Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simply Not Credible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Comments
Clive Hayden @ 177 "Then you’re saying that the text in a book, it’s actual chemical composition is what makes up the message, not the metaphysical understanding of symbols." The text in a book AND the metaphysical understandinig of symbols. Your mind and the knowledge and memories that make it up as well as the information processing it does are as material as the ink and paper of a book.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:34 PM
10
10
34
PM
PDT
ROb @176 You are welcome.tgpeeler
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:22 PM
10
10
22
PM
PDT
djmullen, Clive #177 understands the point quite clearly. The point is that the organization of the information we are discussing is not defined by laws of physics -- mathematical descriptions of regularities emerging from the physical properties of matter/energy.CJYman
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT
djmullen: "Your example of the child placing magnetic letter on the fridge corresponds to mutations creating new patterns in the DNA. Mom looking at the letters and deciding whether they make sense or not is equivalent to natural selection seeing if they can operate a cell or not." You will definitely want to read my comment #141 again, since your response has nothing to do with the point I was making which I stated quite clearly. I was in no way attacking any theory of evolution or even "Darwinism."CJYman
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
01:24 PM
1
01
24
PM
PDT
djmullen,
I say that ALL language is MATERIAL. Please show me any language that is not material. And good luck with showing anybody anything that is not material.
Then you're saying that the text in a book, it's actual chemical composition is what makes up the message, not the metaphysical understanding of symbols.Clive Hayden
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
tgpeeler, my only interest was finding out your definition of information, which I now take to be the following:
Information is an abstract, that is to say immaterial MESSAGE that is encoded by one living thing in matter and energy for delivery to another living thing.
Thank you.R0b
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 163 "Information is an abstract, that is to say immaterial MESSAGE that is encoded by one living thing in matter and energy for delivery to another living thing." I say that ALL language is MATERIAL. Please show me any language that is not material. And good luck with showing anybody anything that is not material.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
04:01 AM
4
04
01
AM
PDT
joseph @ 157 "OK wait- without any target how can one differentiate between cumulative selection and a random walk?" Because RM + NS + Environment produces the CSI necessary to operate a cell in the environment the CSI is extracted from. A random walk produces random information that is not related to running a cell in any way.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
CYJman @ 154 "3. Law+chance would produce what you would expect from law and chance — a uniform probability distribution (max. randomness) and mere regularities — the opposite of what measurement constitutes active info." But law + chance + environment can produce a very non-uniform distribution. It can produce the CSI that is necessary to run a cell in that particular environment. You can also think of it as extracting the information from the environment and putting it into the DNA if you wish.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:50 AM
3
03
50
AM
PDT
CJYman @ 142 "“Language” would be a system of rules and symbols. “Symbols” themselves, when operating within a set of rules would be considered as “information.”" Now you've got it!djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
CJYman @ 141: "… exactly! And it is this combination/organization of “bases” in a DNA string which does not emerge from any mathematical description of regularity (law) or the physical properties of the “base” molecules. This is the point that tgpeeler is attempting to get across when he speaks of symbols, rules, and the laws of physics — a point which I believe he has stated quite well; I’m honestly not sure why some people here seem to be refusing to actually listen to what he is saying." Because he then muddies the water by including symbols, rules and language. Symbols and rules are parts of language, not information. Language uses information, but it's not identical to it. The data gets into the DNA/RNA or whatever through mutation and all the non-specified information is tossed out by natural selection. Language and symbols have nothing to do with it. CJYMan: "Furthermore, there is no physical law which can be used to calculate whether a stretch of DNA is “meaningful” or not." Nope. To do that, you try to use the new DNA pattern to run the new cell. If it works as well as or better than the original, it's meaningful and natural selection keeps it. If not, it's noise and natural selection destroys it (along with the poor cell that got stuck with it.) Your example of the child placing magnetic letter on the fridge corresponds to mutations creating new patterns in the DNA. Mom looking at the letters and deciding whether they make sense or not is equivalent to natural selection seeing if they can operate a cell or not.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT
ScottAndrews @ 135: "Darwinism offers a “grab bag” of mechanisms and causes, but rarely attempts to explain specifically which are responsible for any given outcome." What? What's responsible for the peacock's tail? A: Sexual selection. What's responsible for the hummingbird's bill? A: Natural selection. I can go on like this for hundreds of examples. What's the ID explanation for those examples? Be specific, please. "And then, when it does, it offers no specifics – what was the series of mutations that led from A to B, how were they selected and fixed, etc." Nor does ID. Not surprising in either case for something that happened over a long period of time a long time ago at the sub microscopic level. When ID can come up with a list of the mutations that their designer designed to go from A to B, ID advocates will have earned the right to ask questions like the one you just asked. And saying that ID is only interested in detecting design is NOT an answer.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT
Joseph @ 132 If the Spetner you're talking about is Lee Spetner, then there's no hope for an intelligent conversation here. If you have any evidence that mutations are non-random with respect to fitness, please present it. "And if the ToE is scientific we should be able to test it to see if an accumulation of genetic accidents can account for the transformations required." How about converting a grass to corn? Is that enough of a transformation for you?djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 126: "The information does not “come from the atoms that attach together.” What universe do you live in? The information is ENCODED in the atoms. For there to be information requires symbols and rules." That's a very basic mistake you're making. Every arrangement of atoms, every arrangement of anything, contains information. The information, as I've said, includes what kind of atoms, their internal states, their arrangement, their orientation - anything that can be measured or observed. Another way to look at it is that every group of atoms contains the information that would be needed to duplicate that group of atoms. Say you've got Michaelangelo's statue of David and you want to make an exact duplicate of it. You could scan the statue and use the information from that scan to sculpt another block of marble into the same form as David. But it wouldn't be exact because the atoms of the second block wouldn't be in exactly the same positions as the atoms in the original and some of the atoms would be in a different atomic state and so on. To truly duplicate the original statue, you'd need every bit of information in the original and that would be an enormous amount. But at no time would any language be necessary. Languages are much higher level than anything you'll find in a statue or a cell. It takes more than a look-up table and a start and a stop codon to make a language.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
Joseph: " How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum “evolved” by random mutations and natural selection?" That's a question I'd like to ask of ID. How can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum was created by an intelligent designer? Can you tell us who the designer was? Can you tell us when it was created? Can you tell us how it was created? Can you tell us the mechanism of its creation? ("Poof" vs supernatural microtweezers, for instance.) Can you tell us what it was made out of? I'm betting you can't, since ID doesn't have any evidence of how it occurred. Evolutionists, on the other hand, have a mechanism (RM + NS) along with precursor molecules that were the likely building blocks for the flagellum. It would be nice if ID people stopped demanding answers that they themselves cannot give until they could offer at least as much evidence as evolutionists.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
tgpeeler @ 164: What happened was the weekend. You appear to be debating with people who have lives. tgpeeler from 59: You never answered my question: Which individual parts of a cell are alive? Just askin. tgpeeler @ 110: Yes, I read your message. "It doesn't matter if materialism is true" lines up with “the information physically embedded in the organism” because even if there is a non-material aspect to the universe, life as we know it appears to do just fine with the information physically imbedded in it and with evolution as a material means of adding to that information. TGP: "If materialism is true, then there is no information." I say that's nonsense. Information is material in nature. In cells it exists as the physical patterns in DNA, RNA, methylation, etc. In your brain, information exists as various types of memory which in turn is made from the actual wiring of the brain, firing potentials of different synapses and stuff we are still learning about. But there's no trace of any intelligences hiding amongst your neurons. TGP: “Seems to be enough” Really. What does that mean, exactly? It means that we know of no instance in which the information physically encoded in cells plus environmental inputs are insufficient to account for life as we know it. There appears to not only be no need for a supernatural entity to create and operate a cell, there is no place to put such an entity if one existed. tgp: "How does it account for the fact that it’s wrong to take advantage of weaker people?" What does that have to do with cells? tgp: "How does it account for the fact that the material brain can interact with and manipulate abstractions (math) to describe the physical world?" Because your material brain has information imbedded in it (in its various forms of memory) to enable your material brain to communicate with the physical world through physical nerve transmissions which actuate and recieve information from your physical hands, lips, eyes, etc. tgp: “'no minds are necessary' Really. Then HOW do you account for information? Go ahead, tell me." Haven't you been reading all the Weasel threads? Or have you been concentrating on all the "latched - non latched" silliness and ignoring the information transfer? Let me explain Weasel to you in short, simple sentences: Remember the "target", "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"? Pretend that's an exotic form of DNA with 27 different bases. Further assume that that particular pattern is the best possible DNA of length 28. Finally, assume that the original starting DNA is "ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" and that this pattern will just barely run the cell. It will grow, but slowly, and it will divide, but slowly. Finally, assume no combinations will work except the original "ABCD..." and "METHINKS..." Now run the Weasel program (or mutation and natural selection as it's called in the case of a cell) and assume, strictly for the purposes of illustration, that the first changes are all to the left-most position, so that we get these successive tries: "ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" "BBCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" "ZBCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" "GBCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" "A", "B", "Z" and "G" all work more poorly in the first position than "A" or "M", so natural selection discards them. Then we get this on the next try: "MBCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" Whoops! That "M" in the first position is more fit than the original "A", so we keep it. We have now gone from our original DNA, which was "ABCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" to "MBCDEFGHIJKLM NOPQRSTUVWXYZ" which works better than the original. That "M" in the first position does its job better than the original "A". Do you realize what we've done here? We've added information to the genome! Not only that, but it's SPECIFIED information - it meets the specification of running a cell successfully and it does it better than the original "A". Did you notice that it was a two-step process to add this new Specified Information? The first four times we added new information to the left-most position, but it wasn't good information, so we threw it away. That is, when we tried to run the resulting new cell, it didn't do as well as the original and the cell died out and took that DNA pattern with it. Then, the fifth time, we hit paydirt. We changed the left-most position AND when we attempted to run the new cell with the new DNA pattern it ran BETTER than the original and replaced it. Evolution in action! Did you notice that you can't even feed a two-step process like RM+NS into the Explanitory Filter? Maybe that's why you've all been overlooking it for twenty years. Everything I described above is material in nature. Natural mistakes copying the DNA, natural attempts to run the cell with it, natural disposal of the inferior pattern and finally natural selection when a better pattern appeared. Do this twenty eight times and you wind up with "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL". Know what that is? It's COMPLEX SPECIFIED INFORMATION! Exactly what ID says only an intelligent mind can produce, except there was no mind involved here whatsoever! This whole argument you have all been obsessing over about The One True Program and latching / non latching has been effective mainly in keeping any of you from noticing that: 1: Weasel (and hence evolution) adds information to the genome and 2: Cumulative selection utterly demolishes ALL of the ID arguments about how it will take umteen gazillion megayears to create a 100 amino acid protein. The correct formula turns out not to be P(A) X P(B). It's more like P(A) + P(B). (See here: http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm) That is the true meaning of the Weasel program. ID is going to have to stop wasting their time on latching foolishness and deal with the fact that variation and natural selection CAN add Complex Specified Information to the genome AND do it in reasonable lengths of time.djmullen
September 28, 2009
September
09
Sep
28
28
2009
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
Tom, Perhaps they are waiting for you to shut up. Or, perghaps its the clarifying effect of logic. In either case, congratulations.Upright BiPed
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
What happened? Did I enter another universe? Did they close down the posting to this thread?tgpeeler
September 27, 2009
September
09
Sep
27
27
2009
07:53 PM
7
07
53
PM
PDT
ROb: “So I’m aware that he defines information in a way that entails the presence of language. But I still don’t know what that definition is.” CJYman: I’m not sure where you are getting hung up, since according to tgpeeler “information = (is defined as) language = (is defined as) symbols and rules.” Is it the definition of symbols and rules that you are unsure of? It appears to me that, if you continue reading the rest of tgpeeler’s comment, he explains “symbols and rules.” If I may be allowed some further clarification. First, to CJYman. I am not saying that information is = to symbols and rules. I am saying that language is = to symbols and rules. The language is used to encode information, which may then be transmitted, and then decoded on the other end. To ROb. It appears that there is still some question about the definition of information. As you know, information can be defined in several different ways. To Shannon, for example, it was the reduction of uncertainty. He dealt with the statistical level of information and not with the syntactic or semantic content. I use the term as the many evolutionary writers use the word, whom I've quoted above, by the way, including Dawkins, Crick, Yockey, and Kuppers. There's an umlaut over the "u" in Kuppers but I don't believe this site supports umlauts. For crying out loud, Dawkins says that "life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information" or did you miss that one? Why don't you ask him: Well Richard, what do you mean by that?? Huh??? Well out with it. Otherwise we'll know you are a fraud. Why don't you ask Crick what he means? Or any of them. What it means is that if there is no information, there is no life. Show me something living that doesn't have DNA or RNA (some viruses). Can you? No. So how can a theory that purports to explain everything about life not even be able to explain the most fundamental thing about life??? How is that? Don't you find that a little odd?? I do. Information is an abstract, that is to say immaterial MESSAGE that is encoded by one living thing in matter and energy for delivery to another living thing. In the case of life, one may well ask who the original Sender is. You can guess my philosophical deduction from the capital "S" in Sender. Be that as it may, and that is not the focus of my argument here tonight, it seems to me to be straining at gnats and swallowing camels as some famous person from the ancient world once said, to go on and on about, sniff sniff, he hasn't said what information is... Perhaps this has helped clear it up for you. That and CJYman's excellent illustration of magnets on a refrigerator. All information has something living on the front end and all information is encoded in a material substrate. That could be ink, 1s and 0s in a computer, chalk, scents, noises, chemicals, pencil, and so on. I'm sure you understand this. But the information contained in the arrangement of symbols cannot possibly be explained by the chemistry or physics of the symbols themselves. Surely this is not hard to comprehend. You could explain the existence of these letters on this web site down to the electron and still, in order to really explain them, you would have to result to the rules of the English language. It is the rules of English, applied to the symbols of English, that enable the communication of information, a message from me to you in this instance. Not only that, but there isn't an origin of life researcher on the planet that I'm aware of that wouldn't tell you the same thing that I am about information and life. You can't have one without the other. And "whatever" you want to call information, that special something that gives life, or whatever it is in the DNA of every living thing, or something that no non-living thing ever originates, or sends, or receives, it is inextricably tied up with life. These are "your people" that are saying that the question of the origin of life is the question of the origin of information. Of course, "my people" say this too. I have only been trying to point out that "your people" logically contradict themselves by saying that physics, or more euphemistically, natural causes, can account for information. I have proven that it is impossible for physics to account for the symbols and rules which encode the information therefore physics cannot account for the information. What is so difficult about this? Other than your whole world view collapsing in a heap of irrationality. I suppose that could take some getting used to. Let me put it even more simply. Physics is about the material world, which is all "you people" claim exists. But you also recognize that information exists. But information isn't matter or energy. It's apart from them even as it is encoded in them. So you commit a fundamental logical error known as a category mistake. You try to explain the immaterial in terms of the material, even as you deny the existence of the material!!!! And turn around and call me the irrational one!!! Did I actually write that? You try to explain the immaterial (information) in terms of the material (physics) while denying the existence of the immaterial (naturalism)!!!! Well, good luck selling that to people who can think. One last thing before I go. If you can answer this question for me, I will fly to wherever you are at my own expense and publicly proclaim loudly and clearly that you are right and I am wrong and I will become an atheist and an evangelist for evolutionary theory. You said in the beginning quote of this post that I define information in a way that entails the presence of language. No? Yes. So tell me, i.e. exchange information with me, without using a language, how I could have avoided that apparently egregious error? You know, defining information in a way that demands a language. Tap, tap, tap, ... I await your response. (Think about this and it will all be clear.) p.s. In a related thread about methinks it is like a weasel, there was much going on about this same subject. Indeed, this thread may have started with that. Whatever. Let me attempt to show you that EVEN IF I spotted you the language you still couldn't come up with information according to physical laws. Quickly, let's say that we have an information generating algorithm (like the program that wrote "weasel"). This algorithm is physics powered. That means either the physics of the "large" world where general relativity and fine structure constants, in other words, certainty, rules (you drop an object, it falls). Or at the sub-atomic level quantum physics seems to be the order of the day. So you have two possible drivers in physics, certainty and chance. So far so good? It's intuitively obvious that an algorithm based on certainty has no hope of ever creating information. Why? Because I have to be able, or someone does, to be able to choose from among various symbols and arrange them in a specific way to get information. Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say my algorithm says this: 1. Drop object. 2. If object falls, type "A". 3. If object does anything else, type any letter on keyboard at random. (notice that I am spotting you the symbols and rules which is quite generous and gracious of me but still won't matter) 4. Repeat indefinitely. What does our algorithm generate? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA... OK. Was that overkill? So how do you encode information in that? You cannot. OK. So let's give chance (quantum physics) a shot. Let's say that we could develop an algorithm based on some quantum event like radioactive decay. A subject that I know impossibly little about other than that it's impossible to tell when that next proton will come shooting out of the nucleus. Or whatever shoots out of whatever. So let's map a time interval to the decay of the element and for each event we map it to ASCII code, 128 characters if memory serves. Now I did a handy dandy word count with MS Word on the two programs, Weasel1 and Weasel2. In Weasel 1 there are 1,311 characters that comprise that teensy weensy bit of code that generates "methinks it is like a weasel" or something like that. Hamlet, I think. Anyway, what are the odds of that particular string of code being arrived at by chance? Well, the denominator is all of the possible strings of characters and the numerator is 1, the string we want. But I'm going to be generous and say that every atom in the observable universe contained the code. So you have 10 to the 80th (I can't do exponents either and this damn iMac doesn't have the carat that I know of so the exponents will be clumsy.) as the numerator. Which is wildly impossible but I'm just being fair by improving your chances. So the numerator is 10 to the 80th. What is the denominator? Well it's 128 raised to the 1,311 power. That's clumsy so we'll convert to scientific notation by taking the log of both sides and we have 1,311 x log 128 = 2,762 and change. I think I did the math right. So your denominator is 10 to the 2,762 power. Wow. That's an impressively large number. So large that it is literally incomprehensible by a human mind. You couldn't write it out in denary notation (I read Roger Penrose use that term, I have no idea what it means but you will still get the point) if you counted to a trillion on every atom in the universe. So your probability looks like 10 to 80 divided by 10 to 2,762 which means the odds of getting this short string of ASCII code is 1 in 10 to 2,682. Now even if you whip some Bayesian statistics on me or say that some combinations are more likely to occur than others I still say fat chance. If we give you not only every atom in the universe but every atom at Planck time (10 to minus 43) for every second the universe has been in existence (10 to 18) you still only have 10 to 141 possible combinations of code and your search space (I think they call it that - I've seen people talk about it out here) is 10 to 2762. So minus 141 to give you a fighting chance and the odds are: drum roll ............ 1 in 10 to 2,621. Would you not grant me that we could say this is "wildly improbable" at least? :-) Remember, this is giving you the symbols and rules, which you really don't have. So stop with the "physics or natural causes can create meaningful information." And let's not get tied up in "meaningful." Crick did this same calculation for a short protein string of 200 amino acids long. You guessed it. 1 in 10 to 260. So Crick deduced that life came from outer space. How original. Of course, it kinda sorta still leaves the ORIGINAL QUESTION unanswered but it was good enough for him. He even has a chapter in his book Life Itself on what the spaceship would have been like. Too freaking funny. Anyway, now I am done. If this doesn't cause you to rethink in spite of what a snot I am sometimes (but "you people" just NEVER GET IT) then I can't help. p.p.s. Weasel2 has 2,210 characters. You can do the math.tgpeeler
September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT
Joseph [from 160] "If you read the articles you didn’t understand them." Odd, I'd say exactly the same to you. It seems we'll just have to agree to clock horns here. "And yes I have read Gould’s essay. How does he measure fitness?" It seems strange having to point it out to someone who has read it, but as you wish: "The fittest are not defined by their survival. They are, rather, allowed to survive because they possess desired traits... "We must be able, like the pigeon fancier, to identify the fittest beforehand, not only by their subsequent survival. But nature is not an animal breeder; no preordained purpose regulates the history of life. In nature, any traits possessed by survivors must be counted as "more evolved"; in artificial selection, "superior" traits are defined before breeding even begins. "In nature, A's "superiority" over B will be expressed as differential survival, but it is not defined by it "In nature, Darwinian evolution is also a response to changing environments. Now, the key point: certain morphological, physiological, and behavioral traits should be superior a priori as designs for living in new environments. These traits confer fitness by an engineer's criterion on a good design, not by the empirical fact of their survival and spread. It got colder before the woolly mammoth evolved its shaggy coat." I hope it is clear from the above quotes, particularly the last one, that we may measure 'fitness' by considering the changing environment the particular organism lives in. If, for example, the environment is getting colder, we may expect individuals with features better suited for cold weather to be the 'fittest' (slightly thicker coats than most, slightly more blubber than most, slightly paler - if the growing cold is to bring snow)." This we can deduce just by noting how the environment is changing, and we can predict these features to be more successful before the individual animals we are studying have even been born.Ritchie
September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
03:23 PM
3
03
23
PM
PDT
CannuckianYankee @ 11 I apologize for taking so long to reply.
“He wanted to demonstrate the relative speed and efficiency of cumulative selection.” This was not the only purpose behind Dawkins’ Weasel program. Granted, he did show that a cumulative selection process is faster than a random selection process, but this is really very trivial and besides the point.
So you agree that cumulative selection is an essential mechanism in evolutionary theory and concede that Weasel demonstrates that it is faster than a random selection process. That is hardly trivial or beside the point. In fact, one measure of how good a point Dawkins made with Weasel is the inordinate amount of effort being expended by its Intelligent Design and creationist critics to debunk it. If it is really so trivial and irrelevant, why bother?
Dawkins’ overall point in the program is to demonstrate cumulative selection as a feasible process for Darwinian evolution. You can’t deny this, and Dawkins’ program does not demonstrate that it is feasible – I think most of us will agree on this point
In The Blind Watchmaker Dawkins argued for the sufficiency of the theory of evolution through natural selection as an explanation of how life has emerged. As noted above, cumulative selection is a key part of that theory. Weasel was written to illustrate why it is important.
“There is a big difference, then, between cumulative selection in which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future building, and single-step selection in which each new ‘try’ is a fresh one. If evolutionary progress had had to rely on single-step selection, it would never have got anywhere. If, however, there was any way in which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent, if not the strangest and most wonderful of these consequences.” (Dawkins R. – The Blind Watchmaker 1986 p. 49) So Dawkins is essentially saying (though not with so many words – and forgive me if I’m not in complete context with Dawkins’ larger argument for gradual selection, but space does not permit – perhaps others can expound on this), that a ‘natural version’ of his Weasel program was set up by the “blind forces of nature,” which got us to where we are.
Dawkins is saying that evolution – and certainly adaptive evolution – could not have taken place without a process of natural, cumulative selection. In the absence of a Creator or Intelligent Designer, that process must have been set in motion by natural forces. We do not know yet how this happened, only that in some way it must have happened. And in this we see the reason why this little program has been under such sustained attack. Although it is only an illustration of an evolutionary process rather than evidence for it, it does demonstrate that, within the constraints of the program’s environment, cumulative selection can reach a target far faster than random selection. For ID proponents and creationists, even this little program cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged because it is only when any possible naturalistic explanation has been utterly discredited or disproven will Intelligent Design be left to occupy a battlefield where it has, hitherto, largely preferred to mock other combatants from the sidelines.
Now this might sound ridiculous if one does not consider that the issue here is: can cumulative selection occur without the cheat that Dawkins aknowledges in his program? I think this is the main point of contention between Darwinists and ID theorists on this issue. Dawkins thinks it can, but cannot really demonstrate how. Why? – because he really ignores the information that would be necessary to actualize each selective step in the process. He assumes that information is irrelevant – natural processes alone and without purpose can acheive the selection mechanism
The only “cheat” – if you can call it that – is that Dawkins supplied the target sentence in the original Weasel. In nature the target or targets are set by the environment in which organisms find themselves. The targets are not words or phrases but a variety of ecological niches into which organisms are slowly shaped and fitted by fortuitous adaptive mutations. That environment is also changing over time so it presents a range of shifting target or targets and, of course, it is comprised in part of other organisms that are also, if they are lucky, adapting rather moving towards extinction.
He thinks that nature can simply conjure up the goal of the process by means of ‘fitness.’ But where in the Darwinian scheme of things did this fitness drive develop?
Again, you are being misled by an assumption that such things can only come about by the purposeful actions of some intelligent agent. There need not have been any “fitness drive” as such. All that would have been required were replicators making imperfect copies of themselves in an environment, rather than a vacuum, in which a few of the random mutations increased the chances of continued replication. You can certainly point out that we have no real knowledge of what these very early replicators were and I would agree. You could even speculate that they were created and ‘seeded’ on the early Earth by some extraterrestrial intelligent designer and I would agree that it is possible. But it would make no difference to the process of evolution which followed.
These are legitimate questions that Darwinists aren’t answering, because they can’t. ID is on the right track in asking where the necessary information driving selection towards complexity originates – as well as questioning the whole Darwinian process of selection as a whole.
The information challenge, in my view, is misleading and based on a fallacy. Information theory is undoubtedly useful as a tool for studying some aspects of biological systems, although there is some equivocation in ID over what is actually meant by ‘information’. The fallacy is that of reification or misplaced concreteness: in this case, of infering that information as a property of the model is also a property of that which is being modeled. It is as if scientists of earlier centuries, having found clockwork mechanisms to be a useful analogy for how the Universe works, inferred that it was actually constructed in some way of cogs and gears and springs.Seversky
September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Ritchie, If you read the articles you didn't understand them. And yes I have read Gould's essay. How does he measure fitness?Joseph
September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Joseph [from 133] "Ritchie obviously you didn’t read the articles I linked to. One even talks about VIABLE OFFSPRING." I assure you I have. And they are NOT saying what you think they are saying. Again I ask, have you showed me the same curtesy and read the article I gave you the link to in post 47?Ritchie
September 26, 2009
September
09
Sep
26
26
2009
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
re. Alex 73 @ 138 In the beginning was the Word. :-) I hope to be able to post tomorrow. Thanks CJYman for some food for thought. Perhaps I can be clearer and more specific tomorrow.tgpeeler
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
08:24 PM
8
08
24
PM
PDT
OK wait- without any target how can one differentiate between cumulative selection and a random walk? Does cumulative selection come with some criteria such as a second mutation adding to the effect of a previous mutation? And then some subsequent mutation adding to that effect- and so on? Or is it just used in place of "abbra-cadabra" because "abbra-cadabra" is just too obvious as to what is being counted on to do the trick?Joseph
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
CJYman:
I’m saying that intelligence must follow the LCI as well.
To that I can only say that I interpret D&M completely differently. I'd be willing to bet that D&M would tell us that their LCI-based ID argument hinges on the LCI not applying to intelligence. It would be nice if the whole argument were laid out somewhere, complete with assumptions, logic, and conclusions. But it isn't, so I don't know if a concise case can be made for any given interpretation.R0b
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
The problem is that no one has yet provided evidence that such a thing as “selection based on immediate criteria” without a long-term target will produce anything.
That's a separate issue, which I'm happy to discuss when I have more time. A lot more time. But the question at issue is whether Dawkins' usage of the term "cumulative selection" implies the absence of a long-term target. It doesn't, so WEASEL is a valid instance of cumulative selection.
I’m arguing that cumulative selection *without a target* doesn’t exist.
It's easy to code an instance of cumulative selection that has no long-term target. Whether it does anything interesting is a separate issue.
IOW, even immediate selection criteria is derived from a future target.
I'm using the term immediate to indicate that the selection criteria is not derived from a future target.
How long will cumulative selection without a future target take us?
How long will it take us to do what?
More, likely, they refer to extrinsic targets as targets “within the mind” and intrinsic targets as targets within the organization of the search space and search algorithm.
I think we agree on the concepts, but I'm tripping over words. In my mind, an extrinsic target and an intrinsic target can specify the same subset of the same config space, with the extrinsic target being purposed and the intrinsic target being unpurposed.R0b
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT
ROb: "Or are you saying something else?" I'm saying that intelligence must follow the LCI as well. Intelligence only generates as much information as it contains itself. Same with law+chance. Active information doesn't concern itself with intelligence. Active information only measures the difference between uniform probability and the matching of non-uniform search space with a search algorithm to perform "better than chance search." The LCI then takes over and shows that the probability of that matching which produces "better than chance" performance must be accounted for. Intelligence is a candidate for the generation of this active info for three reasons. 1. Because of how it operates with foresight. 2. Because we have seen that certain patterns (ie: car, essay, this comment) which are measurable in terms of active info require intelligence as a necessary condition. 3. Since an intelligent system can also be measured in terms of active info. However, law+chance is not a candidate for three main reasons: 1. No one has shown that law+chance absent intelligence can produce active info. 2. If the pattern is not defined by law and if it is discovered at "better than chance" performance, then law and chance are ruled out. 3. Law+chance would produce what you would expect from law and chance -- a uniform probability distribution (max. randomness) and mere regularities -- the opposite of what measurement constitutes active info.CJYman
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
CJYman:
If it comes from a chance assemblage of law, there is no reason to suppose that the space will be anything other than uniform — it is the result of chance/randomness after all.
Granted, we a assume a uniform distribution over the higher-order space (the LCI is defined in terms of the endogenous info of the higher-order search), but that still doesn't tell us what the space is. It's possible to define this space such that the LCI doesn't hold. If we're restricted to defining it in a way that the LCI does hold, then not even intelligence can increase active info. Maybe that's not a problem, according to your understanding of the LCI-base ID argument. I'll wait for your response to 151.R0b
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
ROb: "His usage applies to cases in which selection is based on immediate criteria as well as cases in which selection is based on a long-term target. My evidence is the description of the term that I quoted from Dawkins, which applies to both cases." The problem is that no one has yet provided evidence that such a thing as "selection based on immediate criteria" without a long-term target will produce anything. ROb: "This was in response to niwrad’s statement the cumulative selection has no target, and that a simulator of cumulative selection must not have a target. [Sidenote: WEASEL is an instance of cumulative selection, not a simulation of it.]" Of course. But, I'm not arguing against cumulative selection. I'm arguing that cumulative selection *without a target* doesn't exist. IOW, even immediate selection criteria is derived from a future target. How long will cumulative selection without a future target take us? ROb: "According to my understand of D&M’s terminology, a target that is purposed by a telic agent is an extrinsic target. If that’s correct, then intrinsic targets must not be purposed by a telic agent." I highly doubt it since that would defeat their argument by mere definition of the terms. More, likely, they refer to extrinsic targets as targets "within the mind" and intrinsic targets as targets within the organization of the search space and search algorithm. The purpose is to investigate if intrinsic targets are derived from extrinsic targets.CJYman
September 25, 2009
September
09
Sep
25
25
2009
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 8

Leave a Reply