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
Do you have a reference for that? Or were you just blowing smoke?
Obviously I was just blowing smoke, if you look through the literature you will see that when people refer to a targeted search, as compared to a general search or an un-targeted search, they mean that an un-targeted search and a general search are the same as a targeted search and by using a targeted search instead of a general search or vice-versa they are saying that one type of search was more useful for their research than the other type of search, which was the same type of search as the one they were using before, but is better even though it is the same because a targeted search is a search for some things, and so is an un-targeted or general search, which is why they add the term targeted to some instances of the word search but general or un to others, or just use the word search - because they all mean the same thing!DrBot
July 4, 2011
July
07
Jul
4
04
2011
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
Latching at the individual level, where you look at an individual and say “don’t change that” I would call explicit latching. I think that’s what Dawkins has been accused of doing.
Which would have been a mistake on Dawkins part if he did. He doesn't describe any mechanism in WEASEL for locking letters when they are correct and if you implement WEASEL without such a mechanism it works fine.
Then you need to properly define what you mean by implicit.
Basically what you described as selection. Latching via population level mechanisms.
So explicit latching is a non reversible change whilst implicit latching is reversible - anything that can change, then change back is implicit latching. So any system that can change is latching. What would a non-latching system look like?
In the case of WEASEL it’s clearly non-Darwinian and Dawkins admits it.
Yes, because it is a targeted search (there is an explicit target) rather than a general search to match multi variable criteria. Like biological evolution there is no latching mechanism.
I think that’s true of all GA’s.
You are wrong.DrBot
July 4, 2011
July
07
Jul
4
04
2011
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
DrBot:
...why don’t you have a go at finding and reading them, it might help you understand the subject a bit better!
And why don't you go read up on targeted searches. Then we can share what we learn. DrBot @28:
Generally speaking any search has to have a target or it isn’t a search, but ‘targetted’ means something more specific – pre-specified and unchanging (I believe – but I could be wrong)
But the next day you were apparently much more sure of yourself. DrBot @74:
The phrase ‘targeted search’ is more specific and refers to having an explicit, pre-specified goal, rather than a set of dynamic criteria to match. Think about it this way – if all searches have to, by definition, have some form of ‘target’ in the loosest sense then arguing that they are therefore all ‘targeted searches’ is pointless semantics – the word ‘targeted’ is redundant because they are all searches and by definition there have to be targets of some kind. The inclusion of the word ‘targeted’ is there to indicate reference to a subset of search evaluation criteria, namely those that are explicitly defined and fixed in advance.
Do you have a reference for that? Or were you just blowing smoke?Mung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
DrBot:
Then you need to properly define what you mean by implicit.
Basically what you described as selection. Latching via population level mechanisms. Latching at the individual level, where you look at an individual and say "don't change that" I would call explicit latching. I think that's what Dawkins has been accused of doing.
So if you decide that selection is actually ‘implicit latching’ then would you consider selection to be non Darwinian?
It depends on why the selection is taking place. In the case of WEASEL it's clearly non-Darwinian and Dawkins admits it. I think that's true of all GA's.Mung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
03:08 PM
3
03
08
PM
PDT
I would assume it’s because the changes accumulate. From which it follows they are retained. So the question is, what is the mechanism by which they are retained, and is that mechanism non-Darwinian.
It's called selection - in the case of WEASEL, strings with a higher fitness have a greater probability of being copied, and consequently the correct letters that give them high fitness get copied (preserved) but mutation is random with respect to fitness so any letter, even a good one, can be mutated.
I take the position that “latching,” whether explicit or implicit is not non-Darwinian.
Then you need to properly define what you mean by implicit.
To me what makes a process non-Darwinian is why the latching takes place.
So if you decide that selection is actually 'implicit latching' then would you consider selection to be non Darwinian?DrBot
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
The question was, why does Dawkins call it cumulative selection. I would assume it's because the changes accumulate. From which it follows they are retained. So the question is, what is the mechanism by which they are retained, and is that mechanism non-Darwinian. I take the position that "latching," whether explicit or implicit is not non-Darwinian. To me what makes a process non-Darwinian is why the latching takes place.Mung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT
1. You don’t need a selection mechanism. 2. The fitness function does not have to be designed. 3. You can generate your fitness function randomly. What are you talking about?
Evolutionary algorithms, models of biological evolution, and evolution its self. It's quite obvious, and there are tens of thousands of research papers available on these subjects that you could look at if you wanted to - why don't you have a go at finding and reading them, it might help you understand the subject a bit better!DrBot
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT
mung
2. The fitness function does not have to be designed.
they can be just the result of existing in the world - but I suspect you might confuse 'designed' with 'exist' ;)DrBot
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
01:01 PM
1
01
01
PM
PDT
Why then does he call it cumulative selection?
Ever done any hill walking? "Cumulative height gain is a measure of the total height climbed along the route ignoring the downhill sections." A cumulative measure can be one of movement in one direction, ignoring movement in another direction, so cumulative selection does not imply unidirectional movement (i.e. no latching).DrBot
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle @166:
No. You don’t need a “selection mechanism”. All you need is a fitness function, and as is said, you can generate that randomly as well. But obviously if you do in fact want to solve a problem for your own benefit (like writing a nice bit of useful code) then you will design your fitness function. But it doesn’t actually have to be designed.
Hi Elizabeth. Lest I misunderstand you, please put the above quote in context for me. Thanks 1. You don't need a selection mechanism. 2. The fitness function does not have to be designed. 3. You can generate your fitness function randomly. What are you talking about?Mung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
If Dawkins’ original latched, then he made a silly mistake, because obviously biology doesn’t latch, and he’s never claimed that it does.
Why then does he call it cumulative selection?
If Dawkins’ original latched, then he made a silly mistake, because obviously biology doesn’t latch, and he’s never claimed that it does.
I don't think it's at all obvious that biology doesn't latch. Without latching, how do you get nested hierarchies? HOw do you get consistent embryological development?Mung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
You certainly don’t need to latch to get a program that will produce produce Weasel in a matter of minutes, and you don’t need to manipulate the mutation rate either.
The mutation operators have to be tuned to get the desired results. You really should know this. It's just like Dembski's rejection region ;) The WEASEL string contains 28 characters. If you mutate every one of the 28 characters every generation what is the chance that you're going to find a match? So you have to adjust the rate downwards to a certain level or you have no realistic hope of finding the target. We can of course put this claim to the test using one of the available programs. http://evoinfo.org/weaselMung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
11:21 AM
11
11
21
AM
PDT
That reply was with regards to the “random generator”, not latching.
ok, thanks.
Biology doesn’t reduce the mutation rates either the closer it gets to a fitness goal, as the Rosetta Code does, thereby effecting a latch “through the backdoor”, as it were.
Was this in the segment of code you posted earlier? Good catch.Mung
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
10:43 AM
10
10
43
AM
PDT
Liz: "Not only that, but the solutions, so far from being pre-specified, actually surprised the people who set up the GA."
I could write a simple program on my PC that would spit out random words of four characters without any latching (whether explicit or implicit) and print out the results. I may not have specified "MIKE" in any fitness function in the program, but if I let it run for a few days I would probably see "MIKE" output in the results. How surprising! I "never expected" that. But that same program would never output "METHINKS IT'S A WEASEL" in a million years. The search space is small enough to produce "MIKE" (even if the program isn't rewarding advances toward it) but odds are that it's never going to produce the Weasel string. Search space is too large to reasonably expect that. Moreover, I can provide a gap-free history of how "MIKE" was produced by the algorithm. And provide math to show how within the timeframe, how likely it was that "MIKE" would be produced. Now, what would *really* surprise me is if some of the output characters were Chinese Kanji, since A) my program was not capable of producing them, and B) my printer was not capable of rendering them. Now, if I came across this computer and printer, and knew little of the algorithm, and someone handed me a print out with Kanji characters on it and told me that the program and printer were producing these, I would have to be skeptical. You get my point? That antennae producing GA program you mention probably produced lots and lots of crappy results too. And also some good ones and very good ones. Some of the good ones "surprised" the engineers. But they programed the algorithm in the first place with certain parameters and with a quantifiable search space. They may be "surprised" when the see certain result (since they weren't looking for them), but the results never exceeded the predetermined search spaces or the capabilities of the GA system. And they actually ran empirical tests! If one engineer asked another to prove that a particular design came from this GA system s/he could demonstrate that it did, and provide a gap-free history of it's production. And the math to back it up. How does that compare with what we know about biology Is the known DNA replicator, and the known sources of stochastic variations + natural selection capable of covering the search space required to make a human eye at some point? Nobody knows.mike1962
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
Liz: On the other hand, programs that produce good radio antennae are very like biological evolution because they actually result in a functional piece of kit that is even directly analogous to the sense organs sported by some organisms. Not only that, but the solutions, so far from being pre-specified, actually surprised the people who set up the GA.
Indeed. So, are the known sources of stochastic variations + natural selection (the "fitness rewarder") capable of covering the search space required to make a human eye? Nobody knows.mike1962
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
07:01 AM
7
07
01
AM
PDT
Liz: If Dawkins’ original latched, then he made a silly mistake, because obviously biology doesn’t latch.
Biology doesn't reduce the mutation rates either the closer it gets to a fitness goal, as the Rosetta Code does, thereby effecting a latch "through the backdoor", as it were.mike1962
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
Mung, The full quote is this:
Liz: “Well, a powerful enough self-replicator. The random generator doesn’t have to be intelligently designed.” Me: The one you use and the one Dawkins uses is, and is fitting for the kind of fast result your program is designed to produce.
That reply was with regards to the "random generator", not latching. At any rate, I'd like to see Liz's code. I suspect it implicitly latches in the same way as the code on that page you cited.mike1962
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
You certainly don't need to latch to get a program that will produce produce Weasel in a matter of minutes, and you don't need to manipulate the mutation rate either. If Dawkins' original latched, then he made a silly mistake, because obviously biology doesn't latch, and he's never claimed that it does. It would be a weird mistake, though, because, as Mung says, it's not only unnecessary, but more complicated to do. And, as we can see from the published versions, many don't and still work. I won't bother to re-write one, because I think the point is made. And yes, it's not a good model of incremental functionality, and was never intended to be. My own, which "rewards" pronouncable strings, whole words and grammatical word combinations is somewhat better, but language based algorithms are a very poor model of biology because proteins are not very like text, and evolutionary process are very little like the processes by which we produce it. On the other hand, programs that produce good radio antennae are very like biological evolution because they actually result in a functional piece of kit that is even directly analogous to the sense organs sported by some organisms. Not only that, but the solutions, so far from being pre-specified, actually surprised the people who set up the GA. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
July 2, 2011
July
07
Jul
2
02
2011
12:22 AM
12
12
22
AM
PDT
Mung: I think you need to recognise the point above, that the evidence of the 1986 runs is that the O/P was latched. The evidence in hand is that this can be achieved by writing in latching code explicitly, or by so manipulating the rates and generation sizes etc that on "good" runs you get a latched o/p; even absent specific explicit latching code. Dawkins' published runs in the literature in 1986, show IIRC 200+ "advances" and no reversions. He doubtless selected what at the time looked like "good" runs, and published them. That latching of the o/p whether achieved explicitly or implicitly, serves to underscore the REAL problem, that the code rewards increments in mere proximity to target, regardless of the non-functionality of the "nonsense" phrases. This is not a good model of differential success on improved functionality achieved by chance variation, and inadvertently points to the problem of getting to the shores of islands of function in large config spaces. By side=tracking into a debate over explicit vs implicit latching, we are allowing Darwinists to get away with begging that very big question. How big is it? let's just say that he concept of complex, specified information pivots on the issue of finding special, narrow and separately describable zones on searching large config spaces without intelligent direction of the search. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
10:10 PM
10
10
10
PM
PDT
I prefer to not argue with design proponents, but at times I think it is prudent to do so. We need to have integrity. I try not to have a double standard.Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
08:54 PM
8
08
54
PM
PDT
Me: mike1962's accusation was that Lizzie’s version incorporated latching. mike1962: No, actually, I said Dawkins’s does. So let's review: mike1962 @160:
Dawkin’s “weasel” string is highly specified, and the latching mechanism is very simple compared to the search string, i.e, the “context” of selection.
Elizabeth Liddle @163:
Ah. If there was a “latching mechanism”, then I agree, it wasn’t Darwinian.
Elizabeth Liddle @163:
But was there? I’ve written one, and I certainly didn’t latch. They are dead easy to write. It wouldn’t be much fun if you latched, anyway.
Elizabeth Liddle @166:
But I don’t think Dawkins’ one latched, and all the copies I’ve seen didn’t, and the one I wrote myself didn’t.
mike1962 @197:
Let’s see your code. The one you use and the one Dawkins uses is, and is fitting for the kind of fast result your program is designed to produce.
Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
08:49 PM
8
08
49
PM
PDT
Mung: The issue of latching is therefore moot.
I disagree. Whether it's done explicitly, or by subterfuge (in these cases, but decreasing the mutation rate) the effect is the same. They effect latches by decreasing the mutation rate. A latch is a latch thru the front door or the back. Leave the mutation rate at the initial value and see how far it gets.mike1962
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT
kairofocus: 3: THE PUBLISHED RUNS C 1986 SHOW WAS IT 200+ ADVANCES AND ZERO REVERSIONS.
Yep. This is why I said Dawkins's version latched. (Even though I've never seen the code.) I didn't say Lizzie's latched. Although, if it's analogous to the example Mung pointed us to, it does latch in a fuzzy way, still subject to more vanishing probabilities of mutation.mike1962
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT
mung: How many of those versions of the “weasel” program incorporate latching?
It's not done directly, but via the "backdoor" by decreasing the mutation rate, and whenever a random value falls under the rate, which is more and more does as the mutation rate decreases, notice how the parent (*parptr) character is copied. This in effect is a "fuzzing" latching, I would say. void mutate(TgtString kid, TgtString parent, float mutateRate) { char *cp; char *parptr = parent; for (cp = kid; *parptr; cp++, parptr++) { *cp = (frand() < mutateRate)? randChar() : *parptr; } *cp = 0; }mike1962
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT
mung: mike1962?s accusation was that Lizzie’s version incorporated latching.
No, actually, I said Dawkins's does.mike1962
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
07:39 PM
7
07
39
PM
PDT
mike1962's accusation was that Lizzie's version incorporated latching. He has no evidence that this is in fact the case. The failure of Lizzie to present her version for inspection proves what? Latching is not required for a "weasel" style program to succeed in finding the target phrase. The issue of latching is therefore moot. See my link @201. How many of those versions of the "weasel" program incorporate latching?Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
07:09 PM
7
07
09
PM
PDT
Mike1962: 1: Explicit latrching is of course a well known implementaiton of Weasel. 2: Implicit latching is a demonstrated fact. 3: THE PUBLISHED RUNS C 1986 SHOW WAS IT 200+ ADVANCES AND ZERO REVERSIONS. 4: best explanation: these were "good" runs, which implicitly latched. 5: In any case, Dawkins long since confessed to the root problem, targetted search on mere proximity for NONSENSE phrases, the latching debate was a side-issue meant to be the red herring led away to the ad hominem soaked strawman. As usual. 6: UD long ago showed what seems to have been a credible more or less original Weasel and it could latch implicitly. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT
Yes, it would take more lines of code to latch than not.
And I don't know what I'm talking about ;) (I'm not making reference to a claim you made.)Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
As a cognitive neuroscientist, I’m very interested in how intelligent design works, so I certainly don’t exclude it a priori!
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1592535879 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0750660775 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0750664487 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1847886361Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT
Exactly Mung. And thanks :) Yes, it would take more lines of code to latch than not.Elizabeth Liddle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:46 PM
4
04
46
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 10

Leave a Reply