n upon copies of the closest matching string or strings, where each position has a chance of randomly mutating, based upon a set mutation rate.
I was referring to the one written by Wesley R. Elsberry at this page: http://www.antievolution.org/features/ec/weasel102.html This array holds the strings, which themselves are an array of characters. gdwr.pop = new Array(); I'll let you guess what this array holds: gdwr.closest = new Array(); Decide whether we're going to mutate the string: gdwr.mutate = Math.random()*100.0; if (gdwr.mutate <= gdwr.mutrate) If we decide not to mutate use an exact copy of the closest match in the new generation. gdwr.pop[ii][jj] = gdwr.closest[jj];
Base a new generation population of size n upon copies of the closest matching string or strings...
A tad misleading that.Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
WilliamRoache: The exact number of code loops used to to get there is a different and irrelevant matter.
Try it with one internal loop, i.e, one string mutation and see how long it takes per generation. Try it with 100. And see how long it takes. Again, here's what I challenged:
If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character that does not use character latching, I’ll eat my hat.
Granted, given a re-reading of his description I agree that his method didn't employ latching, and it did imply that each generation had multiple string mutation candidates. My bad. I hereby withdraw my challenge as irrelevant. OK, so how many was it per outer loop (generation)? If we divide 2485 by 43 (assuming that the 2485 string mutations were scattered over 43 out loops), that gives about 57 string mutations per outer loop.
That is why Dawkins’ said himself that it was not a great example. But if understood in context, with the point being illustrated in mind, it makes perfect sense.
I agree, and have never said otherwise. And furthermore, I agree with Dawkins who said it with regards to Weasel being analogous to blind evolution, that it "was a bit of a cheat", that his program "looks to the future", and that blind "evolution does not look to the future." Yep. Everybody seems to agree with that. As I've said repeatedly, the point of this whole Weasel business was simply to demonstrate cumulative selection on small changes. It does nothing more or less than this. Randomly picking colored socks from a drawer and stacking them by color demonstrates the same thing. (The randomness part of Weasel is an unnecessary complication given that the method of random generation and the fitness function guarantees the outcome within a statistically predictable number of iterations. Might as well just latch the characters and get it done faster. The outcome is the same and it still demonstrates cumulative selection.)mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PDT
KF,
Weasel should be retracted and apologised for.
Perhaps you would care to write an example that illustrates the vast gulf between random noise and cumulative selection, in a format understandable to the lay reader? Then perhaps you also could write a letter to 1986 and let them know?
Weasel should be retracted and apologised for.
But why? Dawkins explains the limitations in the very text he uses to tell us about it! The point is that cumulative selection is real even when the targets are very broad. Like "survive longer". Many paths to that.
De confession:
Confession? Of what? That evolution has no long term target? No target other then in relation to the environment or population pressures etc? Congratulations. Once again, I'll let 1986 know. Apparently this is somehow news. Yet you crow over it like the whole "weasel" thing has ever done you any favors. All weasel has ever done for you is shown your inability to admit error. You posting of Dawkins' own words at this point as a "confession" is actually immensely illustrating of your self aggrandizing nature. Dawkins confessed his sins and KF has the quote to prove it! Funny how "explicit" latching became "implied" latching. Funny how "implied" latching is cumulative selection. Funny funny funny.WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
02:43 PM
2
02
43
PM
PDT
mike
Show me his source code and let’s see if he doesn’t latch. Or show me anyone’s source code that can do it in 43 iterations without latching.
It's not 43 iterations it's 43 generations. Doing it in 43 iterations would be silly! Might as well get a monkey to bang on a keyboard instead. Dawkins said nothing of the number of code loops that had to run,
It’s 10350 iterations on the subject string however way you nest the looping.
nothing about how the looping is nested. Your objections are in fact spurious. All you need to be able to reproduce the program exactly as he had it is in the description given by Dawkins. If you do that you can get a run with 43 generations. The exact number of code loops used to to get there is a different and irrelevant matter.WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
F/N: Rollin de tape . . . 1 WDL*MNLT*DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO*P 2? WDLTMNLT*DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO*P 10 MDLDMNLS*ITJISWHRZREZ*MECS*P 20 MELDINLS*IT*ISWPRKE*Z*WECSEL 30 METHINGS*IT*ISWLIKE*B*WECSEL 40 METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*I*WEASEL 43 METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL De confession: >> I don't know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. [[NB: cf. Wikipedia on the Infinite Monkeys theorem here, to see how unfortunately misleading this example is.] Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence 'Methinks it is like a weasel', and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? . . . . It . . . begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL . . . . What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed . . . . Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in each generation of selective 'breeding', the mutant 'progeny' phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like that. Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. [[TBW, Ch 3 >> Weasel should be retracted and apologised for. Period. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
M62: A key to that run is it starts with 3 correct letters. Look for a single letter that reverts in the sample. Ent dere Gkairosfocus
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
02:21 PM
2
02
21
PM
PDT
mike,
You’ve just disqualified yourself from serious discussion.
So let's say you are right. That when construed a particular way (your way) that the statement "43 generations" is inaccurate.
Target string plus a fitness function and mutation rates that guarantee the outcome by the programmer.
Yes. Precisely. That is why Dawkins' said himself that it was not a great example. But if understood in context, with the point being illustrated in mind, it makes perfect sense.
That’s laughable. It’s 10350 iterations on the subject string however way you nest the looping.
Yes, laughable. Yet if Dawkins' words are read at face value you can run an example of his program, created from his original description, and have it come out at 43 generations. If however you rule "latching" out, you rule cumulative selection out, thereby ruling out the entire point of the toy example in the first place. Congratulations. You should write to New Scientist in 1986. Let them know that if you gut the example of it's only reason for existing in the first place it stops working.WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Mung, I like this version of Weasel:
1. Use a set of characters that includes the upper case alphabet and a space. 2. Initialize a population of n 28-character strings with random assignments of characters from our character set. 3. Identify the string or strings closest to the target string in the population. 4. If a string matches the target, terminate. 5. Base a new generation population of size n upon copies of the closest matching string or strings, where each position has a chance of randomly mutating, based upon a set mutation rate. 6. Go to step 3.
From here: http://tinyurl.com/6xxfwry That seem about right to you?
If you ask me, that’s as good as explicit latching.
No, not quite as good. Check out the link I posted earlier. From the link in this post:
At higher mutation rates, it is clear that the Dembski-Marks "oracle weasel" has the advantage in performance due to "locking-in" of correct letters, which the accurate Dawkins' "weasel" does not do. But the graph clearly shows that even without "locking-in" of letters the accurate Dawkins' "weasel" does eventually get to the correct string, and takes only slightly over ten times as many candidates as does the Dembski-Marks "oracle weasel".
So two different characterizations of Weasel, two different outcomes. Both get there.
I use that one single string as the basis for the entire next generation.
Not necessarily.
There’s more than one way WEASEL isn’t like evolution.
What, biological evolution? It's an example. How many strings would it have to use as the basis for the next generation for it to become an accurate example of evolution? How many would satisfy you? I'm surprised you have not already written the program, it's got to be a trivial extension to the original. So if extending it like you say does not make it "more like" evolution then perhaps the point has been missed. He's using it as an example in comparison to the "monkey on a keyboard" example so beloved of some commentators here who think that biologists believe cells came together in a unlikely whirlpool of lucky chance and chemicals like a film of a cell being pulled apart but in reverse.
If you ask me, that’s as good as explicit latching.
Check the link. It's not quite as good. But so what, it's not supposed to be nor was it claimed to be an accurate example of "evolution". It was just used to point out the potential time difference between cumulative selection and random chance stumbling on the same thing. So we're all agreed I think that cumulative selection is an unavoidable component of micro-evolution. How could it not be, right? Explicit or otherwise, latching is real.WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Check the actual text. He talks about generations. Dawkins: And the target was finally reached in generation 43
Show me his source code and let's see if he doesn't latch. Or show me anyone's source code that can do it in 43 iterations without latching.
No, it’s how you get the effect without explicit (i.e. “intelligent”) latching.
All the non-latching versions of Weasel are "intelligent." Target string plus a fitness function and mutation rates that guarantee the outcome by the programmer.
What do you expect to happen exactly if some configurations outperform others against a given measure and breeding is based on that success?
I expect just what the programs are designed to do.
Congratulations, that’s exactly right.
Congratulations? I've never said otherwise.
What it illustrates is how shallow some ID supporters think evolution is. Debunk Weasel, evolution is debunked.
Good for them. That has nothing to do with me.
Mike1962, if you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character, I’ll eat my hat. WilliamRoache: I already did! Just wrap the code up into another function that re-runs the code until you get the generation number 43.
"Just wrap"? That's laughable. It's 10350 iterations on the subject string however way you nest the looping. You've just disqualified yourself from serious discussion.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
mike, http://tinyurl.com/6japrus Check the actual text. He talks about generations.
Dawkins: And the target was finally reached in generation 43,
Mike, you said:
This is a backdoor means to the same effect.
No, it's how you get the effect without explicit (i.e. "intelligent") latching. What do you expect to happen exactly if some configurations outperform others against a given measure and breeding is based on that success?
In other words, Weasel is not analogous to blind evolution.
Congratulations, that's exactly right. It's a toy example designed to illustrate a single point and instead it's become an obsession of the ID movement. What it illustrates is how shallow some ID supporters think evolution is. Debunk Weasel, evolution is debunked. Hardly.
If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character, I’ll eat my hat.
I already did! Just wrap the code up into another function that re-runs the code until you get the generation number 43. Per generation.WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT
So let's say I have a population size of 100 strings. I choose one that most closely matches the target phrase. I use that one single string as the basis for the entire next generation. 100 strings just like it form the next population prior to applying the mutation operator. If you ask me, that's as good as explicit latching. There's more than one way WEASEL isn't like evolution.Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
William Roache, I meant to say on #244 that: If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character that does not use character latching, I’ll eat my hat.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT
William Roache: So what’s your actual point?
Also, that the Weasel program describe in Dawkin's book did use latching if the actual number of attempts on the string were really 43. Does it matter? No. The latching or non-latching issue is irrelevant to the purpose of Weasel, which is to demonstrate cumulative selection. The way all the non-latching algorithms are written, *guarantees* that an implicit "fuzzy latching" will occur a great percentage of the time simply because a given character will not be altered while at the same time contribute to a higher fitness score for that string. This is a backdoor means to the same effect.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT
That Weasel is a fraud? That Dawkins misrepresented it?
No. Dawkins has never (to my knowledge) used Weasel in a fraudulent way. His purpose was to demonstrate the accumulation of small changes contra the "junkyard 747" idea of the necessity of large scale change all at once. To that end, it serves it's purpose. It serves no other purpose. As Dawkin's acknowledged in that video, Weasel is "a bit of a cheat. It looks to the future, whereas [blind] evolution does not look to the future." In other words, Weasel is not analogous to blind evolution. And the mechanism certainly is nothing like biological systems. Weasel is no more analogous to evolution than is someone pulling random socks out of a drawer and stacking them in piles according to color. Nobody disputes that small changes can accumulate if there some targeted selection going on.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
WilliamRoache: So what’s your actual point?
See #152: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/selling-stupid/comment-page-3/#comment-387178mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
11:34 AM
11
11
34
AM
PDT
WilliamRoache: Are you now a believer in the power of non-latched cumulative selection now then?
Nope. Not for 43 attempts. That Python example has 10250 attempts with a 1% mutation rate per character. (My own experiments suggest 3% is a better figure using cryptographic grade random number generation.) If you can show me a program that ends up with a target string after 43 stabs at the entire string with any mutation rate for each character, I'll eat my hat.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
mike1962,
That is not 43 generations as Dawkins claimed in his book. So either it’s a misprint, or he’s using different program here to generate the results than the one he used for his book.
So what's your actual point? That Weasel is a fraud? That Dawkins misrepresented it? That perhaps two programs were written, or one program at different stages in it's development were used or two different outputs from the same program were used in different formats? That generations and individuals might be different numbers? That you can write the program yourself using the description he provided in a paragraph or two and come up with the same results, no latching required? Please clarify! There are of course other possibilities I am yet to enumerate. I could try to take more wild stabs in the dark but help a guy out here, please!WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT
WilliamRoache Am I missing something? The code here: http://austringer.net/wp/index.....th-part-2/ Includes an example run taking “only” 41 generations. And that’s under 43.
Yes, you are apparently missing something. That Python example makes 10250 attempts. Multiply the outer loop count (41) by the number of generations (250). That's 10250 just like the output indicates.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT
WilliamRoache: Here is a video of Dawkin’s Weasel, as written originally. http://austringer.net/wp/index.....-evidence/
Take a look at that video at 9:47. Notice how "Darwin" reaches the goal at 2485 attempts. That is not 43 generations as Dawkins claimed in his book. So either it's a misprint, or he's using different program here to generate the results than the one he used for his book.
However even video evidence will not convince those who do not want to be convinced.
Convince me of what?mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
11:18 AM
11
11
18
AM
PDT
mike1962,
I would like to see anyone to write a program that can get to Dawkin’s target string in 43 iterations without using explicit latching
Am I missing something? The code here: http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/04/20/the-weasel-saga-with-math-part-2/ Includes an example run taking "only" 41 generations. And that's under 43. Now you've seen what you'd like to see (and more) now what? Unless you can point to the line (there are only 34 of them) of code that does the latching you've seen what you wanted to, right? Are you now a believer in the power of non-latched cumulative selection now then? :P Or perhaps it's that it was Dawkins who made the claim he did it in 43 and by definition anything he says is impossible or just plain wrong? But that can't be it, can it?WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
10:49 AM
10
10
49
AM
PDT
Non latching (real) Weasel: http://www.antievolution.org/features/ec/weasel102.htmlWilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
mike1962, excellent point. It takes about 26 queries for a deterministic search.Mung
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT
mike1962,
I would like to see anyone to write a program that can get to Dawkin’s target string in 43 iterations without using explicit latching:
That sounds like the original Dawkin's version to me. If you think otherwise please provide a quote from Dawkins that shows he intended letters to be fixed in place once correct. I offered $10,000 to KF for such a quote previously but he never managed to come up with one. Here is a video of Dawkin's Weasel, as written originally. http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/03/15/dembski-weasel-and-video-level-evidence/ However even video evidence will not convince those who do not want to be convinced. You can see the mathematical differences between explicitly latched and unlatched versions here: http://austringer.net/wp/index.php/2009/04/18/the-weasel-saga-with-math-part-1/ There's not that much of a difference really.WilliamRoache
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
10:26 AM
10
10
26
AM
PDT
DrBot, While it is certainly possible to write Weasel programs without explicit latching, I would like to see anyone to write a program that can get to Dawkin's target string in 43 iterations without using explicit latching: Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P [2] Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASELmike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
Mike1962 “The scientific methodology you apparently are happy to hang you hat on excludes design a priori” Liz: no it doesn’t. Ask any forensic scientist
Right. Forensic scientists don't have an a priori commitment against intelligent causation. If you don't either, then that's great.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
DrBot:
What would a non-latching system look like?
One that lacks either an explicit or an implicit latching mechanism.
There seems to be a difficulty understanding the difference between mechanism and the effects of mechanism. If the word "latching" means anything at all, it must mean that "correct" letters cannot mutate. This would require an elaborate mechanism within the mutation mechanism. Not only would the "best" of a generation not show mutations at the correct locus, but none of the offspring would show such mutations. This is quite clearly not the case in any practical GA. What you call implicit latching is simply the effect of selection. What a GA without latching or implicit latching would be what real GAs look like. Random variation, fecundity, and selection. The appearance of implicit latching simply reflects the rarity of simultaneous compensating mutations.Petrushka
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
mung: Was this in the segment of code you posted earlier?
Yep. From the website you provided.mike1962
July 5, 2011
July
07
Jul
5
05
2011
07:17 AM
7
07
17
AM
PDT
DrBot:
What would a non-latching system look like?
One that lacks either an explicit or an implicit latching mechanism.Mung
July 4, 2011
July
07
Jul
4
04
2011
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 10

Leave a Reply