Simply Not Credible

_{Gil Dodgen

September 19, 2009

Intelligent Design}

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

Can I also just say thanks for letting me ask questions! It is so helpful to be able to ask questions and get some very smart people to answer. :-) :-)ellazimm_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
02:37 PM
2
02
37
PM
PDT}

"Evolution can be measured, but cannot be extrapolated. You cannot simply start with an ancestral organism (say, a bacterium four billion years ago) and morph it into a human being, a fish, a tree or what have you. You need to show that the intermediate forms are viable. Organisms cannot leave descendants if they are not viable. Continents don’t have that problem." But . . . isn't the fossil record proof that there were viable intermediates? Yeah? And we've got fossil after fossil after fossil of extinct forms that look like intermediates between other fossils. Why isn't that showing that it IS possible? I mean, why isn't that evidence good enough? I guess I'm confused: you're saying that there's no proof when the evolution model says there must be transitional forms and we have tons and tons of them. How fine a gradation do you need? And if an intelligent designer created all those forms and let them go extinct then . . . . it's fair to ask why yeah? What purpose did they serve? Tests? Experiments? Was the designer tinkering here and there, letting things go for a while to see what worked and what didn't work? Is that directed? Is there a purpose there? I am so confused. Why should there be boundaries around what descent with modification can do? Okay, maybe some steps are less probable than others but . . . . where did all those extinct fossils come from? I know what Dr Behe says but you can't really prove a negative can you; you can't really prove that something didn't happen. And there are a lot of very bright people who disagree with him. You know, what I would like to see ID theorists do is come up with specific boundaries around existing creatures and groups of creatures. Really spell out which collections of living things are inviolate. Now that would be really, really interesting! And, I think, a fruitful avenue of research. Kind of a species map with boundaries.ellazimm_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT}

Ritchie, Joseph: "Fittest” is NOT defined by any measure of fitness. THAT is the whole problem with the idea.” Ritchie: "??? What problem? If you are having trouble with the word ‘fittest’, just substitue it for ‘best suited to survive’. Will that cause you less confusion?" Joseph has a point. There is no measurable quality to 'fittest' or as you prefer "best suited to survive." It's a rather vague depiction of what Darwinists think is happening. As such, these concepts are quite simple to pick apart and show how they really don't work for Darwinism. For the Darwinist, it's imperative to keep these terms vague so they don't appear to be purposeful or goal directed.CannuckianYankee_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

GilDodgen @ 2
My code works, and can be demonstrated to produce the results that are claimed for it. Such is not the case concerning the creative power of random errors filtered by natural selection to produce biological computational engines. It’s all wild speculation and grossly unsupported extrapolation that flies in the face of reason.
You are fortunate enough that your code can be written and tested easily within the span of a human lifetime. According to evolutionary theory, if it is right, the generation of a new species of large animal could take hundreds of thousands or millions of years. Plainly, there is no way that can be tested in the laboratory. What paleontologists and biologists have to contend with are fragmentary clues that have survived from the distant past and what can be inferred from what is observed around us now. I would talk about random mutations rather than random "errors". That suggests a mistake by an intelligent agent. Random mutations are changes that occur in the genome and which can be caused by radiation, chemicals, viruses or copying errors. Most mutations are neutral in that the have no measurable effect on the organism one way or another. This is to be expected if a large - or even the greater - part of the genome is non-functional or "junk" DNA because that is where most of them will happen. A smaller number of mutations will be detrimental to the survival of the organism. These will be larger than beneficial mutations if for no other reason than there are many ways thing can go wrong but only one or perhaps a few ways it can go right. Beneficial mutations, although very few in number compared with the two other categories, are significant because they tend to be preserved Thus there should be a tendency for them to accumulate over time. If that were not the case, if it were not possible to select from a range of mutations or variations those that are to be conserved then we would not be able to breed faster horses or dogs for different purposes or cattle which grow more meat or yield more milk. It is not wild speculation to note that animal husbandrists were doing this for centuries before Darwin formed his theory nor is it grossly unsupported extrapolation to hypothesize that if we can shape animals according to our needs then the same plasticity could be molded by the forces of natureSeversky_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Of course GilDodgen is right. Evolution is not teleological, has no target. Therefore simulation programs (as Weasel) that state a target in their initial declarations don’t simulate Darwinian evolution, rather target-oriented searches that have nothing to do with it. I wonder why Dawkins didn’t understand this simple concept. A simulation program of Darwinian evolution would be entirely different: one should create an adequate model of a population of organisms of a certain species; insert random mutations in the genomes of the individuals at a certain rate; write a fitness function simulating natural selection, which must verify whether some mutant individuals are better to survive. Eventually during the simulation one might verify if the process of RM+NS generates new species (with different macro-evolutionary characteristics). Unfortunately this simulator would be far more complex than the Dawkins’ Weasel program, and, aside from the programming skill necessary to write it (a minor problem), it would require knowledge of biology and genetics far more advanced than those available today. In other words the difficulty is almost entirely to provide a suitable modeling of the biological realities.niwrad_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
11:49 AM
11
11
49
AM
PDT}

Joseph [from 21] "“Advantageous”, like “beneficial”, is a relative word. What is advantageous in one scenario isn’t in all scenarios." Yes. Absolutely. It might be 'advantageous' or 'beneficial' for individuals of one species of creature to be fast and agily, while for another species it might be 'advantageous' to be slow and and stealthy. It might be advantageous for one species to be bright and colourful, for another species it might be that being dull or camouflaged is best. For each species the selection pressures will be slightly different and will be rewarding slightly different attributes. The same process would be driving cheetahs to become faster, howler monkeys to be louder, cats to be more stealthy, etc. So yes, 'advantageous' is a relative term. But so what? "What about the egg that hatches last and lives because the predators already had their fill with its siblings?" That's quite a tenuous example, don't you think? It's quite simple - imagine you have ten runners about to run a race. Generally the fastest one will win. Now there are no guarantees - the faster runner might fall, or suddenly sprain his ankle halfway through the race. Or, to find an equivalent to your example, every runner except the slowest might fall over! It's possible I suppose (though horrendously unlikely). There are no guarantees in life. But generally the fasters runners do win races, just as the fittest individuals are generally the ones to survive to reproduce. "Also with sexual reproduction there isn’t any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will get passed down. You do understand how that works?" Yes thankyou. And again, there are no guarantees in life (apart from death), but that's not the point. Any child of yours inherits precisely 50% of your genes. So roughly half the children you have will inherit any particular one of your genes. Now remember, that human beings are very unusual in that any individual generally doesn't rear more than a couple of children. Most animals (the ones who are sucessful enough to mate) have lost of offspring, and generally half of them will inherit any particular gene a parent possesses. Yes it's not guaranteed, but on balance that is how it will happen. "“Fittest” is NOT defined by any measure of fitness. THAT is the whole problem with the idea." ??? What problem? If you are having trouble with the word 'fittest', just substitue it for 'best suited to survive'. Will that cause you less confusion? "Also there could be many variations which provide the same amount of fitness." Explain please. "Also when put to the test we see cooperation more than competeion." You mean in nature? There is more co-operation between animals than there is competition? You've got to be kidding, right?Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

Ritchie:
As you wish, I’ll restate: embryos with an advantageous mutation stand a better chance of surviving until adulthood when they can reproduce.
"Advantageous", like "beneficial", is a relative word. What is advantageous in one scenario isn't in all scenarios. What about the egg that hatches last and lives because the predators already had their fill with its siblings? You know the ones who hatched first and rapidly ran right to the predators because they didn't know. Also with sexual reproduction there isn't any guarantee that even the most beneficial mutation will get passed down. You do understand how that works? "Fittest" is NOT defined by any measure of fitness. THAT is the whole problem with the idea. Also there could be many variations which provide the same amount of fitness. Also when put to the test we see cooperation more than competeion.Joseph_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

Gil, Your work is software development for avionics and missile guidance systems isn't it? Weasel is a bit too easy for you. Now I have a challenge that seems to fit you much better: From your expertise propose plausible Darwinian mechanisms that will yield the code for a fully autonomous guidance system with visual and inertial navigation, flight control using real-time non-linear CFD models of aircraft and engine, visual friend-or-foe recognition plus anything that enables global positioning above sea. The hardware your code will run on must fit inside a few cubic millimetres with a power consumption of a few microwatts or less. You can find a working example mentioned here: Dragonflies cross the Indian Ocean Should you decline this challenge, our Darwinist friends "know" that there is a solution, because "after all, evolution is true so it has happened". Now just out of curiosity, you, above of anybody else on UD, could judge the proposals on their ability to generate the functional information needed for the code. AlexAlex73_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT}

GilDodgen
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.
Unless you believe that "most people" means only the United States, you would have a hard time supporting that argument. Public Acceptance of Evolutioncamanintx_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Gil:
These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched.
If the only point of WEASEL was to display a phrase, you would have an excellent point.
No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance.
Provided to whom? If we model the algorithm in terms of an oracle, a mutator, and a selector, then the mutator receives no information about the target phrase, and the selector receives very little information per generation. In the Darwinian model, a small amount of information is likewise transferred from the environment to each generation of biota.
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.
If you think that the explicitly provided target is a point of disanalogy with biological evolution, then Dawkins agrees with you and takes the point even further. He says that any target, explicit or otherwise, is a point of disanalogy with biological evolution. Interestingly, the EIL disagrees with Dawkins on this, claiming that biological evolution does have a target. So the EIL actually imputes more biological relevance to WEASEL's target than Dawkins does. And keep in mind that it is the EIL that brought up WEASEL in their recently published paper and their website. Dr. Dembski even offered the paper's response to WEASEL as evidence that the paper is relevant to ID. So if you think WEASEL is irrelevant to the question of biological ID, you might tell the EIL (which includes yourself) to stop bringing it up. Also, you might note that most of discussion on WEASEL has centered on the EIL's inaccurate depiction of WEASEL as a partitioned search. Correcting that error would go a long way toward retiring the subject.R0b_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

Joseph, we have to give credit where credit is due! How about this: Richard Dawkins has firmly established that if you design something to evolve you can evolve something to a target. The ID community thanks him most profusely!tribune7_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:18 AM
7
07
18
AM
PDT}

Joseph, consider it GPL :-)tribune7_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

Joseph [from 11] "Except that embryos don’t reproduce." As you wish, I'll restate: embryos with an advantageous mutation stand a better chance of surviving until adulthood when they can reproduce. Imagine a cluch of eggs hatching. It is likely that some of these infants starting their journey through life will not survive to reproduce. Let's say that speed is a very important selection pressure for the survival of these creatures. The individuals who are slightly faster than their siblings stand a better chance of surviving until adulthood, and thus more chance of passing on their genes, which will incude whatever genes made them slightly quicker than their fellows. So the quickest individuals are most likely to be the ones to reproduce, and the next generation will inherit these genes for speed. A rather simplistic example, perhaps, but I don't see where the flaw is in the principle of it. "Also “better suited to survive” can mean many things- not all related to genetics. Ya see “fitness” is measured by the number of viable offspring you have." I'm still not seeing the problem. The 'fittest' individuals (ie, most suited to surviving and reproducing) will tend to have the most offspring. So advantageous mutations in genes will tend to get passed on. Mutations which are not advantageous (disadvantageous???), will give the carrying individuals a handicap, and they will be LESS likely than their fellows to survive and pass on their genes. How is that entropic?Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

Tribune7, Just to let you know I will be using that "saying". It's just beautiful Man! No royalties though...Joseph_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT}

What we have learned from this is that if you design something to evolve you can evolve something to a target :-)tribune7_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
06:21 AM
6
06
21
AM
PDT}

Cabal:
The point of interest here is that the target by itself is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that from each generation, the best fit are selected.
That doesn't make any sense seeing that fitness is measured by the number of offspring one leaves behind.Joseph_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
05:53 AM
5
05
53
AM
PDT}

Ritchie:
But an embryo with an advantageous mutation/adaptation stands a better chance of reproducing than one that does not, surely?
Except that embryos don't reproduce. Also "better suited to survive" can mean many things- not all related to genetics. Ya see "fitness" is measured by the number of viable offspring you have.Joseph_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
05:50 AM
5
05
50
AM
PDT}

suckerspawn - But an embryo with an advantageous mutation/adaptation stands a better chance of reproducing than one that does not, surely?Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PDT}

With Dawkins' weasel the beneficial result always survived. In nature the egg usually gets eaten before it reproduces.suckerspawn_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

Can someone please help me out here? I hadn't heard of this WEASEL programme before, but I have no idea why people are calling evolution an 'entropic process' or that there is no 'fitness drive' in nature... 'fitness' surely just means 'better suited to survive'? Imagine an animal lays a clutch of eggs. Nature is cruel and fiercely competative. Not all those young will hatch and live long enough to reproduce. Between disease, predators and finding and competing with others for food, territory and mates, each creature's life is going to be a struggle for survival. So any adaptation, however small, which gives it an advantage over its rivals will increase its chances of surviving, reproducing, and thus passing on this mutated adaption to its young. This is not an entropic process. It is a cumulative one. And the fitness is simply another word for 'most likely to survive'. Can someone point out where I'm going wrong here?Ritchie_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

Seversky, "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. 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. I understand that he stated "It's a bit of a cheat," and that's the point we all seem to recognize. It is really the main point of the whole demonstration - unawares to Dawkins, and here is why: If you doubt me about his overall purpose in bringing up the program, consider Dawkins' own words immediately following his Weasel demonstration: "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. 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. 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? 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. Blind natural processes are lacking in their ability to explain this, and Dawkins should really be aware of this fact, rather than attempting to demonstrate Darwinian processes on the basis of a designed cheat. The only thing Dawkins' program really demonstrates is that 'fitness' can only be a goal that is predetermined. Darwinism does not really work without the cheat. Dawkins' program is really more in support of ID than it is of Darwinian evolution.CannuckianYankee_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
02:29 AM
2
02
29
AM
PDT}

Weasel is indeed ROCKET SCIENCE! With about 10 lines of actual NOTEWORTHY code Dawkins has proven that FCSI and IC systems arise without a problem. You MUST be stupid or INSANE or both to think that Dawkins weasel does NOT account for something like the bacterial flagellum. Dawkins weasel; the best kept secret among Darwinists - code name: cumulative selection, get all that 007? Here is the sniveling Weasel in C:
#include[stdio.h] #include[stdlib.h] #include[time.h] #define TARGET "METHINKS ITS LIKE A WEASEL" #define ALPHABET "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ " #define TARGET_SIZE 27 #define ALPHA_SIZE 27 char* mutate(char*, char*); int fitness(char *); int locked(char *curPtr); int randInt(int, int); int main(void) { char current_string[TARGET_SIZE]; char *curPtr = current_string; int gen_count = 0; do { int i; char next_string[TARGET_SIZE]; char* nString = next_string; char buffer[TARGET_SIZE]; char* bPtr = buffer; nString = mutate(curPtr, bPtr); if(fitness(nString) >= fitness(curPtr)) { for(i=0;i<TARGET_SIZE;i++) { *(curPtr + i) = *(nString + i); } } puts(curPtr); gen_count++; }while(locked(curPtr) != 1); printf("%d generations", gen_count); return 0; } int locked(char *curPtr) { int i;int count = 0; int state = 0; for(i=0;i<TARGET_SIZE;i++) { if(*(curPtr + i) == TARGET[i]) { count++; } } if(count == 27) { state = 1; } return state; } char* mutate(char* cPtr, char* bPtr) { int i; for(i=0;i<TARGET_SIZE;i++) { *(bPtr + i) = *(cPtr + i); } bPtr[randInt(0, (TARGET_SIZE - 1))] = ALPHABET[randInt(0,(ALPHA_SIZE - 1))]; return bPtr; } int randInt(int min, int max) { static int kState = 0; int i; if(kState == 0) { srand(time(NULL)); kState = 1; } i = (rand() % (max - min + 1) + min); return i; } int fitness(char *cString) { int i;int count = 0; for(i=0;i<TARGET_SIZE;i++) { if(*(cString + i) == TARGET[i]) { count++; } } return count; }
computerist_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
02:06 AM
2
02
06
AM
PDT}

Cabal, The problem with your argument is that the program starts with a goal - the target phrase. Darwinism does not. The program gave us a goal of fitness, which Darwinian evolution does not give us. You say that the program's purpose was to demonstrate gradual selection, or the 'gradual effect of random mutations and selection,' and I have no argument against that. The problem is that it did not demonstrate gradual selection by a Darwinian process, but by a designed process, which is vastly different than what Dawkins claims happens in nature. You keep saying that the target phrase is irrelevant. It is the most relevant part of the program, because the target phrase is what determines fitness. Darwinian selection as I understand it does not work that way.CannuckianYankee_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
01:11 AM
1
01
11
AM
PDT}

But the oracle could calculate the quality of a string in a different way - unbeknown to you: perhaps it gives back the length of the longest correct sub-string. Or the number of vowels in the right place times the number of correct consonants. Then Dawkins algorithm isn't that bad as it works with a number of fitness functions...DiEb_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

If you do know that the oracle answers with the number of correct letters, you can build an intelligent method which allows you to guess the phrase with less than 27 * 28 tries - which is quite good, especially if you imagine that it may cost you to ask the oracle a question.DiEb_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

A variation of the program is the idea of questioning an oracle: you have to get the string which is only know to the oracle. To any string you propose to the oracle, it will answer with a value. Oracle and algorithm could be stored on different machines, so it could be really a challenge to guess the string right. An interesting part of the problem is then: what do you know about the possible values given by the oracle?DiEb_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PDT}

My code works, and can be demonstrated to produce the results that are claimed for it. Such is not the case concerning the creative power of random errors filtered by natural selection to produce biological computational engines. It’s all wild speculation and grossly unsupported extrapolation that flies in the face of reason.
May I offer an opposing view? But first, wrt “My code works, and can be demonstrated to produce the results that are claimed for it.” I have to ask: Is your code a true representation of the Dawkins algorithm, and the results consistent with the claims made by Dawkins? But more important is this: The way I see it, the target phrase is irrelevant. From the POW of each of the mutated lines of each generation, the most fit WRT the target phrase are most fit - and it is its level of fitness that determine whether that particular line will survive to the next generation, or if it will be discarded as unfit. The point of interest here is that the target by itself is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is that from each generation, the best fit are selected.. What is demonstrated is the effect of selection of individuals from a generation for survival into the next generation. That’s the purpose of the program, to demonstrate the cumulative effect of random mutations and selection. If one attach some effect on the demonstration by the fact that the target is a known string, one has not really understood what the program does, what the purpose is. Applying the logic of the program to real life – which of course is what it is all about if is to be of any value at all, it demonstrate what Darwin proposed in 1859: Survival of the fittest. That is not an ideological statement; it is just an observation of what happens in real life: If you are more fit than your neighbor, your chances of survival should be better. The flip side is that if you are less fit, your chances of survival are poorer. Just as in real life the target is fitness – not a particular path towards some goal. The program actually nicely demonstrates this – the results are identical regardless of the target phrase. The bottom line of which is that over time, some traits, some genetic variations within a population tend to become more frequent because of a higher rate of reproductive success. The way I understand this, it has very much to do with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allele_frequency But I am just an innocent bystander so don’t take my word for more than just a personal opinion. Anyone interested in learning what is true and what is not will in most cases – that is my experience – find it if he search with an open mind. PS. We may think of the genome as a character string. Variations in that string are the source of variations that confer differing values of fitness to a generation. Over time a species will eventually have undergone a change in overall fitness – making it more fit WRT a target. Without a target, evolution would not be possible. The catch is to understand that there is no fixed, predetermined target. But I believe that if one is in doubt about what Weasel actually does, it might be possible to write a version with a moving target too. If the rate of target movement were not too high, we still would see survival. We would also see that the program never would reach an end, just as in real life evolution never reach a finite goal because there isn’t any. Bottom line: The one and only target is SURVIVAL.Cabal_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

ellazimm: Thank you for your post. However, I don't think that continental drift and quantum physics are good analogies for evolution by natural selection. The bizarre effects in quantum physics can be observed in the lab, so there's no doubt about their occurrence, at least. However, there continues to be considerable controversy about the underlying postulates we need to make in order to best explain their occurrence (think of Schrodinger's cat) - as well as which common-sense assumptions we need to jettison. Continental drift can be measured, thanks to lasers. Even if we had no idea how the continents drifted, we could still know that they drift. Over a long time interval (tens of millions of years), it's easy to show, by mathematical extrapolation, that they can drift thousands of kilometers. Evolution can be measured, but cannot be extrapolated. You cannot simply start with an ancestral organism (say, a bacterium four billion years ago) and morph it into a human being, a fish, a tree or what have you. You need to show that the intermediate forms are viable. Organisms cannot leave descendants if they are not viable. Continents don't have that problem. Even if common descent could be demonstrated beyond all doubt, that would not establish that a blind mechanism could generate the diversity of life-forms we see today.vjtorley_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

Mr Dodgen, I know how you feel! I can't get my head around quantum mechanics at all!! But I'm told it is true. :-) I wonder if people felt the same way about continental drift when it was first proposed? It's hard to believe based on our everyday experience, operates over vast periods of time and we can only observe small seemingly insignificant steps.ellazimm_{September 20, 2009
September
09
Sep
20
20
2009
12:04 AM
12
12
04
AM
PDT}

My code works, and can be demonstrated to produce the results that are claimed for it. Such is not the case concerning the creative power of random errors filtered by natural selection to produce biological computational engines. It's all wild speculation and grossly unsupported extrapolation that flies in the face of reason.GilDodgen_{September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
08:29 PM
8
08
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply