Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Selling Stupid

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
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
There's even a matlab version!Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT
OMG! Lizzie, my link trumps yours any day. ;) http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithmMung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT
p.s. I am willing to take your word for it! Mark this day!Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:40 PM
4
04
40
PM
PDT
Lizzie, I don't care whether your code latches or not :) Say a string matches more closely than any other the target phrase. That string will be preferentially selected and more copies of it will appear in the next generation. Unless the mutation rate is too high, chance favors that the matching letters will not be changed. So one can control the "appearance of latching" (haha) by choosing an appropriate mutation rate. Frankly I think it takes more programming effort (offering my opinion as a programmer) to introduce a latching mechanism than not. So I consider it more likely that there isn't one in your program nor was there one in Dawkins' program. He's not a programmer.Mung
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
Mike1962: I had a look for mine, but I must deleted the folder. However, there are lots here: http://like-a-weasel.blogspot.com/ Re your last point: "The scientific methodology you apparently are happy to hang you hat on excludes design a priori" - no it doesn't. Ask any forensic scientist :) Or me. As a cognitive neuroscientist, I'm very interested in how intelligent design works, so I certainly don't exclude it a priori!Elizabeth Liddle
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
"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."
Let's see your code.
"Well, a powerful enough self-replicator. The random generator doesn’t have to be intelligently designed."
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. The ones found in nature are not analogous. And it is unknown when they are powerful enough along with natural selection to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans.
"No. You don’t need a “selection mechanism”. All you need is a fitness function,"
What's the difference?
"you can generate that randomly as well."
Does nature have such a thing powerful enough to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans. Nobody knows. You can believe it does, or wish it does, or "assume it does for the sake of parsimony, Occam's Razor" or whatever else. But the hypothesis is undemonstrated. I'm still not getting on that airplane.
"But simple changes are all we need. No-one is postulating radical changes, except as the accumulation of simple changes over time."
However, it is unknown if the known "simple" variations that exist in nature plus natural selection is powerful enough to produce novel cell types, tissue types, organs or body plans. Do the chemical/mechanism pathways exist for this sort of blind incremental change to produce the aforementioned? Nobody knows. It's an open question.
"The reason is a simple scientific principle, which is parsimony, otherwise known as Occam’s razor."
Occam's Razor is a guiding principle of science. Occam's razor is not a license to avoid demonstrating your hypothesis. The Modern Synthesis is the best anti-design materialist hypothesis going. Nobody is arguing with that. But that's not saying much at this point.
"It has nothing to do with “materialistic faith”. It is simply to do with scientific methodology: "
The scientific methodology you apparently are happy to hang you hat on excludes design a priori, and seems to be happy to extend the inference into very deep uncharted waters when the hypothesis has only been proven in the most shallow of puddles. No sale.mike1962
July 1, 2011
July
07
Jul
1
01
2011
04:05 PM
4
04
05
PM
PDT
William, I have no idea what you're talking about. I offered a clear test that can be done. You're saying that I might move the goalposts and therefore my proposed test doesn't prove anything?Mung
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT
p.s. I could be mistaken about whether that provides a reproductive advantage. That may not change the ratio of sip/instruction. So it could be that they award the additional sip so that it won't be out-reproduced by organisms with shorter genomes. But isn't that still stacking the deck? So here what we can do, if that is the case. Don't reward sips based on genome length. That would ensure differential reproduction wouldn't it? Also, my original test was that we would only disable the rewards for the simpler functions, not all logic functions. So if they evolved a complex function they would still out-compete.Mung
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Mung,
not that they can evolve them by a strictly Darwinian process?
What, you mean that the computers themselves need to breed and evolve themselves first? Next you'll be saying that you can only simulate parachute drops by dropping the computer running the simulation out of a plane! If you can't tell the difference between "designed to evolve" and "evolved" does that not tell us something striking about the very idea of "designed to evolve"? About how very unnecessary it is? So is it your position that only the first replicator was designed and all biological diversity is natural from that point on?WilliamRoache
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
12:19 PM
12
12
19
PM
PDT
Am I mistaken in believing that this is the same as saying removing the advantage of possibly beneficial mutations in a cell?
The avida organism is given two means by which it can attain additional processing resources. Finding a logic function is only one of them.
Digital organisms compete for the energy needed to execute instructions. Energy occurs as discrete quanta called ‘single-instruction processing’ units, or SIPs. Each SIP suffices to execute one instruction. By executing instructions, a digital organism can express phenotypes that enable it to obtain more energy and copy its genome. In Avida, organisms can acquire energy by two mechanisms. First, each organism receives SIPs in proportion to its genome length. Second, an organism can obtain further SIPs by performing one- and two-input logic operations on 32-bit strings (Supplementary Information).
So all an organism needs to do to gain a reproductive advantage is evolve a longer genome. And even what you say were true, doesn't that still make my same point, that they were designed to evolve complex functions, not that they can evolve them by a strictly Darwinian process? Here's another point to consider. Does having a longer genome increase an organisms chance to evolve the complex logic function? If we remove that part of the simulation and left everything else as is, what would happen?Mung
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
UTE: Go read Dawkins' own weasel words, Correct letters are being preserved because they move nonsense -- non-functional -- phrases closer to a pre-loaded "distant target." He himself admits this is misleading. Indeed, Weasel is a case of intelligent design. Other EAs and GAs have similar but subtler failings. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
June 30, 2011
June
06
Jun
30
30
2011
12:26 AM
12
12
26
AM
PDT
*removing = removeute
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
09:40 PM
9
09
40
PM
PDT
Mung: '2. Remove the rewards for “evolving” simpler logic functions.' Am I mistaken in believing that this is the same as saying removing the advantage of possibly beneficial mutations in a cell?ute
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PDT
Doesn't the search need to be targetted in some ways to mimick natural selection. So for example, in the weasel program, a letter is locked in because it is mimicking a beneficial mutation that becomes fixed. TBH, I have no idea how avida works, but doesn't the same idea apply?ute
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
09:22 PM
9
09
22
PM
PDT
DrBot Quote-Mine DrBot:
Generally speaking any search has to have a target or it isn’t a search …
Mung:
Thank you, thank you, thank you. I can’t believe how often I have to argue over this very simple fact (MathGrrl comes to mind).
DrBot:
I said: Generally speaking any search has to have a target or it isn’t a search, but ‘targeted’ means something more specific – pre-specified and unchanging
Actually, you took yourself out of context, did a little quote-mining as it were. What you fully wrote (@28) was:
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)
Oh my.Mung
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
08:21 PM
8
08
21
PM
PDT
On the Evolution of Complexity via a Darwinian Process Elizabeth Liddle:
But the argument that once Darwinian process have got going they can’t generate further functional complexity is simply falsified by programs like Avida.
I say the claim is not falsified by Avida. Other programs like Avida I am not aware of. Avida:
The handwritten ancestral genome was 50 instructions long, of which 15 were required for efficient self-replication; the other 35 were tandem copies of a single no-operation instruction (nop-C) that performed no function when executed.
Elizabeth Liddle:
What we can do is test the hypothesis that Darwinian processes, can, for example, generate novelty, complexity, function, etc, given self replicating entities that reproduce with variance, and where that variance results in differential reproduction.
I propose such a test here: 1. Remove the 35 nop-C instructions we'd still have a functional Darwinian replicator. 2. Remove the rewards for "evolving" simpler logic functions. Would Avida still evolve a complex logic function? I seriously doubt it. I say no. There's no reason my claim cannot be falsified. Yet Darwinian processes would still be in operation. What does this tell us about Darwinian processes? What does it tell us about what role Darwinian processes actually play in Avida? Here's what it says to me, an admitted critic. Avida fails to demonstrate that a Darwinian process, operating alone, can evolve complexity. The only reason that it currently does so, is because it is designed to do so. My claim can be falsified.Mung
June 29, 2011
June
06
Jun
29
29
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
Final post of the night:
I do not see why a “purposeless, mindless process” should not produce purposeful entities, and indeed, I think it did and does. - Elizabeth Liddle
I assume by "a purposeless, mindless process which can and did produce purposeful entities" you're speaking of the same "Darwinian process" we're talking about in this thread? I guess that rules out computer programs which are written with a purpose in mind. Like Weasel. Like Avida.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
07:00 PM
7
07
00
PM
PDT
Are GA's "Darwinian?" Elizabeth Liddle:
I’d say it’s the very limitations of Darwinian processes (lack of foresight; inability to transfer solutions from one lineage to another) that make its most powerful differential predictions compared to what you might expect from an Intentional Designer (as exemplified by human designs).
EA's which employ crossover transfer solutions from one lineage to another. Therefore it follows that EA's which use crossover are non-Darwinian. The chromosome/genome in most EA's don't self-replicate. See above.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT
Is Dawkins' Weasel Program "Darwinian?" Elizabeth Liddle:
I use “Darwinian processes” to denote, strictly, processes in which self-replicators replicate with variants, and in which the variance confers different degrees of reproductive success.
The strings in Dawkins' Weasel program do not self-replicate. If follows that according to the definition given Weasel is non-Darwinian.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT
Is "latching" non-Darwinian? We are told that Darwinism predicts a nested hierarchy. For this to be true, don't certain features have to be "latched" or retained and then shared in common by future descendants? Isn't a "latching mechanism" a requirement of the theory? I think the answer is yes. It follows that the claim that the presence of a "latching mechanism" would be non-Darwinian is not true. If a process fails to produce a nested hierarchy, does it follow that it is non-Darwinian?Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT
Interesting...
Even Intelligent Design could be Darwinian, if the Designer merely pre-screened (or designed) the variants, and let the resulting differential reproduction run its course. Darwin did not actually propose a variance-producing mechanism. However, I think this would be stretching things a bit.
Unless Darwinist are now attempting to redefine themselves yet again after a century of failures, this twist makes little sense. Having just seen Nullasus's response, my original would be mostly a repeat. That "assumed" Darwinian mechanisms are easily utilized by Designers. Nullasus said,
In other words, the options here are not ‘evolution or design’, because evolution itself is entirely capable of being subsumed under design in whole or in part. It’s not even ‘selection and variation versus design’, because intelligent agents can both select, and orchestrate variation.
Well said and agreed. Darwinism has always been an unguided process. If not, then there is no purpose for the theory. But Design can have subsets of variation, to the point of extinction.
I use “Darwinian processes” denote, strictly, processes in which self-replicators replicate with variants, and in which the variance confers different degrees of reproductive success.
That is a limited definition of Darwinism w/o explanation of micro steps to macro complexity. Reproductive success does not indicate growing complexity like Dawkins Weasel program, which created specified complexity. The end goal, the target compared to by a search, does not exist in true Unguided processes and is not recognizeable. Survival is not a target for a blind process. Reproductive success is not a target. No matter how much a Darwinist wants to make up just so stories. Survival and fitness have no reality in blind processes.
"Weasel is Darwinian. It just has an extremely simple problem to solve and that problem has only one solution."
Wrong, it is an extreme account of disinformation to the public at-large. Weasel is not Darwinian, it is Design by an intelligent mind. What we observe today is variation, drift, and entropy. We do not observe creation of higher complexity, by unguided gradual processes. We do not observe whale tales or bear tales by Darwin, or any new fictionalized accounts told by Dawkins. But, Genetic Entropy is being confirmed... Dr. John Sanford's Genetic Entropy DATCG
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
06:12 PM
6
06
12
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
But the argument that once Darwinian process have got going they can’t generate further functional complexity is simply falsified by programs like Avida.
I hope you realize that if Avida is non-Darwinian then it follows that the claim has not been falsified. Also, if the ability to generate functional complexity is not inherent in the "Darwinian process" itself that is used by Avida, again, the claim is not falsified.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
WEASEL - A targeted goal, compared by an intelligently designed program to reach that end goal is "Darwinian." Who knew? Since when did Darwinist accept programmatic Design by intelligence as Darwinian? Dembski, et al., dealt with Dawkins program here... Designed Outcomes Dawkins improved upon Darwins orignal bear to whale story. A fiction quickly pulled by Darwin after embarrassment. The contemporary version is still fictionalizing science. Turning it into a prophetic movement, more than scientific inquiry for public understanding. As for AVIDA, thats a failure in logic as well. Introducing a target no matter how complex a derivation scheme is still intentional. Therefore intent modifies the outcome, not blind processes. It is still using Active Information... AVIDA Stair Step Active Information to intelligently guide an outcome. Simulating a prophesied inefficiency does not prove a theory. It is a more complex Weasel program designed by programmers better than Dawkins, albeit, inefficiently. It does not simulate any observed Macro mechanism in nature that we know of, only fictional accounts that Darwinians think may have happened based upon assumptions, fictional guesses and a theory that has continued to produce failed predictions, such as vestigial organs and "junk" DNA. What AVIDA shows is Design works.DATCG
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:42 PM
5
05
42
PM
PDT
I think design is a perfectly legitimate domain of scientific enquiry, and in principle detectable in patterns through well-designed (heh) hypothesis testing. That's nice. I disagree in part, but I'll put that aside for now. But what I'm saying here is not that 'inferring design is a legitimate domain of scientific enquiry'. I'm saying that inferring non-design, non-purpose, non-guided - clearly to the extent it has been in contemporary evolutionary biology - is scientifically unsupported, not demonstrable, and largely the result of metaphysics rather than science. Further, my point wasn't merely that some organisms are 'designed'. It's that evolutionary mechanisms, including many supposedly 'Darwinian' mechanisms, are not only entirely capable of being used by an intelligent agent, but already have been shown to be in particular cases. Evolutionary mechanisms are yet more tools for intelligent agents. In other words, the options here are not 'evolution or design', because evolution itself is entirely capable of being subsumed under design in whole or in part. It's not even 'selection and variation versus design', because intelligent agents can both select, and orchestrate variation.nullasalus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
Sorry, my post above was to Mung. Nullasalus: I should make it clear that I have no problem with Design as a hypothesis. As you point out, some organisms we know are, partly "designed", e.g. by Monsanto, or Craig Venter, or even John Sanford! I think design is a perfectly legitimate domain of scientific enquiry, and in principle detectable in patterns through well-designed (heh) hypothesis testing. I just thought I'd make that clear. Anyway, it's past my bedtime - see you guys later :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
Good question: They are "conserved" because they replicate consistently better than any variant of them. In other words, they are very un-robust - all but slight changes have disastrous consequences. So they are still vulnerable to mutations, but the mutated versions don't propagate through the population. Other sequences are far more robust to changes - many polymorphisms function just fine, and indeed provide the population with the allelic diversity that enables it to adapt to changing environments. But as you can imagine, something like a hox gene will be highly conserved (and is) because if you mess up which end is head and which end is tail you aren't likely to get a viable organism!Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Well, in Fisherian hypothesis testing that’s exactly what it means. Wonderful. Inappropriate in this context. Exactly. Formulating your null is absolutely crucial. Without a clearly formulated null, we cannot make any successful inference. Except the 'unguided and purposeless' position is not clearly formulated, and not all inferences are scientific inferences besides. No, it certainly is not demonstrated. Indeed. What we can do is test the hypothesis that Darwinian processes, can, for example, generate novelty, complexity, function, etc, given self replicating entities that reproduce with variance, and where that variance results in differential reproduction. Except A) we're unable to test the most crucial part of the 'Darwinian processes' under discussion here - the lack of guidance or goal, either in past or present evolutionary scenarios, and B) insofar as we can demonstrate the capabilities of those processes, we can likewise demonstrate the capability for intelligent input at each and every stage to generate desired results as well. To put it another way, whether or not "unguided and purposeless processes" in the relevant sense even exist is outside of science, and empirically undemonstrable. But the existence of guided and purposeful processes, at least on a certain level, is not only demonstrable, but their ability to make use of evolutionary processes is also demonstrated. So that means we have a candidate mechanism for the generation of novelty etc in a system that reproduces with variance etc. And the candidate mechanism isn't the concern here. The mechanisms in question can be either guided or unguided, purposeful or non-purposeful. But we only have evidence of the purposeful and guided existing. The unpurposeful and unguided? It's metaphysical assumption, and superfluous. And we cannot conclude that those gaps are not filled with something extraordinary like a God. However, nor can we conclude that they are. A) The problem here isn't merely the gaps, but the conception of the mechanisms, period. Attempts to fill in the gaps with the unguided and unpurposeful is an exercise in metaphysics, not science. B) The intelligent agent need not be God, and what is or is not extraordinary is in large part that of opinion anyway. There are, for example, salmon who grow faster now. Determining that the salmon did not come about by an unguided, purposeless process does not require positing God - it requires positing Monsanto. C) We can certainly infer that Monsanto had a role. In principle, we can infer other intelligences as well. Can we demonstrate it beyond a doubt? No, but that's not necessary for science anyway. Will there be scientists who disagree? Probably, but consensus isn't necessary either. And what's really not necessary is the assumption 'it's unguided and without purpose'.nullasalus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
If there was a “latching mechanism”, then I agree, it wasn’t Darwinian.
First, I don't doubt that your program did not have a latching mechanism and I think someone can write a "weasel" program that functions without one. But second, why would such a thing be non-Darwinian? What is the explanation for conserved sequences other than that they have been "latched?"Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:05 PM
5
05
05
PM
PDT
Probably, somewhere. It's in MatLab. I'll see if I can find it. I wrote a cooler one, though, that evolved sort of daft English sentences, by rewarding pronouncable syllables and English words from a lexicon. I even had some grammar in there - extra reward for noun verb noun and article-noun. I'll try to dig it out.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
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.
Hi Lizzie, do you still have a copy of the program you wrote?Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 10

Leave a Reply