The Simulation Wars

_{William Dembski
March 26, 2009

Intelligent Design

1}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; 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

Someone has brought the following quotes from BWM to my attention: Pg. 307
It is only if you define 'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards bodily improvement' that mutation is truly random.
Pg. 312
Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, ...
Since Dawkins description of Weasel includes the phrase “but with a certain chance of random error - 'mutation' - in the copying...”, I think anyone who has followed the overall argument of the book would know that when Dawkins said “random error - 'mutation' - in the copying” he would of course be referring to “'random' as meaning 'no general bias towards bodily improvement'” Hence, no locking of letters: as once clearly shown earlier, only if you have no latching of letters at the mutation level is the mutation random in respect to the fitness function. QEDhazel_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
03:13 PM
3
03
13
PM
PST}

David Kellogg, I did have a look for myself earlier today, but 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. Also, I'm sure that others who don't frequent AntiEvo would appreciate you (or a volunteer) posting anything that is relevant and interesting so we can discuss it. hazel, Thanks. I appreciate people taking the time to help me with beta testing and hopefully we all benefit in the end. AtomAtom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
03:09 PM
3
03
09
PM
PST}

I appreciate your outlook, Atom. Debugging, like all revision processes, improves a product, and collaborative work with others "beta testing" a program can be valuable. I find it refreshing that you aren't put off by responses from people who might been seen as critics, and are in fact able to stay focused on the actual details of the work rather than any larger differences you all might have.hazel_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PST}

Atom, as much as I enjoy being Zachriel's secretary, it's probably more useful to see the discussion over there. There's less chance of error (mutation?) in transcription. Plus, nobody there thinks you're a "dummy," as you put it.David Kellogg_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PST}

iskim labmildew, You bring up an interesting discussion point. In your example, you say that the fitness functions can possibly assign a high fitness value (1) to a configuration that does not correspond to the target we are hoping to reach (namely, 011) and it may assign a low fitness value to the target (011 gets assigned 0 in some functions.) This is correct, which is why it is important to select the correct fitness function for what we are hoping to select for. A lot of the possible fitness functions will hinder our search by providing negative active information (to borrow the EIL phrase.) The examples you give illustrate this. To counter this, we could choose a fitness function that "aligns" with our target, meaning, encodes some information about the target we are hoping to reach, so that it can guide the search along. If we pick a function that contributes negative active information, we can actually see the search perform worse than random unassisted search. This is an area ripe for empirical research and I'm hoping that the Weasel Ware 2.0 software allows us to begin exploring this. Since users can code their own custom fitness functions, we can make progress exploring in a way that benefits everyone. So all of the possible fitness functions / reward matrices are actually relevant, they just may not be good for our search. The fitness function does not tell you if a target has been reached or not; it only gives a numeric value allow you to order your organisms. This is a key distinction. There is a lot to discuss on this topic, but this post is too long so I'll stop right here. A proper treatment of this subject would require at least a paper; for my part, I'm developing the tools and designing some of the experiments in the meantime. AtomAtom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:40 PM
1
01
40
PM
PST}

Joseph writes,
So the bottom line is stop blaming Dembski and Marks for Dawkins’ sloppiness and deception.
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. Dembski is a Ph.D mathematician. With just a little of analysis of his own he should have know that locking letters in place was not needed to account for the published data, and therefore the fact that such locking was not mentioned should have been enough to prevent Dembski from assuming it was there. You just can't blame someone for not explicitly stating all the things they are not doing just to keep someone else from jumping to a wrong conclusion.hazel_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:19 PM
1
01
19
PM
PST}

Joseph @252
I have asked for quotes FROM THAT BOOK that would refute the logic behind that inference yet not one has been produced.
Not so. David Kellogg has repeatedly posted a link to a web page that does exactly what you request. That page makes it very clear that no reasonable reading of The Blind Watchmaker would lead to the conclusion of explicit latching. JJJayM_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PST}

Joseph, As much as I'd like to be a perfect programmer, I know that any code I produce will intially have some bugs in it. I want to eliminate any bugs anyone finds, so that everyone can have a useful simulator for whatever experiments they want to run. If people at Antievo pinpoint bugs in the GUI, I would like to acknowledge that and fix them for everyone as soon as possible. I don't care if they think I'm a dummy for having bugs, I've worked with coders for years, so I know that pretty much everyone has bugs when they code. I'm more interested in having a good working GUI. :) AtomAtom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PST}

Atom, The "fitness function" space discussion is interesting. Are you using "fitness function" in the way that Wolpert and MacReady use "cost function"? I'm not sure what the value is of the extra 25 thousand or so "fitness functions" beyond the 40 thousand possible orderings of 8 alternatives. What if we take as an example Dembski's favorite sort of fitness functions, the ones where the "target" gets the sole high value and everything else gets zip? Then, F=1, and the number of "fitness functions" is 2^8 = 256. The problem would be like a lock that only unlocks when three switches are in "011" or off-on-on position, and you are looking to unlock the device by flipping switches. What is the upshot of that? Just one of those 256 "fitness functions" corresponds to the case where the "011" string gets assigned 1 and the rest get assigned 0, so in just one case does the "fitness function" say that the lock unlocks with "011" and stays locked with all the other positions. 128 of those "fitness functions" actually assign your target string, "011," a value of 0, so the "fitness function" tells you that the lock is still locked even though the switches are in the "011" position. 254 of them also assign some other string or strings a value of 1, so the "fitness function" tells you that the lock is unlocked even when the switches are not in the "011" position. Doesn't it seem strange to you to be talking about selecting from "fitness functions" that don't actually apply to the situation at hand?iskim labmildew_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PST}

Joseph @252
Again I reference “The Blind Watchmaker” as did Dembski and marks. From reading that reference the logical inference is that once a letter is found the search for it is over which essentially means it is latched in place.
This is simply not the case. I posted the full Weasel excerpt from The Blind Watchmaker in message 182 and invited you to point out exactly how you could come to your erroneous conclusion. You did not respond. Since the text is still up there, please show how anything that Dawkins wrote could remotely be construed to suggest explicit latching of characters. JJJayM_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PST}

Atom:
Please relay anything useful and relevant here.
That's a joke, right? ;)Joseph_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PST}

Atom @251
Please relay anything useful and relevant here.
Atom, You should consider participating there, as well. It would be more efficient than David Kellogg copying and pasting. Plus, Zachriel has always struck me as a courteous and intelligent person. Your conversations would no doubt be mutually beneficial. JJJayM_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:38 AM
8
08
38
AM
PST}

hazel:
Yes, what is settled, thank goodness, is that Dembski was wrong when he assumed in the paper he and Marks wrote (I can’t find a link write now) that letters were explicitly latched.
We can agree to disagree. Again I reference "The Blind Watchmaker" as did Dembski and marks. From reading that reference the logical inference is that once a letter is found the search for it is over which essentially means it is latched in place. I have asked for quotes FROM THAT BOOK that would refute the logic behind that inference yet not one has been produced. So the bottom line is stop blaming Dembski and Marks for Dawkins' sloppiness and deception.Joseph_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PST}

David Kellogg, Please relay anything useful and relevant here. Thanks! AtomAtom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PST}

I have fixed a bug in Proximity Reward Search that affected population sizes of "1", and updated the code on the site. Thanks to Bill for checking the GUI and finding the bug. Everyone else, please continue to report any bugs you find. I can only fix the bugs I'm aware of. AtomAtom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PST}

Addendum, Here is another simple fitness/evaluation function you can try: aError = Math.abs(this.stringSum(target) - this.stringSum(a)); bError = Math.abs(this.stringSum(target) - this.stringSum(b)); This one bases fitness on the distance between the target's ASCII sum and the string's ASCII sum, providing indirect information about the target. This differs from CRC32 in that the ASCII sum will always be similar for similar strings (as far as I know), so it should be a smooth function without surprises. How do you guys think this search will perform? AtomAtom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
07:38 AM
7
07
38
AM
PST}

KF, You're very welcome. There are more simulations coming and more epxeriments to be done, and it is all my pleasure to help settle questions empirically. gpuccio, Weasel Ware 2.0 also contains fitness functions / reward matrices that are not based on the target, or are only based on some property of the target, to greater or lesser degrees. In a word you can now alter the amount of information the reward matrix contains about the target, and see how the search performs. For example, Proximity Neutral Search using the Partially Neutral: CRC32 method will select based not on proximity to the target string, but based on the CRC32 checksum's distance from the target's CRC32 checksum. (This gives less information about the target, since multiple strings can have the same CRC32 checksum and since the CRC32 algorithm will contain surprises in fitness values of similar strings, mimicking the existence of small genomic changes having large effects.) Or you can also use Simple Sum method, which takes the ASCII sum of the strings and uses that as a basis for fitness, thus not containing any information about the target but still using fitness values, replication, mutation and selection. You will see first hand what happens when you limit the amount of information you encode in the reward matrix, or increase it. KF's "Advanced" example demonstrates this interactively, as you alter the grouping length in real time. Most importantly, eveyone can now do experiments and design their own fitness functions, basing fitness on whatever criteria they like. I gave a few examples to get you started. Atom PS If anyone codes a cool fitness function, please post it here. Hopefully I can get the admins to come up with a post dedicated to interesting user created fitness functions and their effect on weasel, if people are interested.Atom_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PST}

Alan, The deception is that people think that cumulative selection is a real thing because of what Dawkins wrote.Joseph_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST}

And if Dawkins was aware from the start that it was “a bit of a cheat”, that is another point I will consider in my general opinion of him.
Not "aware", gpuccio, he explicitly stated this. There was and is no deception on Dawkins' part.Alan Fox_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PST}

faded_Glory (#216): So, I am happy we agree about what the weasel is not. And if Dawkins was aware from the start that it was "a bit of a cheat", that is another point I will consider in my general opinion of him. And it is certainly a good example of the general moral notion that cheats do not bear good results. I must disagree with you about the fact that the point "about needing prior knowledge has actually been addressed many times." It depends on what you mean with "addressed". The fact remains that so called simulations of NS abound, and that not one of them is free from any prior knowledge of the results to be obtained. In other words, not one of them is a simulation of NS, while all of them are simulations of IS, in different forms. If you agree on that, I will agree that you have "addressed" my point, but I still would wonder why so many darwinists are spending time making good simulations of ID while pretending (sometimes admitting they are cheating) that they are in somw way simulations of RV + NS. They are not. All existing simulations are simulations of some form of ID. No wonder that some of them are very successful! You say: "Evolution has no goal, but that does not prevent it from generating solutions that are adapted to their environment." That's exactly what should be proven. That's exactly what we in ID believe (and prove) to be false. It's strange how darwinists, when they are short of arguments, just recur to simple statements of their beliefs, as if that could solve any problem. You say: "The main flaw in the tornado argument is that it ignores descent with modification in the presence of selection pressures." That's because the tornado argument is about RV, not NS. It shows what RV can accomplish: practically nothing. The impotence of NS to select from that nothing can be addressed separately in many other ways. So, the tornado argument is very good, but it addresses only a part of the theory. The other part (NS) can be shown false separately, using the criticism of RV as an engine of selectable of information which is so well exemplified in the tornado argument (but which can be specified much more rigorously in other ways). You say: "The main flaw in the tornado argument is that it ignores descent with modification in the presence of selection pressures." It is not a flaw. 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. But strangely, all darwinists become evasive at this point, and change the subject. You say: "As a criticism of Darwinian evolution it misses its target by miles. Small stepwise tornadoes will indeed not result in an airplane. Do you really think anyone believes they do?" There is no limit to what darwinists seem to be able to believe. And you know, small stepwise tornadoes will not even generate parts of an airplane. Or anything selectable as a part of an airplane beyond the absolutely trivial. Can you understand that? The argument shows (not in detail, but intuitively, like all metaphors: but a detailed treatment of the problem has been given many times in ID) that RV cannot generate anything functional and selectable beyond a very low threshold of complexity; and that complex functional systems (like an airplane) cannot obviously be deconstructed as a random assemblage of smaller trivial parts.gpuccio_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
06:37 AM
6
06
37
AM
PST}

PS: Not explicitly latched.kairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PST}

Hazel On my way out on a wet day. A few notes: 1] Absent credible code circa 1986, we do not have definitive information to decide on whether the weasel o/p circa 1986 latched explicitly or implicitly. (It remains possible that Weasel 1986 was explicitly latched, while Weasel 1987 was not, on strict accounting of the facts and possibilities in evidence; especially on the record of the published information in TBW and new Scientist. It is not on these facts but a report that an inference to implicit latching was reverted to.) 2] We do, however, have more than adequate information to conclude to moral certainty that the o/p was latched. (We have for a long time, just the data runs today show this beyond reasonable dispute by replicating the pattern and tendencies inferred per law of large numbers.) 3] On being informed of a personal declaration that Weasel 86 was not latched, we have accepted this as establishing that the best explanation of the o/p on the preponderance of evidence -- note the third, increasingly weakened degree of warrant being used here -- was implicitly latched. 4] The Atom sims (thanks again Atom) and my runs above suffice to show beyond reasonable doubt that the implicit latching is demonstrated to be real, as is quasi latching, as is the pattern of dynamics associated with larger rates and/or populations, up to and including substitutions. 5] Further to this, the weeks- long parade of dismissals, distortions and claims of major error on my part -- starting with GLF, and going on to many others in this thread, at Anti Evo and elsewhere, including Mr Elsberry -- are shown to themselves be based on error, beyond reasonable doubt. 6] For, as a scan up will show, the pattern of dynamics and predictions I made have been substantiated, up to the still unobserved triple mutation effect, which I suspect that on the maxing out of population, I have not gone far enough to see it. 7] Now, let us see how the same ones who so stridently and confidently argued, asserted and declared that Joseph and I were grossly wrong and ignorant or worse, will now correct the record, and address the many ad hominems and uncivil actions they have undertaken. 8] And, lastly, H, this thread and the previous ones have not in the main been about Mr Dembski, but about Joseph and the undersigned. _____________ GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
05:27 AM
5
05
27
AM
PST}

Yes, what is settled, thank goodness, is that Dembski was wrong when he assumed in the paper he and Marks wrote (I can't find a link write now) that letters were explicitly latched. Even now the Weasel Ware page says,
In the search proposed by Dr. Dawkins, letters are chosen randomly. For each letter, we can envision spinning a roulette wheel and randomly selecting a letter. Once a letter hits at a location, we keep it.
Perhaps this will now be fixed, and Dembski will not make this assumption again if he writes more about Weasel.hazel_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PST}

PPPPPs; Forgot the substitution effect. 239, case F: _____________ 105. MEWHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WEASEL 106. METHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WNASEL [ . . . ] 296. MEGHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 297. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEQSEL ___________ Two double mutations, with a 1-letter advance compensated by a 1-letter reversion. As also predicted. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PST}

PPPPS; Case F, 999, 25%: _____________ 1. SSLHNNJAPJTDIIMALWGOTNLGZ TF 2. SUTHNNJAPJTDIPMALHY VNLGC TF 3. SJTHYNJA JTDIPMALHY ONLGA TN 4. MJTHYNJA JTDIPMAIHY ONLGA TO 5. MQTHINJA JT IGMAIHF KNLMA TO [ . . . ] 25. MLTHINK IT WE LWKN A WEASEL 26. METHINK KIT WY LWKN A WEASEL 27. METHINKKIIT JY LWKN A WEASEL 28. METHINKJIIT JY LWKN A WEASEL 29. METHINKJYIT JY LGKE A WEASEL 30. METHINKJYIT JY LGKE A WEASEL [ . . . ] 105. MEWHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WEASEL 106. METHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WNASEL 107. METHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WNASEL 108. METHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WNASEL 109. METHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WNASEL 110. METHINKS IT ISRLIKE A WNASEL [ . . . ] 295. MEGHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 296. MEGHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 297. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEQSEL 298. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEQSEL 299. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEQSEL 300. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 301. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 302. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 303. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 304. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 305. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 306. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 307. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 308. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 309. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 310. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 311. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 312. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 313. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 314. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 315. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 316. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 317. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEFSEL 318. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL _________________ Reversions aplenty and hard to close the deal. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:36 AM
1
01
36
AM
PST}

PPPS: Case E; 999/gen, 16%: __________________ 1. BPPMIFLKYSMEIJWTOYEBNORYPQCI 2. Y PMINLKYSMAIJWTZKEBNORYPQCI 3. Y PMINLKYSMAIS TZKEBNORYPQCZ 4. Y TMINLKYSMAIS DYKEUNORYPQCL 5. Y TUINLKBSMAIS LRKE NORYPQCL 6. R TKINLKUSMAISJLIKE S MYPQCL 7. RETKINLKUSMAISJLIKE S MVPQCL 8. RETKINLDUSMDISJLIKE S WVPQOL 9. METKINLDUSMDISJLIKE S WVPQRL 10. METKINYSUMTDISJLIKE S WYPQRR 11. METKINYSUMTDIS LIKE S WYPEBR 12. METLINYSUMTDIS LIKE S WYPEBL 13. METLINYSUITDIS LIKE S WYPEBL 14. METLINYSUITDIS LIKE S WMAEBL 15. METLINCSUITDIS LIKE A WMAEBL 16. METLINKSUITDIS LIKE A WMAEBL 17. METUINKSUITDIS LIKE A WMAEEL 18. METUINKSUITDIS LIKE A WEAEEL 19. METUINKS ITDIS LIKE A WEAEEL 20. METUINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAEEL 21. METOINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAEEL 22. METOINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAEEL 23. METOINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 24. METOINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 25. METOINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 26. METOINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 27. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 28. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 29. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 30. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 31. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 32. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 33. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEAKEL 34. METHINKS FT IS LIKE A WEASEL 35. METHINKS FT IS LIKE A WEASEL 36. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL __________________ Late reversion. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PST}

PPS: Case D: 999/gen [maxed out], 8%: ________________ 1. MMCJXLTPPCNATTMLKDXOBDKMBJQX 2. MMCJXL PPCNATT LKDXOBDKMAJQX 3. MMCJXL PPCNATT LKDXOB KMAJUX 4. MECJXL PPCLATT LIDXOB KMAJUX 5. MECJXL PPWPOVS LIDXOB WMAJUX 6. MECLXL PPWPOVS LIDXOY WMAJUL 7. MECLXL SPWPOVS LIDXOY WMAJUL 8. MECLXL SJWPOIS LITXOY WMAJUL 9. MECLXL SJWP IS LIZXOY WTASUL 10. MECLXL S WP IS LIZAOY WTASUL 11. MECLXL S IP IS LIZAOY WTASEL 12. MECLXL S IT IS LIZAOY WTASEL 13. MECLXL S IT IS LIKNOY WTASEL 14. MECLXL S IT IS LIKEOY WTASEL 15. MECHXL S IT IS LIKE Y WUASEL 16. METHXZ S IT IS LIKE Y WUASEL 17. METHXZ S IT IS LIKE A WUASEL 18. METHKN S IT IS LIKE A WUASEL 19. METHKN S IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 20. METHIN S IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 21. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL __________________ Here we see speeding up of run to the target. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:20 AM
1
01
20
AM
PST}

PS: Run C, 500 /gen, 8% mutation rate: _______________ 1. QB NRQWFVIDGVT FLOPLWCGHLIJM 2. MB NRQWFVIDVVT FLOPLW GHLIJV 3. MB NRQWFVIDVVT FLOPNW GZLIEV 4. ME NRQWFVITVVT FLOPNW GZLIEV 5. ME NRQWFVITVVT LLOPNW GZLBEV 6. MEXNRQWFVITVTT LLKPNW GZLBEV 7. MEXNRQKFVITVTT LLKPTW GZLBEV 8. MEXNRRKFVITVTT LLKPTW CXLBEL 9. MEXNRRKFVIT TT LLKETW CXYBEL 10. MEXNRIKFVIT TT LLKETW CEYBEL 11. MEXNRIKFVIT TT LLKETA CEYBEL 12. MEXNRIKFVIT TT LLKETA CEABEL 13. MEXNRIKFVIT TT LIKERA REABEL 14. MEXNRIKFVIT TS LIKERA REABEL 15. MEKNRIKFVIT TS LIKERA REASEL 16. MEKNRIKSVIT TS LIKERA REASEL 17. MEKNIIKSVIT TS LIKERA REASEL 18. MEKNINKSVIT TS LIKERA REASEL 19. MEKNINKSVIT IS LIKERA REASEL 20. MEKNINKS IT IS LIKEDA REASEL 21. MEKNINKS IT IS LIKE A REASEL 22. MEKHINKS IT IS LIKE A REASEL 23. MEKHINKS IT IS LIKE A REASEL 24. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A REASEL 25. METHRNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 26. METHRNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 27. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 28. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 29. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 30. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 31. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 32. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 33. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 34. METHHNKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL 35. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL _____________ Observe the reversion at 24/25, and the time it took to recover. indeed, the reverted letter was the last one to go correct inthe end. Case C exhibits Quasi latching, with letter reversion and recovery, with a high pop size per gen and a high per letter mutation rate. As predicted, but derided and dismissed. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PST}

3] AF, 217: “Weasel” did not fix correct letters. Will you accept Professor Dawkins’ confirmation that this is so? Pardon a direct word or two: Mr F, when will you [and your friends over at Anti Evo] stop misrepresenting what I have said? I have for several weeks and threads here at UD highlighted that there is an observed latching of the o/p of weasel 1986. I then proposed that we explain that by two mechanisms, T2: letterwise explicitly latched search, and T3: implicit latching that works off co-tuned mut rate and pop size together with the mere proximity filter. Much digital ink has been wasted in trying to say that implicit latching is not latching, etc. The above printoffs should suffice to answer that decisively. More importantly, 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. (The credibility of this explanation has been now abundantly and directly confirmed; thanks to Atom's public spirited effort.) This has been repeatedly stated, in this thread and elsewhere, including to you above. I therefore find it disappointing to see you at this late stage trying to insist or imply that I have not done so. 4] Crater, 219: Alan, you are rather late to the party. This has been pointed out numerous times to KF over the several weeks this latching/non-latching discussion has been going on. Please see the directly above. You too are seriously misrepresenting me -- and in your case, not for the first time. Also, I must note to you that it is strictly correct to refer to a gentleman as Mr, regardless of academic titles, in preference to just using his given or surname (which I find in the first place a bit familiar, and in the second somewhat abrupt). To do so is not at all a matter of disrespect. 5] error read the above printoffs, and run your own sims. I have plainly made no material error. 6] Joseph, 220: As I said according to Dawkins once something is found the search for it is over. THAT is the whole premise behind cumulative selection. And THAT is how Dawkins portrayed it in TBW. Correct. And, we have been plainly vindicated. 7] Hazel, 225: fitness function A proximity reward metric and algorithm are precisely not a BLIND watchmaker fitness function. And that is the main fault with Weasel. 8] DK, 230: I’m not going to edit everything for your delicate sensibility on the off chance you might get the vapors. The conflation of design thought with biblical creationism is a slander, and often a calculated one. I asked you (and others) -- very properly -- to refrain from propagating that common slander here. In your presentation of Mr Elsberry's arguments, you replicated that slander -- a slander you yourself have resorted to in this thread. I therefore noted (again) correctively. For good reason. Contra your "vapours" dismissive remark; which reveals a want of concern for truth and fairness on your part. Which just happen to be duties of civil care. 9] The bulk of your response to Dr. Elsberry was non-responsive. I would have thought you would have attacked his math with fewer words and more calculations — more than none, at least. The basic problem -- as I have pointed out previously -- with Dr Elsberry's remarks was CONCEPTUAL. On the GIGO principle, no mathematical model or algorithm is any better than its relevance, its input data, assumptions and logical/dynamical structure. I summarised the basic error yesterday. Today, thanks to Atom, I present empirical data that show that I am right on the material points. And that is enough for any reasonable onlooker. _____________ Atom, thanks again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:02 AM
1
01
02
AM
PST}

GP, other participants and onlookers, Further footnotes. But first, a big thank-you to Atom for providing a good test-bed. And BTW, out of the box, at 50 members per generation and with 4% per letter mutation rate, proximity reward search latched or so close to latched on my first run, as makes no difference. You will also see predominance of both no-change cases and of the single step advances, just as Joseph and I have remarked on. Finally, I did a 500 pop at 4% run as run no 2. In 31 gens it hit target, i.e the tail effect shows up. QED. _______________ RUN A: 50/gen, 4% per letter mut rate: 1. HIMMITFEBTIYEVJHKWLSQZBWWZHW 2. MIMMITFEBTIYEVJHKWLSQZBWWZHW 3. MIMMITFEBTIYEVJHKWL QZBWWZHW [ . . . ] 27. MEIFINKE IT DS KGKL A VEXJXT 28. MEIFINKE IT DS KGKL A VEXIXT 29. MEIFINKE IT DS KGKL A VEXIXT 30. MEIFINKE IT DS LGKL A VEXIXT 31. MEIFINKE IT DS LGKL A VEXIXT 32. MEIFINKE IT DS LGKL A VEXIXT 33. MEIFINKE IT DS LGKF A VEXZXT 34. MEIFINKE IT DS LGKF A VEXZXT 35. MEIHINKE IT DS LGKF A VEXZXT 36. MEIHINKE IT DS LNKF A VEXZXT 37. MEIHINKE IT VS LNKF A VEXZXT 38. METHINKE IT VS LNKF A VEXZXT 39. METHINKE IT VS LNKF A VEXZXT 40. METHINKE IT VS LNKF A VEXZXT 41. METHINKE IT VS LNKF A VEXZXT 42. METHINKE IT VS LNKF A VEXZXT 43. METHINKE IT VS LIKF A VEXZBT 44. METHINKE IT VS LIKF A VEXZBT 45. METHINKE IT VS LIKF A WEXZBT 46. METHINKE IT VS LIKF A WEXZBT [ . . . ] 62. METHINKS IT GS LIKK A WEXSBG 63. METHINKS IT GS LIKK A WEXSBG 64. METHINKS IT NS LIKK A WEXSBG 65. METHINKS IT NS LIKK A WEXSBG 66. METHINKS IT NS LIKK A WEXSBG 67. METHINKS IT NS LIKK A WEXSBG [ . . . ] 120. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 121. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 122. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 123. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 124. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 125. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 126. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 127. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 128. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 129. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 130. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEG 131. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL _________________ RUN B, 500 pop/gen, 4% per letter mut rate: 1. MEL LSI YHXMAJLMDGMVKTSKGW 2. MEL LSI YHXIAJLMDNMVKTSKGW 3. MEL LSI YHXISJLMDNMJKTSKGW 4. MEL LSI YHXISJLMDN JKTSKGW 5. MEL LNI YHXISJLDDN JKTSKGW 6. MEL LNI YHXISJLDDN JKTEKGW 7. MEL LNB BHXISJLDDN JKTEKGE 8. MEL LNB BHXISJLIDN JKTEKGE 9. MEL LNB BHXISJLIDN JKTEKSE 10. MEL LNB BHXISJLIDN JKTEKSEL 11. MEL LNK BHXISJLIDN JKTEKSEL 12. MEL LNK BHXIS LIDN JKTEKSEL 13. MET LNKV BHXIS LIDN JKTEKSEL 14. MET LNKV BHXIS LIDN AKTEKSEL 15. MET LNKV BHXIS LIDE AKFEKSEL 16. MET LNKV BHXIS LIKE AKFEKSEL 17. MET LNKS BHXIS LIKE AKFEKSEL 18. MET LNKS BH IS LIKE AKFEKSEL 19. MET LNKS BH IS LIKE AKFEKSEL 20. MET LNKS BH IS LIKE AKWEKSEL 21. MET INKS BH IS LIKE AKWEKSEL 22. MET INKS BH IS LIKE AKWEKSEL 23. MET INKS BH IS LIKE AKWEKSEL 24. MET INKS IH IS LIKE AKWEKSEL 25. MET INKS IH IS LIKE A WEKSEL 26. MET INKS IH IS LIKE A WEASEL 27. MET INKS IH IS LIKE A WEASEL 28. METHINKS IH IS LIKE A WEASEL 29. METHINKS IH IS LIKE A WEASEL 30. METHINKS IH IS LIKE A WEASEL 31. METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL ______________ The matter in the main now settled, on a few points: 1] GP, 214:the weasel argument in itself is completely silly as even generically related to the problem of biological evolution, unless Dawkin’s intent was to show that intelligent, designed selection is a very powerful tool. Which, I believe, was not probably his purpose. So, his bringing about that argument, and using it for so long, has anyway been an act of cognitive dissonance Correct. 2] I must say that I don’t understand fully the necessity of my ID friends to concentrate so much on the “latching” issue. In fact, GP, we have tried to emphasise the main issue that you have, but the Anti Evo folks seem to have thought -- plainly from the above, in gross error -- that they had a point where they could attack and discredit. So, the focus you saw was responsive, not primary. But now, the matter is plainly settled beyond reasonable doubt by Atom's kind provision of software open to anyone. [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{April 9, 2009
April
04
Apr
9
09
2009
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PST}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply