The Simulation Wars

_{William Dembski

March 26, 2009

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I’m currently writing an essay on computational vs. biological evolution. The applicability of computational evolution to biological evolution tends to be suspect because one can cook the simulations to obtain any desired result. Still, some of these evolutionary simulations seem more faithful to biological reality than others. Christoph Adami’s AVIDA, Tom Schneider’s ev, and Tom Ray’s Tierra fall on the “less than faithful” side of this divide. On the “reasonably faithful” side I would place the following three:

Mendel’s Accountant: mendelsaccount.sourceforge.net

MutationWorks: www.mutationworks.com

MESA: www.iscid.org/mesa

Comments

The program does it as a matter of course given the proper parameters. That is the whole purpose behind cumulative selection- once something is found the search for it is over.
Why would a program not halt when it hits its goal?
A program halts when it is supposed to or if there is a bug in the system or program. Ya see once the target phrase is reached the search is over- just as I have been saying. Otherwise I will have to infer that you know as much about this as you do about nested hierarchies- and you have proven you don’t know anything about NH.
I freely admit I am no expert.
Yes I know.
Why waste the A-team
You need all the help you can get.Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT}

David:
Joseph, the program selects for the closest phrase. It does not selecct for letters.</blockquote? LoL!!! It's the LETTERS which bring the output closer to the target. And given the proper parameters once a matching letter is found it will never change. That is the prupose of cumulative selection- once something is found the search for it is over. That is the difference between CS and random selection.
Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
05:16 AM
5
05
16
AM
PDT}

Right Dawkins did not fix the letters.
Not even implicitly? In a quasi fashion?
The program does it as a matter of course given the proper parameters. That is the whole purpose behind cumulative selection- once something is found the search for it is over.
Why would a program not halt when it hits its goal?
If you think otherwise please provide the relevant quote or quotes from TBW.
As I don't...
Otherwise I will have to infer that you know as much about this as you do about nested hierarchies- and you have proven you don’t know anything about NH.
I freely admit I am no expert. Why waste the A-teamAlan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT}

rm fox the issue is not that I have cited quotes from Wiki’s attempted defense of Mr Dawkins [which quotes have been publicly inadvertently confirmed for onlookers by one from your side . . .], but the cites themselves and what they ever so painfully obviously mean.
The quotes you quote are accurate. I asked if you had read the book, as there is much more in chapter 3 than is quoted in Wiki. It might give you more context, and prevent you from drawing erroneous conclusions from extracts. So, I take it you haven't read TBW, then.Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT}

Addendum: That "Weasel" tends to keep correct letters while selecting only for closer phrases is, of course, the pedagogical point. It shows the interaction of two processes, one random (mutation) and one nonrandom (selection).David Kellogg_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Joseph, the program selects for the closest phrase. It does not selecct for letters. That is utterly clear in the 1986 text of TBW:
The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. (Emphasis added)
I have no idea how anybody got the idea that it selected for correct letters: not from the 1986 text. However, once arrived at, that idea got fixed -- explicitly latched, one might say -- in the minds of Dawkins's opponents.David Kellogg_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
05:05 AM
5
05
05
AM
PDT}

Alan, Right Dawkins did not fix the letters. The program does it as a matter of course given the proper parameters. That is the whole purpose behind cumulative selection- once something is found the search for it is over. If you think otherwise please provide the relevant quote or quotes from TBW. Otherwise I will have to infer that you know as much about this as you do about nested hierarchies- and you have proven you don't know anything about NH.Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT}

PS: What an issue to have to deal with on a day where one of several money quotes is a Roman Governor dismissively saying "What is truth?" even as he embarks on known injustice.kairosfocus_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

hazel:
How can you blame Dawkins for NOT mentioning things that his program was NOT doing, or for not having the foresight to anticipate that Dembski would mistakenly make incorrect assumptions about the program.
Did you read the book? He makes it clear t5hat once something is found the search is over. That is the purpose of cumulative selection.Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Mr Fox: I have used the citations of Ch 3 TBW, in Wikipedia as below, as this will prove to be a case of admissions on two levels against interest -- [1] by Mr Dawkins the author and again [2] by Wikipedia who cite him in trying to deflect criticism [NB: the person who typed out a long cite from the same chapter corroborates the accuracy of the Wiki cites]: Excerpting 88 supra with my comments in sq brackets on points, emphases put in again, probably a bit different from in 88: ________________ I don’t know who it was first pointed out that, given enough time, a monkey bashing away at random on a typewriter could produce all the works of Shakespeare. The operative phrase is, of course, given enough time. [--> that is, he KNEW that the issue is want of search resources to access complex functionality, which is Hoyle's challenge] Let us limit the task facing our monkey somewhat. Suppose that he has to produce, not the complete works of Shakespeare but just the short sentence ‘Methinks it is like a weasel’, and we shall make it relatively easy by giving him a typewriter with a restricted keyboard, one with just the 26 (capital) letters, and a space bar. How long will he take to write this one little sentence? . . . . [--> Biosystems often have DNA of storage capacity comparable to Shakespeare's corpus, i.e he knew he was making a toy example pointing away from the challenge. The red herring has begun to drag away from the trail of truth.] We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before … it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – ‘mutation’ – in the copying. [--> And in the real world, what is a credible incidence of mutations,and what fraction of these are credibly beneficial? --> What fraction give rise to novel body plans? With what empirical basis? --> And, that starts with the first body plan, including the DNA - RNA - ribosome enzyme programmable, algorithmic information processing system in the cell] The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, [--> the issue of getting to shores of functionality has just been begged without even a pause to note on what that shift in focus does to the relevance of Weasel to OOL and origin of body plans --> Namely it means Weasel is now of zero relevance to the issue Hoyle et al raised: getting TO complex function based on information rich molecules] the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL . . . . [ --> targetted search rewarding mere proximity without any credible threshold of function --> Ideas of fitness functions are therefore irrelevant, and equivocate off proximity to target vs the sort of algorithmic functionality DNA etc [including of course epigenetic structures . . DNA underestimates the info required . .. ] drives for first life and major body plans –> targetted and with programmed choice, so foresighted] The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn’t matter. [--> oh yes it does, as the realistic threshold would credibly never get done in any reasonable time, much less a lunch time] If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn’t significant. [--> Distractive] What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, [--> thus, ratcheting and latching, as observed in the 1986 o/p . . . and decidedly not in the 1987 o/p --> cumulative, programmed selection that ratchets its way to a target, rewarding the slightest improvement in proximity of "nonsense phrases," without regard to realistic thresholds of function . . . ] and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: [--> Strawmanised form of the key objection: Mr Dawkins is ducking the issue of getting to shorelines of functionality] about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed . . . . [--> he KNOWS -- or, should know (which is worse) — that a realistic threshold of functionality is combinatorially so explosive that the search is not reasonable –> but good old Will the Spear shaker with feather pen in hand probably tossed it off in a couple of minutes by intelligent design –> So he is pointing away from the most empirically credible explanation of FSCI] Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative selection, it is misleading in important ways. [--> if you know from the outset that an exercise in public education is "misleading in important ways," why do you still insist on using it? --> Other than, it is the intent to make plausible on the rhetoric what would on the merits be implausible?] One of these is that, in each generation of selective ‘breeding’, the mutant ‘progeny’ phrases were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target, [--> He knows -- from the outset -- that promotion to generation champion based on proximity without reasonable criteria of functionality is misleading in important ways!!!!!!!!!!!!!] the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn’t like that. [--> he knows that this artificially selected, targetted search without reference to functionality is irrelevant to the issues over the origins of information rich systems in life] Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, [ --> That is he knows that he has used artificial selection off proximity to a desired future state, not natural selection based on differential functionality, begging the question of origin of function --> thus, the underlying question of the BLIND Watchmaker creating complex information rich functionality at the threshold of realistic function is being ducked and begged . . . ducking Hoyle's Q and that asked by ID] although human vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term, either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. [--> that is, he knows right from get-go, that he has begged the question bigtime, but he obviously thought his rhetoric would work. --> From abundant evidence, that is all too well -- albeit cynically [I doubt that "weasel" is an accident; this paragraph being an exercise in weasel words] — judged.] ____________________ The cited words are so credibly beyond dispute, and make the point once their meaning is brought out by proper emphasis and comment. Weasel is indefensibly highly misleading and should not ever have been used. ESPECIALLY IN AN EDUCATIONAL CONTEXT, AS THOSE IN NEED OF EDUCATION ARE BY DEFINITION IGNORANT OF THE ISSUES AT STAKE AND THE SUBTLETIES OF THE DIFFERENT SIDES OF CONTROVERSIES. Weasel is an exercise in clever indoctrination, not legitimate education. It should be retired to the hall of shameful misleading icons of evolutionary materialism, right next to Haeckel's embryo drawings and Piltdown man [how many PhDs were done on misleading plaster casts of an obvious fraud?] Not to mention the pig's tooth that played so effective a role in the infamous Scopes monkey trial. And, if this is a yardstick of what is going on, the Texas etc education authorities and parents all over our planet have a RIGHT to be outraged, not merely "concerned." rm fox the issue is not that I have cited quotes from Wiki's attempted defense of Mr Dawkins [which quotes have been publicly inadvertently confirmed for onlookers by one from your side . . .], but the cites themselves and what they ever so painfully obviously mean. So, please deal with the issue, not the distractive red herrings and strawmen. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT}

BTW JayM, Your selective quoting of TBW didn't capture what he stated after- That being that cumulative selection is a process of slight improvements- however slight. IOW Jay you are being very deceptive which is to be expected.Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:50 AM
4
04
50
AM
PDT}

JayM, I challenged anyone to provide the reference quote from TBW which would show that with a cumulative selection process once a matching letter is found the program keeps looking for it. To date not one person has provided anytrhing that would show that the inference made by Dembski and Marks is wrong.Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

Alan Fox, I read the book- twice now. And by reading the book Dembski and Marks were correct- that being once a matching letter is found the search for it is over.Joseph_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT}

Sorry to press, Mr. M., but are your comments at 88 based on the book or what Wiki says about the book? Joe managed to get a copy, which I am hoping he will read.Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:29 AM
4
04
29
AM
PDT}

BTW I am originally from Warwickshire, England but now live in the Languedoc in France. Re 1 and 2. Fair enough. I adopt the principal that having nothing worth stealing is the best protection against theft. Re 3. Are we clear now? Dawkins did not fix letters (because he did not need to). Dr Elsberry confirmed this with Dawkins way back in 2000. Re 4, I expect others with programming expertise are able to comment more usefully than I. Zachriel would be one example, who I believe is unable to comment here.Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:23 AM
4
04
23
AM
PDT}

Mr Fox: Again, kindly observe my remarks on the way the Weasel program [and its kin] can have strong but misleading rhetorical impact that can then be obfuscated and shielded from challenge by using artful qualifications. That gap between the direct impact of what is headlined and shown vividly -- e.g. on BBC Horizon in 1987 -- and what is qualified using what is now known as weasel words, is a well known misleading rhetorical tactic. And even in this thread, we see cases where people are being misled even though Weasel is artificial not natural selection and it begs the question of getting to shores of function before climbing to hilltops of optimised function by hill climbing algorithms. Weasel was KNOWN from the outset to be "misleading" on the BLIND watchmaker claimed to be the focus of TBW, as 88 quotes. So, if something is misleading it should not be used, especially in a supposedly educational context. And that is a serious question to be answered by your side: why was Weasel used if it was known to be misleading and question-begging? (Cumulative selection -- if it is to be relevant to the real world -- must first address getting to complex, information rich function by chance + necessity without intelligent intervention. But then, that is the general challenge raised by ID in recent decades, and just as consistently ducked. [Onlookers, the massive evidence of observation is that FSCI is the product of design in cases where we know its origin, not just its replication. Try the origin of the texts in posts in this thread as a case in point of meaningful, code-bearing, functional digital data strings.]) Sadly, with the very long list of misleading icons of evolutionary materialism out there, this is hardly a new issue. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

Mr. M., Re point 5. Do I take it that you are critquing TBW on the basis of the Wikipaedia entry? It may be worth reading chapter 3 of BTW, as I am sure I recall you pointing out the doubtful quality of Wikipaedia entries.Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

I don't get this at all. In [235], kairosfocus shouts:
SO SOON AS IT WAS REPORTED THAT MR ELSBERRY HAS PASSED ON TESTIMONY THAT MR DAWKINS DID NOT EXPLICITLY LATCH WEASEL 1986, I AND OTHERS HAVE ACCEPTED THAT; AND WE HAVE INFERRED THAT WEASEL 1986'S O/P IS THEN BEST EXPLAINED ON IMPLICIT LATCHING
I actually missed that both because kf's definitions of "implicit latching" have hard to pin down and becuase he writes so much, and so little of it is to the point. Consider most recently:
Through Weasel 1986, my and Joseph’s analyses of the patterns that the statistics of mutant pops and of selection filters acting on same, it is highly evident that the mechanisms to create such evident latching of o/p can be based on BOTH explicit and implicit latching. [The latter being the better explanation on the overall cluster of evidence inclusive of Mr Dawkins' reported testimony of 2000 that he did not explicitly latch Weasel 1986.]
Aside from the laughable idea that Joseph analyzed anything on this thread, we have here the kairofocus effect, in which the one relatively clear thing kairfosfocus has written previously is now re-muddied. We saw this over and over in the discussion with hazel, where kf could not even bring himself to say "yes" or "no" to a simple question about mutation with respect to fitness. (An aside: Why shout through caps in the quote above? Maybe because in this thread alone, kairosfocus has written upwards of 13,000 words after mentioning that the issue wasn't worth discussing more. When you write that much, and so much is hard to pin down or beside the point, yo have to shout to be heard over yourself.)David Kellogg_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:11 AM
4
04
11
AM
PDT}

Mr Fox: 1] You are perhaps in different circumstances than I am. As a matter of fact I found out from previous situations that my name seemed to trigger spam, so I stopped using it. I make no broader claims than what holds for me; other than to note on a recent incident in your presidential election cycle [assuming you are American] which shows that there is a definite problem of Internet vandalism on the part of those likely to be associated with your views. Indeed, it was such vandalism [including deliberate use of rather vulgar language -- which I have objected to when I have seen it at UD] that led me to close off a free comments policy on my own blog. (And FYI, in recent weeks I have seen a rise in unwelcome email visitors (thankfully not a sudden, overwhelming surge); though also there was one acquaintance of old whose new name almost made me spam list him. Then, I remembered that there was someone with that name out there . . . (The good news on this is that it seems the spam filters of this world are working better today.)] 2] Even if I were to be wrong on this, it is a generally accepted principle of the Internet that there is a respect for privacy, especially given the problem of spam, and the associated ones of vandalism, identity theft and fraud; though I have taken other precautions against such that make me less vulnerable; e.g. I still refuse to use a personal Credit Card -- we can get away with using debit cards of one type or another here in the Caribbean. (I almost need not mention that "outing" of ID proponents is a prelude to expelling them. Just, that will not work in my case.) In short a set of fairly serious duties of care have been violated by advocates for your side. 3] There was a statement in the second thread in this chain in recent weeks, reporting from Mr Elsberry and onward to Mr Dawkins circa 2000; tot he effect that he did not explicitly latch his Weasel 1986. On seeing it, I have accepted that it tips the balance of evidence on the Weasel 1986 case to IMPLICIT latching as the overall best current explanation; detuning (perhaps to give good video footage) then explaining 1987 not a full change of algorithm. 4] Implicit latching does not require deliberate intent, just fiddling with parameters over a few to several runs, to get what seem to be "good" results. [E.g. I am fairly sure that Atom's 4%, 50/gen default was not a set of numbers that was just pulled out of the air at random. Similarly, you can see that I pushed the numbers towards those that would pull in more and more of the far skirt cases, and saw the effects I expected.] 5] I await your comments on 88 above. ____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT}

9] Underluing all of this is the basic failure of Weasel; it is targetted search...Everyone agrees this! Dawkins never claimed anything alse!
...— and by Mr Dawkins’ own admission...
Dawkins stated this upfront. "it is reall a bit of a cheat".
— it is not a good analogy to the BLIND watchmaker, natural selection, that is the champion of the book of that title.
Nor was it ever intended to be an analogy for evolution by natural selecion of variations in popultations of living organisms. Dawkins never claimed it was. On the contrary, he was careful to state that it wasn't.
Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT}

Oops scuse HTML error!Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT}

Mr. M., Are you saying that Dawkins does say his letters fixed. Is he saying it explicitly? Do you have a quote? Or is it implicit>/b> somewhere? Perhaps you can clarify?Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
03:34 AM
3
03
34
AM
PDT}

An update on an experiment. I published my email address here a few weeks ago. Since then I have received no unsolicited or junk mail on that address! Mr. M., even publishing your valid email here does not generate spam. It may be due to traffic level, however.Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
03:30 AM
3
03
30
AM
PDT}

Mr Fox: 1] Kindly cf supra, 88; as has been repeatedly pointed out. [You will find there the excerpts from TBW used by Wiki in an attempt to justify Mr Dawkins' argument. So, the matter constitutes a telling admission against interest, once my parenthetical notes are used to bring out the underlying issues. I find it interesting how after many days there is no serious dealing with that evidence as I (and Joseph independently) have put it on the table and as necessary pointed to it again and again.] 2] I think there are also a few matters of serious (and sometimes ad hominem laced) assertions against Joseph and myself and our case, made by yourself, those at Anti Evo [as I gather, your associates],and by your co-belligerents in this thread above, that need to be reckoned with in light of some specific experimental evidence over the past 24 or so hours. (Not to mention, insistent violations of my privacy.) 3] High on this agenda, is the point that it is now clear beyond reasonable dispute that Weasel 86 latched the o/p: once a letter went correct, we have further excellent reason to infer from the evidence in hand, that it stayed that way. My reasoning about the law of large numbers, in particular, is strongly supported by the way it logically consistently led to correct -- and plainly unexpected by objectors and detractors -- predictions of further evidence. [And BTW, much of the debating on specifics of filters is irrelevant: as long as the filter gives a proximity metric capable of showing letterwise progress, the same basic results will follow.] 4] Through Weasel 1986, my and Joseph's analyses of the patterns that the statistics of mutant pops and of selection filters acting on same, it is highly evident that the mechanisms to create such evident latching of o/p can be based on BOTH explicit and implicit latching. [The latter being the better explanation on the overall cluster of evidence inclusive of Mr Dawkins' reported testimony of 2000 that he did not explicitly latch Weasel 1986.] 5] We have -- thanks to Atom -- demonstrated, empirically, and posted above: implicit latching, quasi-latching, the double mutation substitution effect, associated reversions of letters, impact of higher mutation rates and of bigger per generation populations, etc. Several of these mechanisms were disputed or dismissed [too often with ad hominems], but are now demonstrated empirically, beyond reasonable dispute. 6] In short the model that generational champions used to make populations of variants based on random variations of letters with a certain probability of mutation per letter, and filtered by a mere proximity filter, leading to the next champion, credibly accounts for the Weasel o/p of 1986 and 87. 7] So, we see that o/p latching is credible in Weasel 1986, and that on preponderance of evidence implicit latching is a viable mechanism to explain it. 8] Similarly, we see that de-tuning of the parameters leads to quasi latching and to other effects as the pop size and mutation rate rises or falls. [Scroll up and see the data on runs.] 9] Underluing all of this is the basic failure of Weasel; it is targetted search without reference ot a reasonable threshold of first funciton and incremental function. As such -- and by Mr Dawkins' own admission -- it is not a good analogy to the BLIND watchmaker, natural selection, that is the champion of the book of that title. 10] However, because of the difference in popular level impact between a computer simulation and the qualifications attached thereto in a book over several pages, the rhetorical impact of Weasel is to improperly persuade many that so-called cumulative selection suffices to answer the Hoylean challenge ot get TO shores of islands of function before hill climbing can begin by NS etc. 11] In fact, Weasel and kin are a case of question begging leading to distraction from, deflection of, and onward dismissal of a serious challenge. It is yet another misleading icon of evolutionary materialism -- one of a sadly long list. ___________ Now, onlookers, I cannot force Mr Fox et al to deal with the evidence fairly and squarely, but we can draw our own conclusions for ourselves about (a) the want of quality of their case on the merits, on (b) the underlying want of quality of the way they have approached the issues, and on (c) the question of a sadly plain want of dealing with others fairly, and civilly on the part of too many evolutionary materialists and their fellow travellers. In turn, such issues are a warning to us, if we are interested in the health of science, science education and of general discussion of serious matters. Which are necessary things if our civilisation is to have a healthy future. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
03:05 AM
3
03
05
AM
PDT}

Scuse typosAlan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
01:48 AM
1
01
48
AM
PDT}

GEM quoting Joe!
2 –> Joseph, 246: The deception is that people think that cumulative selection is a real thing because of what Dawkins wrote. Prezactly.
Let's have the quote,then. What did Dawkins wrtie that misleads anyone over whether letters fixed in his "Weasel" program? What he actually wrote about "Weasel" is in chapter 3 of TBW (1986 edition) starting on page 43. see above for sections already quoted. I can find nothing to suggest correct letters were fixed and prevented from "mutating" further. As Hazel says:
How can you blame Dawkins for NOT mentioning things that his program was NOT doing, or for not having the foresight to anticipate that Dembski would mistakenly make incorrect assumptions about the program.
Do you not see, Mr M., how this undermines yourcredibility?Alan Fox_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
01:47 AM
1
01
47
AM
PDT}

PPS: I should comment on the champion selection function wars. So long as a function rewards mere proximity to target [without reference to credible complex functional information] and can detect a one-letter increment in "progress" the pattern where the pop size will interact with the mut rate and the tail of the distribution to push towards the target will happen. And that targetted search will illustrate exactly the key failure of Weasel to address the need to first get tot he shores ofd islands of function inthe config space, before applying hill-climbing methods. As I noted in the original December 08 thread at 107 and 111:
[107:] the problem with the fitness landscape [i.e. as envisioned for the biological world] is that it is flooded by a vast sea of non-function, and the islands of function are far separated one from the other. [Notice how this has never been seriously addressed: getting to body plan no 1, with credibly 600 k bits or so of bio-information as the threshold of functionality, i.e a config space ~ 10^180,617; and onward for body plans requiring 10's - 100's of mega bits of increments of functional information] So far in fact — as I discuss in the linked in enough details to show why I say that — that searches on the order of the quantum state capacity of our observed universe are hopelessly inadequate. Once you get to the shores of an island, you can climb away all you want using RV + NS as a hill climber or whatever model suits your fancy. But you have to get TO the shores first. THAT is the real, and too often utterly unaddressed or brushed aside, challenge. [111, excerpted paragraph used by GLF in his threadjack:] Weasel [i.e. as published in 1986] sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. [If you doubt this, simply observe the o/p . . . ] That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.
kairosfocus_{April 10, 2009
April
04
Apr
10
10
2009
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: An interesting result overnight, nuh? A few comments: 1--> H, 263: as already pointed out, the material point is not whether there was or was not a random-mutation sub process in the search [in any case in serious considerartion on Weasel 1986, random search was used]; but, whether the target was defined letterwise or phrasewise. (In explicit latching the definition is letterwise, in implicit, phrasewise. Again cf. 88 above.) 2 --> Joseph, 246: The deception is that people think that cumulative selection is a real thing because of what Dawkins wrote. Prezactly. 3 --> JayM, 255: Kindly observe no 88 above. Your claims were anticipated -- not merely answered -- in this thread. 4 --> iskim labmildew: Excellent alterantive and mroe credible term. My discussions above hint that something like proximity metric is more accurate. 5 --> H, 263: no locking of letters insofar as this means that on preponderance of evidence we accept that no EXPLICIT latching was used, that is acceptable. However, if it is a case of searching for emanations of penumbras of the weasel words in the text of TBW to claim that the most natural reading of that text and o/p was that there was no explicit letterwise latching is a case of trying to fly in the face of obvious facts. [Cf the natural reading of the Monash University people (who support "your" side), as I have pointed out previously.] One cannot stop that, but one can point out that it is an attempt to justify the indefensible, cf 88 above. 6 --> GP, 244: Descent with modification in the presence of selection pressures has a meaning only when some selectable modification has been created, The tornado argument shows the implausibility that anything selectable of reasonable complexity may ever be generated by RV. The problem with darwinian theory is that is states, assumes, believes, imposes, but never proves that selectable complex traits can come out of RV, or in alternative be deconstructed as a gradual accumulation of smaller selectable steps. Prove that, or at least show a credible model of that, and your theory will begin to be at least debatable. Bullseye, as usual! __________________ Atom; keep the good stuff coming! (Thanks in advance.) GEM of TKI PS: There is an attempt in the above linked anti evo thread -- which at long last respects my privacy at least in the first few posts -- to twist my remarks above, on what I have long since highlighted at UD, that there is o/p latching evident in Weasel 1986 runs as published, that may be explained by mechanisms T2 [explicit latch] and T3 [implicit latch] into a claimed admission of "defeat." Pathetic. (Anti evo folks, please, the strawman of your making [that conflates latching of o/p with only explicit latching as mechanism] has never been accurate. I have pointed out that on a natural reading of the o/p of 1986 and the remarks of Mr Dawkins, o/p latching is so beyond reasonable doubt. The material issue is mechanisms, and T2 vs T3 is to be assessed on inference to best explanation. On the TBW evidence circa 1986, T2 is a very natural reading. It is on testimony from CRD, via Mr Elsberry, that T3 is preferred on preponderance of evidence -- despite some odd points that stick out on comparing the videotaped run of BBC horizon c. 1987, which does not latch or quasi-latch.)kairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
11:47 PM
11
11
47
PM
PDT}

Atom, Thanks for the response. The terms seem to be off, though. How can a "fitness function" be so called if it is false to fact? Wolpert and MacReady used "cost function," which at least doesn't try to say that any particular cost function corresponds to reality. The issue to track is what happens in nature. Dr. Dembski's position is that algorithms, functions, and natural law have problems generating CSI, and advances the argument that searching for just the right fitness function is a problem. But if, say, the lock that I discussed last time opens to some "011" attribute of an organism, and each individual from a population gets to try such a lock itself, how is there any "search" for a "fitness function?" Before one says that this isn't applicable in biology, I should say that some insects utilize genitals structured like wards and keys. That would seem to have some of the flavor of the locking example I've been referring to. The one and only thing that happens is that organisms who have the "011" property get in, and the ones that don't, don't. The organisms trying the lock never select a fitness function. They just either can or cannot utilize whatever lies behind the lock. They never encounter a situation where the wrong property unlocks it (as might happen with 254 of the 256 possible "fitness functions"), or the right property fails to unlock it (as happens in 128 out of 256 of them). Isn't this a problem for Dembski's argument?iskim labmildew_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT}

Atom @263
I am not on Uncommon Descent a lot (people sometimes think I’ve left the site, since I don’t post for long intervals sometimes) so condensing the main points and posting them here would help me, at least.
If you're not here often, how would summarizing Zachriel's points here help you? Just go interact with him where he's allowed to participate. I suspect the two of you would get along well. Those of us in the peanut gallery would certainly benefit. JJJayM_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
05:41 PM
5
05
41
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply