Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

WD400 Doubles Down on Dobzhansky’s Maxim

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Readers may recall that in a recent post I quoted molecular biologist wd400 undermining Theodosius Dobzhansky’s silly maxim that “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution” when he asserted that a lot of molecular biologists, including world-famous leader of the human genome project Francis Collins, “don’t understand much about evolution.”

I noted that it follows as a matter of simple logic that Dobzhansky was wrong if one of the world’s leading biologists can do his job perfectly well without even understanding evolution, far less depending on it to make sense of everything.

Today wd400 doubled down when he asserted that not only does Collins not understand evolution, but in fact he is dead wrong about key aspects of the theory, such as junk DNA, HGT and gene counts.

Simple logic again:  One can be dead wrong about key aspects of modern evolutionary theory and still lead to a successful conclusion one of greatest undertakings in applied biology in the history of the world.

That swirling sound you hear is Dobzhansky’s maxim circling the drain.

UPDATE:

I pointed out to wd400 that if Collins does not understand evolution and in fact is dead wrong about key aspects of the theory, Dobzhansky’s maxim implies that Collins can’t “make sense” of the human genome, even though he was the head of the human genome project.

Frankly, I expected wd400 to back down in the face of this reductio ad absurdum argument.  He did not.  He tripled down on his claim and said: “I also very much doubt Collins himself would say the genome ‘makes sense’ to him.”

Yet again we have an example of someone willing to sacrifice rationality itself for the sake of their creation myth.  wd400 please do us all a favor.  Never poke fun at those religious “fundies.”  It would be hypocritical.

 

Comments
Computers make choices in the usual sense of the word.
Zachy, and everyone else here know this is trolling. But that's Our Zachy. Nothin' Better To Do. Andrewasauber
November 28, 2015
November
11
Nov
28
28
2015
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
Computers make choices in the usual sense of the word.
Any and all choices made by computers are traced back to the humans who designed and programmed them.Virgil Cain
November 28, 2015
November
11
Nov
28
28
2015
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
Mung: Why would I even try to show such a thing when I deny that machines are even capable of choice, and you can’t demonstrate that machines make choices? Computers make choices in the usual sense of the word. They consider options, project possibilities, then apply criteria to decide on a specific action. Mung: How does a computer “choose” which opening to employ? Depends on the computer or person. Some always play the same opening. Some choose willy-nilly. Others consider previous results with various openings. mohammadnursyamsu: they can just program a take back move option in the chess program. Human players often allow take-backs too. mohammadnursyamsu: Then you can see the move the computer makes in response to your move, and you can take back your move knowing for a fact what move the computer makes beforehand. You hang your queen. Bobby Fischer takes your queen. Having agreed to take-backs, you take back your move. You make the same move again, and amazingly, Bobby Fischer takes your queen again. It's like he's a robot or something!Zachriel
November 28, 2015
November
11
Nov
28
28
2015
07:53 AM
7
07
53
AM
PDT
Z, the good players read the game, intuitively highlighting the most relevant scenarios, often based on insights they cannot put into words. Well do I remember being amazed by anglers reading a beach. Same for first class troubleshooters. And BTW, top flight designers read possibilities too and produce effective, elegant designs with what looks like magic. KFkairosfocus
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT
@zachriel .....they can just program a take back move option in the chess program. Then you can see the move the computer makes in response to your move, and you can take back your move knowing for a fact what move the computer makes beforehand. Then the thrill is gone, while the chesscomputer still operates the exact same way as it did before. It is a wellknown "personality disorder" to make what is good and evil into a fact. That is the basis of your confused idea about choosing. Like the Sheldon character in the big bang theory sitcom, who says as fact which woman is beautiful and which woman is ugly, straight to their face. How that works is, you conceive of choosing as sorting, an then you need sortingcriteria to sort with. Like the chess computer uses the highest possible score, winnig, as a sortingcriteria to sort out moves. The sorting criteria then function as the facts about what is good and evil, in this case winning the chessmatch is then in fact good. So that is how denial of freedom in the creationist sense, to conceive of choosing as sorting, is related to the wellknown original sin of eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. I mean you actually present no argument whatsoever to evaluate the creationist concept of choosing. That shows there is no reasoning behind your rejection of creationist choosing, the motivation for clinging to your idea about choosing as sorting is original sin.mohammadnursyamsu
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
02:56 PM
2
02
56
PM
PDT
Silly Virgil. Computers choose to not eat chocolate.Mung
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
But you can’t show that your choice is any different than a choice made by a machine.
Which computer chooses to eat chocolate?Virgil Cain
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT
Zachriel: That’s how most people play too. So? That's not how the good players play. How does a computer "choose" which opening to employ?Mung
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Mung: Yes I think I have a choice. Zachriel: But you can’t show that your choice is any different than a choice made by a machine. Why would I even try to show such a thing when I deny that machines are even capable of choice, and you can't demonstrate that machines make choices?Mung
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT
kairosofocus: Computer programs for chess exploit the human tendency to have lapses — that is the usual design strategy. A mistake is hit and your material and position are degraded perhaps decisively. Funny. That's how most people play too.Zachriel
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Z, actually, Computer programs for chess exploit the human tendency to have lapses -- that is the usual design strategy. A mistake is hit and your material and position are degraded perhaps decisively. KFkairosfocus
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT
mohammadnursyamsu: There is no thrill when you know the working of the chesscomputer, because then you know beforehand which way it turns out. If you knew which way it would turn out, you would never lose to a computer. Computers are known for some exciting tactical play.Zachriel
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
@zachriel Yes people sort too, just like chesscomputer. That is not choosing as it is understood in creationism and common discourse, as was demonstrated the concepts are different. Choosing can turn out either way in the moment. It can be considered thrilling which way a decision will turn out, like in an election or a football match. There is no thrill when you know the working of the chesscomputer, because then you know beforehand which way it turns out. Which is why chesscomputers also use a random function to simulate decision making, that it really can turn out one way or the other in the moment.mohammadnursyamsu
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
10:18 AM
10
10
18
AM
PDT
Mung: Yes I think I have a choice. But you can't show that your choice is any different than a choice made by a machine. Mung: If I ceased to choose chocolate then you would find a physical reason for me to not always prefer chocolate. Actually, some taste-reactions have been shown to be strongly correlated with genetics. The point is that if we scientifically demonstrate that your preference is due to a physical cause, you would still say you have a free choice, even as you choose chocolate over a hot poker in the eye. Mung: How about eating? And people who go on a hunger strike? They have no choice either way? Just because the response is complex, and involves many different desires balanced against one another, doesn't mean the choice is different in kind from the choice of a machine. That doesn't mean it isn't, just that you can't provide objective evidence that it is.Zachriel
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Do you have a choice? The problem is with the term “choice”. If we can show that there is a physical reason for you to always prefer chocolate, you will still say you have a free choice, even as you continue to choose chocolate. Yes I think I have a choice. I also think you have a choice. Else I would not bother talking to you. I'd just ignore you as a source of irritating noise. Your claim about chocolate is vacuous. If I ceased to choose chocolate then you would find a physical reason for me to not always prefer chocolate. So your little test doesn't test anything. It's useless. Do you believe there's a physical basis for addiction? How about eating? And people who go on a hunger strike? They have no choice either way?Mung
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT
Computers choose specific moves in chess, just like humans.
LoL! The chess playing computer program was designed by humans.
If we can show that there is a physical reason for you to always prefer chocolate,
I don't always prefer chocolate.Virgil Cain
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
Mung: Do you think they have a choice in the matter? Do you have a choice? The problem is with the term "choice". If we can show that there is a physical reason for you to always prefer chocolate, you will still say you have a free choice, even as you continue to choose chocolate. mohammadnursyamsu: Now with your example of the chesscomputer you are saying that sorting = choosing. Computers choose specific moves in chess, just like humans.Zachriel
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT
@zachriel Now with your example of the chesscomputer you are saying that sorting = choosing. That is just defining terms, it is not argument. And your definitions confuse the differences between concepts proposed. I will try to make it more mathematical, so to make clear the differences. x=1 If x > 0 then do A otherwise do B That is in essence what you call choosing, which is sorting. X has alternative future values of 0 and 1, 1 is made the present, 1 is chosen These are demonstrably different concepts.mohammadnursyamsu
November 27, 2015
November
11
Nov
27
27
2015
04:16 AM
4
04
16
AM
PDT
Dionisio: "Does this make sense?" Absolutely!gpuccio
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
11:04 PM
11
11
04
PM
PDT
gpuccio Very insightful comments. Once more you've shown having a huge amount of patience to engage in discussions. I could not have said what you wrote better. Thank you. From my own experience working on engineering design software development projects for a number of years as a programmer, what I did was to translate the project leader's ideas into code that could activate different electronic circuits within the computer. My boss defined the possible or valid choices of actions based on different conditions. I just implemented algorithms that produced results based on given conditions, according to the project leader's defined choices. The computer did not choose anything. It just produced results based on the engineers' choices. The engineers established the criteria to make the choices. The computer produced results based on the engineers' choices according to the engineers' criteria. If I had to segregate marbles based on their colors, placing them in separate color-coded bins, I would just perform a series of repetitive actions based on clear simple instructions previously given to me. Let's say for example that I was told to place red marbles in a red bin, green marbles in a green bin, blue marbles into a blue bin, yellow marbles into a yellow bin. If I do exactly that, I would not make any choices, but simple execute my instructor's choices. Now, if at some point I decide to stop working and leave, that would be my choice. If -for whatever reasons- I decide to place all the marbles in the same bin, ignoring the received instructions, that would be my choice (and most probably I would pay for some consequences). Does this make sense?Dionisio
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
09:41 PM
9
09
41
PM
PDT
KF: "Games with meanings and connotations?" Absolutely! Zachriel is good at that, but after a while he loses his edge.gpuccio
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Games with meanings and connotations?kairosfocus
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT
Zachriel: Computers can be used to create artificial neural networks. So? Do you think they have a choice in the matter?Mung
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT
Mung: We are not talking about neural nets. We were talking about computers. Computers can be used to create artificial neural networks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_networkZachriel
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
11:26 AM
11
11
26
AM
PDT
Zachriel: Neural nets don’t make decisions based on algorithmic conditions, but learn from experience, then make decisions based on that background knowledge. This is irrelevant. We are not talking about neural nets. We were talking about computers.Mung
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
11:19 AM
11
11
19
AM
PDT
gpuccio: Are you suggesting that you are not conscious? Just showing that your argument is not an argument. gpuccio: I am not so sure that I understand slugs as well as you seem to do. Slugs clearly act as if they have sensations. However, consciousness seems more likely in mammals and birds. gpuccio: Only in your sense. Which is not mine. It would normally be called a "conscious choice". The modifier has a purpose. It's just semantics, but the proper use of terminology does help clarify views. gpuccio: Do you want to call your non conscious computer choices “true choices”? Is that like a True Scotsman? gpuccio: Indeed, there is no credible argument in favor of that idea. Modifying the brain function appears to alter consciousness. This isn't proof, but it is certainly credible evidence. gpuccio: Therefore, as the existence of consciousness is a fact The only consciousness anyone can experience is one's own. The rest can only be determined by analogy or by empathy. Furthermore, there's objective evidence that the experience of consciousness is not a full or accurate representation of the workings of the mind, or even of the decision-making process.Zachriel
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
Zachriel: And Zachriel makes “zachriel” choices based on internal “zachriel” representations. Are you suggesting that you are not conscious? A slug has sensations, but presumably doesn’t have an ego. I am not so sure that I understand slugs as well as you seem to do. There’s choice, then there’s gpuccio-choice which entails consciousness. Or do you mean self-consciousness here? gpuccio-choice certainly entails consciousness. Self-consciousness is a complicated matter, and is not what I meant. It would require a lot of complex distinctions, and the discussion would be ambiguous just the same. Therefore, simply consciousness. It’s not considered an analogy. By you. For me, it's an analogy, and a bad one too. They evaluate and then decide. Only in your sense. Which is not mine. Again, there are two different meanings. It's not a question of words, but that you apparently try to deny that there are two different meanings. But there are. There is the gpuccio meaning, and the zachriel meaning. You cannot deny that. Now, we understand you want to distinguish conscious choice from unconscious choice, which is fine, but it’s not inherent in the word itself. Again, my problem is not with the word, but with the ambiguity which is generated when we use the same word for two different things, passing a philosophical assumption as a reality. Do you want to call your non conscious computer choices "true choices"? It's fine for me. I can call conscious choices "schmucks", or whatever you like. But they are two different things. Nor is it clear if consciousness is not also a natural phenomenon of the brain. Exactly. It is not clear at all that it is. Indeed, there is no credible argument in favor of that idea. Therefore, as the existence of consciousness is a fact, an empirical reality, while the idea that it is a natural phenomenon of the brain is, at best, an unsupported theory, we should definitely go on describing the phenomena of consciousness empirically, and name them with appropriate, specific words, and not assume an unsupported idea as the basis for language or for scientific reasoning, as you seem to do repeatedly.gpuccio
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
gpuccio: The neural network is programmed to incorporate new data and react to them in a programmed way. No difference at all. It's programmed to emulate how the brain is thought to work, that is, to learn from experience. gpuccio: It’s an algorithm just the same. There's no reason why we couldn't design a non-algorithmic neural net. Computer algorithms are used because they are flexible and ubiquitous. gpuccio: Computers make “zachriel” choices based on internal “zachriel” representations. And Zachriel makes “zachriel” choices based on internal “zachriel” representations. gpuccio: A sensation is a sensation only when the subject represents it. A slug has sensations, but presumably doesn't have an ego. gpuccio: I am definitely sure. You have a private definition, if that is what you mean. There's choice, then there's gpuccio-choice which entails consciousness. Or do you mean self-consciousness here? gpuccio: Sentient beings choose according to conscious representations. Those events have always been called choices, since the word, or the concept, exists. And computers make choices, ever since the invention of computers. It's not considered an analogy. They evaluate and then decide. Now, we understand you want to distinguish conscious choice from unconscious choice, which is fine, but it's not inherent in the word itself. Nor is it clear if consciousness is not also a natural phenomenon of the brain.Zachriel
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Zachriel:
Ah, not a True Choice™.
Certainly, not the same thing as what I call a true choice, but the point is not how we call them. The point is that they are two different things.
Decision-making in neural nets isn’t programmed; they learn from experience.
The neural network is programmed to incorporate new data and react to them in a programmed way. No difference at all. It's an algorithm just the same.
Computers make choices based on internal representations.
Computers make "zachriel" choices based on internal "zachriel" representations. None of that has anything to do with conscious choices based on conscious representations.
The difference seems to be the sensation of consciousness.
The difference is consciousness: the existence of conscious representations in a conscious subject, the I. Your use of "sensation of consciousness" is a really poor trick. Sensations happen in consciousness, like any other conscious representation. A sensation is a sensation only when the subject represents it.
Not sure this represents two different definitions of choice.
I am definitely sure. I am sure that you would be sure too, if you only accepted to use your intelligence to understand what is obvious. Your choice! :)
Computers choose, but they don’t do so consciously.
Computers execute algorithms, and you call "choice" a part of those algorithms. Sentient beings choose according to conscious representations. Those events have always been called choices, since the word, or the concept, exists. They are two completely different phenomena.gpuccio
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
Mung: When a computer executes a choice it is merely executing the will (choice) of the programmer(s). Neural nets don't make decisions based on algorithmic conditions, but learn from experience, then make decisions based on that background knowledge.Zachriel
November 26, 2015
November
11
Nov
26
26
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply