We cannot live by scepticism alone

_{Mario Lopez

March 5, 2009

Science}

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

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins.

Comments

Clive, So it's fine for Kariosfocus to say things like this regarding me
endarkened understandings are tainted with that cancerous, metastasising gangrene of the mind.
? Fine, it's your blog and you can play by your rules, however arbitary they may appear.George L Farquhar_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT}

PS: the matter is clear enough directly and form context, DK. In steps: a --> Weasel's target, post 1986, became an iconic sentence. b --> It was therefore often selected as the target for other algorithms constructed as "illustrative" of key aspects of the claimed evolutionary mechanisms that are held to account for OOL and body plan level biodiversity. c --> These newer algorithms work in different ways from Dawkins' own. (As I addressed in some details yesterday back up in the late 340s.) d --> They, unsurprisingly, therefore have quite different output patterns as can be seen by simply scrolling up in this thread and comparing say the two linked outputs at CMI and/or AiG [which I have linked ever since December 18, as can be seen in this excerpt from 107 in the above linked December thread:
Nor did I ever claim that Weasel was the state of the art [i.e. I clearly am speaking of Dawkins and 1986]; that is putting words in my mouth to make up a convenient strawman. What I did say was that “Weasel is an apt example of a search algorithm that undertakes DIRECTED search, in an environment that is designed; and based on active, foresighted information fed in at the beginning.”
e --> You will notice my bottom-line emphasis: on the difference between targetted foresighted searches and the way NS is alleged to have led to body plan level biodiversity, and analogues of that are alleged to have led to OOL in the prebiotic environment. this bottomline problem is as true of more current algorithms as it was in 1986. f --> In my subsequent Dec 18 comment at 111, I brought up the letter latching behaviour in the 1986 version, as there LINKED (this is the New Scientist version used in say Wiki's article on the program). In that context, I went on to point out the real issues, quite explicitly and with a more realistic analogy. (One that has never been cogently addressed.) g --> To use different and differently behaving algorithms, as though they are effectively the same as what I addressed, Dawkins' algor circa 1986 is to set up and knock over a strawman. And, that plainly has happened with both GLF and yourself in this thread. Just scroll up and look. h --> To then go on to impute carelessness, misrepresentation and even lying to me in such a context is therefore -- as the above demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt [onlookers, selective hyperskepticism is obviously unreasonable doubt] -- an an unjustified ad hominem attack. i --> Indeed, such ad hominems based on turnabout accusations are the next level of the selective hyperskepticism game: the turnabout and at minimum careless of duty false accusation. j --> For, the evidence to more accurately represent the truth was accessibel all along. And, on natural law based nomorality, we have duties of care to be fair to those we criticise. ____________ This OBJECTIVE MORAL DUTY, sir, on fair and well-warranted comment comment, you have plainly not fulfilled towards the undersigned. As a reasonably well-educated, and one presumes well-brought up gentleman, you know your further duty at this point. (So, doubtless, does GLF.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

Mr Kellogg: All that we see from your remark at 403, is that you still refuse to look at the patent facts objectively; reflecting the bias imposed by selective hyperskepticism. Sadly. Please look just above, at 402. Look closely at the story of that telling T, and so many other letters. Then, see if -- per the actual facts -- I have in fact misrepresented the case of what Weasel as published in 1986 in BW and in New Scientist, has done. [Where I did have an error in my remarks yesterday, i.e. I cross-attributed from NS to BW, I have corrected myself on a follow up look.] Also, subsequent algorithms that may target the same sentence but producing materially different output patterns, are irrelevancies on my original remarks. having recognised that his was wahat was at work, i took time yesterday to reverse enfginerre the way teh diverse algors may work. I addressed how some of them would not produce latching behaviour, but would still have the fundamental problem: they do not addressthe factt hat CV + NS is supposed to be non-targetted, non-foresigted, and to work by rewarding differential FUNCTIONALITY; not mere closeness to a target. And that has been my STATED concern ever since Dec 18, 2008. (In short, this has been a massive ad hominem soaked strawman exercise, led out to by red herrings. But in the end at the next level, the matter aptly illustrates how selective hyperskepticism works, and its main logical and epistemological failings.) Sigh . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:06 AM
1
01
06
AM
PDT}

kf sez, "Now, since the sentence used became somewhat iconic, as I have also noted, several other approaches have been defined and/or are possible, some that produce near-latching, others that do not, being more in the spirit of contemporary Genetic Algortihm approaches." I'm trying to translate the above into comprehensible English. Does it mean something like "since my original sentence was a bit wrong, I've had to reformulate it a couple of times"? The passive voice makes it hard to tell who is the agent here.David Kellogg_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
01:01 AM
1
01
01
AM
PDT}

PS: to further underscore the way that the selective hyperskepticism game has been played out above, I now excerpt my actual full original remarks from the 15 Dec 2008 unpredictable does not equal contingent thread, at no 111, that were excerpted and pounced upon by GLF: ________________ I have already given you [Mike Kratch] a link to Royal Trueman’s more than adequate discussion of Weasel and its errors of irrelevance and of misdirection, from 1998. That is after I have already stated in summary why Weasel — and for that matter Avida [cf no 107] — fails. [Excerpted paragraph used by GLF:] Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model. A more relevant exercise than Weasel (or Avida etc; cf the Dembski-Marks papers also linked above), ,i>would be to first generate an 8 bit PC and its OS and its associated execution machinery by chance plus functionality based survival — say by a version of Hoyle’s tornado in a junkyard, this time in Round Rock Texas. That mimics the OOL challenge. Next,see if further storms can get you to go from 8 to 16 to 32 and onward to 64 bit PCs. Or to a cell phone or some other novel technology. [That is, the body plan diversification challenge] What are the odds of getting to the first PC within the lifetime of he universe? Then, of transforming it into the new forms? Once you get a functioning PC you can make the OS software evolve by zener noise on a hard drive plus tests for initial functionality all you want. Then make the zener noise evolve new software for a genetic algorithm, testing for functionality but not rewarding non-functional approaches to success. And so on . . . ___________________ In 107, I observed: if you will actually look at what I have done in the always linked, you will see that I start from information and noise and inference to design, then address origin of life [with amn appendix on the thermodynamics involved], then body-plan level innovation. In each of the three cases, the search space hurdle has yet to be cogently and soundly addressed by the evo mat advocates. Putting that simply, the problem with the fitness landscape is that it is flooded by a vast sea of non-function, and the islands of function are far separated one from the other. 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. And, I repeat, that starts with both the metabolism first and the D/RNA first schools of thought on OOL. As indeed Shapiro and Orgel recently showed, as I cite . . . ________________________ That should put an interesting side-light on the way the above was diverted from the key issues on the track to the truth, to stramwanised side issues soaked in oily ad hominems,and ignited, clouding and poisoning the clear atmosphere needed for serious discussion and dialogue towards truth. So, let us learn from this thread that we must never allow ourselves to be side tracked for the path to the 'inconvenient' truth. And, that selective hyperskeptiism is rhetorically powerful but inescapably fallacious, as well as in the end being self-referentially inconsistent, and thus logically and epistemologically absurd. Sigh . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT}

I'm traveling and just checked in. It is clear that Kairosfocus is flat-out wrong on how he originally described the program -- though his claim later "mutated" to something more resembling the actual case. Now that's what I call directed evolution! BTW, If you're going to ban people for disrespect, Clive, you might consider that a person can be frustrated when an opponent refuses to concede a simple and obvious point and then move on. On the other threads, the responses have been heated because Ms. O'Leary has repeatedly posted inflammatory screeds designed to produce them.David Kellogg_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT}

Onlookers (and Apollos): 1] it should be clear that I have spoken principally to Dawkins' Weasel as published in 1986 in Blind Watchmaker and in New Scientist. In that context, your summary Apollos is correct:
A cursory examination of the outputs posted above show that target matches are indeed latched, even if imperfectly. We can see from the output that Weasel is a demonstration of how using specifically tailored searches to find a narrow target can quite readily be implemented inefficiently.
2] As I have excerpted and posted above [ONE CORRECTION: the 43 generation case cited in Wikipedia in its article on the Weasel program is evidently from new Scientist, Sept 1986; not BW Ch 3, which has a 64 generation case as is reproduced by CMI and as was previously linked by me and cited above] the Weasel circa 1986 program -- which is what I spoke to -- shows not only that it is explicitly a targeted, tailored search that ignores the differential functionality requisite of natural selection -- so it is NOT a BLIND watchmaker in action -- strong latching of letters in the output. 3] in case that is doubted, in light of the strawman distractors of other algorithms to produce a Weasel target sentence by obviously different path ways, here it is again from 346 -7 [now], as can be compared in both CMI and Wiki ("in the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses . . . ") and is of course echoed in substance in the forthcoming Dembski-Marks paper as already cited supra:
Generation 1: WDLMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation 2: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
4] The telling T -- notice, essentially EVERY other letter in trhe original phrase changes by gen. 43 --is of course the capital case in point; but there are many others, strongly underscoring the conclusion that this circa 1986 algorithm [for all the randomness that may well be used to produce a generational population from which each promoted nearest sentence is chosen; from which the above was printed off by Dawkins for New Scientist] is a letter-latching, partitioned search exercise that rewards nearness to a predefined target without regard to functionality. As such it is serving a rhetorical not a proper educational function. (And, I therefore spoke the plain truth, not a lie, and GLF has been found to have wagered himself foolishly; from which he has sought to distract attention by selective hyperskepticism, sadly.) 5] Now, since the sentence used became somewhat iconic, as I have also noted, several other approaches have been defined and/or are possible, some that produce near-latching, others that do not, being more in the spirit of contemporary Genetic Algortihm approaches. All are targeted searches and all are not addressing the issue that NS is about differential functionality. 6] That is, the big begged question is precisely the one raised by Sir Fred Hoyle that Mr Dawkins claimed to be addressing: to get TO observed bio-function requires bitg informational steps that are not probabilistically plausible on the scope of the observed cosmos. 7] First, to get to first life, then onwards to get to major body plans to explain bio-divseristy -- Orign of phyla and sub-phyla to account for the observed Cambrian fossils being the iconic case in point. (It is plausible that first lifge requires a genome of about 600 - 1,000 k bits info stroage capacity,a nd that sub or full physum origination requires 10's - 100+ mega bits. Even 1,000 bits is so large a config space that the observed universe acting as a search engine would not be able to sample as much as 1 in 10^150 of it. 600 k bits specifies a vastly larger info space than 1 k bits.) 8] So, much of the above is unfortunately a giant illusttration of the seelctive hyperskepticism that is refusign to fairly address the mounting evidence that he evoltuionary materilaist paradigm in science is in serious trouble. 9] But, even more importantly evo mat is a world-life view that is dominant in certain key, highly influential sub cultures; starting with academia, the media and many policy circles. As a direct consequence of its a priori commitments, it has censored science a la Lewontin to only speak in the materialist voice. [This censors science from being an unfettered (but intellectually and ethically responsible) pursuit of the truth about our cosmos, in light of empirical evidence and fair reasoned argument.] 10] Finally, it has imposed subjectivism, relativism, evidentialism and selective hyperskepticism on our culture through the domination of key institutions. And as the above shows, this is ripping our culture apart, so that if we do not return to common sense thinking and to natural law anchored morality, we will pay a horrendous price, sooner rather than later. ________________ We have been warned. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 12, 2009
March
03
Mar
12
12
2009
12:34 AM
12
12
34
AM
PDT}

George, "Perhaps you did not understand the big words used." I won't tolerate your disrespect towards anyone in this group. Stop this behavior or you will be banned by me, and with a very clean conscience when I do it if you continue.Clive Hayden_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
10:50 PM
10
10
50
PM
PDT}

The only thing I like about this particular topic anymore is the fact that there is so many posts. Seeing it near 400 comments is amusing, but the way people are insulting each other back and forth is unfortunate. :(Domoman_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

Joseph
It’s just that it doesn’t “teach” anything and is only a tool for a fool.
Why do so many of you (Kariosfocus, as you say Spetner wrote an entire book, Dembski, Marks, many other ID/Creationists) spend so much time trying to criticize it then?
As for the paper in question, it didn’t say anything that would demonstrate a type 3 secretory system could “evolve” via an accumulation of genetic accidents from a population that never had one.
What was it about then?
I know I can point out a peer-reviewed article that pretty much refutes the notion of cumulative selection.
Go on then! Frankly, I don't believe you.....
So what do you think you have?
The opinion of the vast majority of biologists is against you. So what do you think you have? I have to wonder then why "my position" is also the position of almost every single scientist in the world. Not all of them, no. But almost all of them. The fact is biology is progressing fine as it is.
It is very wrong to ask ID to have the answers
What answers to ID have Joseph? Can you tell me just 1? Is it even possible to talk about ID without using the word evolution? As in "ID says that evolution cannot do X". Fine, whatever, but what can ID do?George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Well at least the latching issue is resolved. A cursory examination of the outputs posted above show that target matches are indeed latched, even if imperfectly. We can see from the output that Weasel is a demonstration of how using specifically tailored searches to find a narrow target can quite readily be implemented inefficiently.Apollos_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

And my only point for posting Dr Spetner was that his book "Not By Chance" is a direct response to "The Blind Watchmaker". So what he says about the program has some relevance since he is talking about the exact program that Dawkins used and not a program that may be similar but not the exact same one.Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

George, Perhaps you cannot follow along. Had you been able to follow along you would have seen that I don't think the program latches the matching letters. I have pretty much posted the opposite. But I understand that your panties are in a knot so you have to blindly lash out. Oh well... The "weasel" program doesn't "teach" anything except that one can write a computer program that does something. Further no one is trying to "disprove" the simple example. It's just that it doesn't "teach" anything and is only a tool for a fool. As for the paper in question, it didn't say anything that would demonstrate a type 3 secretory system could "evolve" via an accumulation of genetic accidents from a population that never had one. Nothing- no experiment starting with with a population without the T3SS and then observing that population over the years to see if a T3SS came to be. That said you could refute me by providing the relevant data. The same goes for the other article. $100,000 for the relevant data that demonstrates such structures can be obtained via cumulative selection. I know I can point out a peer-reviewed article that pretty much refutes the notion of cumulative selection. So what do you think you have? Or are my words too big for you to understand?Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

Joseph
So the bottom-line is all you can do is pull a literature bluff.
I asked you to detail what was wrong in the paper first in the list, not tell me what was missing.
I didn’t read anything about an accumulation of genetic accidents. Not one thing.
Perhaps you did not understand the big words used.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT}

So what's your point Joseph? And in what way does "realistic" apply to Weasel? Once again, it's a simple teaching tool that in a easily understandable way explains the concepts involved. The fact that people like you and Spetner think they can "disprove" this simple example is valid is telling. It's like critising "Your first ABC" book for lack of depth.
although Dr Spetner doesn’t flat out say that the matching letters are latched
That's funny. Dawkins did not intend for the letters to be latched. And they are not in a true implementation of Weasel. The fact you cannot accept this simple fact is telling.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

The book "Not By Chance" was written in response to Dawkins' BW. In Chapter 6: The Watchmaker's Blindness, although Dr Spetner doesn't flat out say that the matching letters are latched, on page 170 ("weasel" discussion starts on pg 166) he states:
Dawkins used a high mutation rate, and a large fraction of those were "good" ones. He was certain to have a good mutation at each step. Moreover, he selected in a way that would ensure a good mutation would survive.
He goes on to say:
If he had run a more realistic simulation he would have been at his computer for a long time. His simulation would have been more realistic had he used a genome of say, 500 symbols instead of only 28, and a mutation rate of 10^-10 instead of 0.04. Had he done that, he would have needed some seventy billion replications just to get the mutations he needed. He would need still more to make selection spread the 500 mutations through the population. Without simulating the selection, he ignores the liklihood that a good mutation will be wiped out before it takes over the population.
What a schoolboy error!Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT}

If Dawkins intended each letter to be fixed he would have said so. He did not. If you say otherwise, please provide a quote and reference. I even offered $100,000 for such! And yet none has been forthcoming. Again, the issue is not about if targeted search is a reasonable representation of any aspect of evolution. The issue is can Kariosfocus admit to an error? Onlookers, I think we have determined the answer to that question. It makes you wonder how many errors there are in his other prouncements, delivered with such certanty and when people disagree he says thing like
endarkened understandings are tainted with that cancerous, metastasising gangrene of the mind.
Which was aimed at me. So, people interested in a accurate discussion of the issues have gangrene of the mind? Your insults KF reflect badly on you, not me. KF, upthead you said this
GLF is actually — sadly — inadvertently giving us a case study on selective hyperskepticism, compounded by closed-minded objectionism, and on how this reduces him to self-referential absurdity.
I believe the onlookers now realise this applies to you, not me. You are the very definition of close minded.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

Correction above: [383] should be [384].R0b_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

[381],[384]: George beat me to it. I was dumb enough to write my own script when there was already one written. kairosfocus:, if Weasel were "partitioned", then there would be no cases in which a correct letter is mutated. But in the 50/5% case whose history I showed in [383], it happens an average of ~7000 times per run. In spite of this, there is monotonic improvement from one generation to the next. So much for your moral certainty.R0b_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT}

R0b,
the winning sequence of each generation always has at least the same correct letters as the previous winning sequence.
But I don't understand! It looks as if each letter is fixed, but as there is no latching behaviour involved how can that possibly be? :) It's almost as if anybody thinking letters were fixed and looking at the table published in new scientist et al forgot to consider the fact that they were only looking at a small sample of the overall population! What a schoolboy error!George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

"Watchmen" in my last post should have been Watchmaker of course! Great film :)George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

Kariosfocus
And as for the latching behaviour, I have documented it beyond reasonable dispurte, by first linking then actually cirtintg above the case from Watchmaker, then pointing ourt the letters that find themselves lartched in succession.
No, you have not. You have avoided the issue. It's quite simple. You say the letters are fixed once found in Dawkins' Weasel. I say they are not. In order to prove your case you simply have to provide a quote from Dawkins that says letters are fixed in place once found. You cannot do that. You are just refusing to look at the evidence staring you in the face. That is sad. Very sad.
That, of course, shows again targetted GA behaviour.
And once again, that is not the issue. Nobody is arguing that this example does not have a target. It obviously does! The fact you keep refering to this as if this is the issue reflects on you and you alone. The issue is only if each letter is fixed once found.
Again, I have examined teh published cases as documented above, from 1986; whcih defintiely show the latching as i spole of
No, they don't. As shown in my previous quote the population as a whole, if examined, shows non-latching behaviour. You printing two lines from a table hardly proves your case, if you don't consider the population as a whole. Would it be a worthwhile use of paper to print the entire run and the population at each step? I realise it's easier for you to pretend that the population does not exist.
So to pretend tha that case does not exist and insert a different one addressed under a separate head above at 345 - 6, is of course yet another ad hominem laced strawman.
It's funny you should say that, but that's exactly what you have been doing. Pretending that you have addressed the issue when in fact you have simply invented your own issue to argue the case for. If anybody is constructing strawmen it is obviously you.
nd, in neither the 1986 case nor the more recent ones is anything but targetted search that rewards non-functional strings on warmer/colder.
Who said that they did not? There is a target, the program searches for it! Dawkins explains this in Watchmen! You have obviously never even read the book.
In short, again, you sustain my points.
Points you are bringing up apropos of nothing at all while you refuse to admit you were wrong. The very definition of a strawman.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT}

I tried Dawkins' algorithm with a few different populations and mutation rates. With a population of 50 and a mutation rate of 5%, the winning sequence of each generation always has at least the same correct letters as the previous winning sequence. Here are the first 40 generations of a sample run:FPNSMGHBUSZ S ISDGNJETQYLGAQ FPNSMGKBNSZ S ISDGNJETQYLGAQ FENSGGKBNSZ S ISDGNJETMYLGAQ FENSGOKBNSZ S ISDKNJETMYLGAQ IENSGOKBNSZ SDISDKEJETMYLGAQ IENSGOKBNSZ IDISDKEJETMYLGAQ FENSGPKBNSZ IDILDKEJETBYLGAQ FENSGNKBNJZ IDILDKEJETBYLGAQ FENSGNKBNJZ IDILDKE ETBYLGAQ FENSGNKBNJZ IDILDKE ETBYOGAQ FENSGNKENJZ IDILDKE ETWYOGAQ FENSGNKSNJT IDILDKE ETWYOJAQ FENSGNKSNJT IDILDKE ETWYOJAQ FETSGNKSNJT IDILDKE ETWYOJAQ FETSGNKSNJT IDILDKE ETWYOJAQ DETSGNKSNTT IDILDKE EGWYOJAQ DETSGNKSNTT IDILDKE XGWYOJAQ DETSGNKSNIT IDILDKE XGWYOSAQ DETSGNKSNIT IDILDKE XGWEOSAQ DETSGNKSNIT ISILDKE XGWEOSAQ DETSGNKSNIT ISILDKE XGWEOSEQ DETSGNKSNIT ISJLDKE XGWEOSEQ DETSGNKSNIT ISJLDKE XGWEOSEQ UETHGNKSNIT ISJLDKE OGWEOSEQ DETHGNKSNIT ISJLDKE OGWEASEQ DETHGNKSNIT ISJLDKE OGWEASEQ DETHGNKSNIT ISJLDKE OGWEASEQ DETHGNKSNIT ISJLIKE OGWEASEQ DETHGNKSNIT ISDLIKE OGWEASEQ DETHINKSNIT ISDLIKE OGWEASEQ DETHINKSNIT ISDLIKE AGWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEQ DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE ALWEASEU DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE APWEASEU DETHINKS IT ISDLIKE APWEASEL With a population of 100 and a mutation rate of 10%, occasionally a correct letter will be lost from one generation to the next, and then corrected again in a subsequent generation. Needless to say, there is no letter-locking in the algorithm. Correct letters get mutated thousands of times over the course of each run.R0b_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

PS: I see a just put up print run from a more current algor and coding. That, of course, shows again targetted GA behaviour. Again, I have examined teh published cases as documented above, from 1986; whcih defintiely show the latching as i spole of. So to pretend tha that case does not exist and insert a different one addressed under a separate head above at 345 - 6, is of course yet another ad hominem laced strawman. And, in neither the 1986 case nor the more recent ones is anything but targetted search that rewards non-functional strings on warmer/colder. In short, again, you sustain my points.kairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:15 PM
12
12
15
PM
PDT}

GLF Nope, this is the issue I raised in another cotnext, and which I have substantiated above at 345-6 and 355 and again 363:
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. [Got that DK, Rob and GLF? Cf the excertped printoff of the BW run and the previous links to the discussion in CMI, and the 363 tracing letter by letter.] That means [by way of explanation for the case in view, which is Dawkins 1986, cf cases in BW ch 3 and New Scientist; linked at 296] it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.
And as for the latching behaviour, I have documented it beyond reasonable dispurte, by first linking then actually cirtintg above the case from Watchmaker, then pointing ourt the letters that find themselves lartched in succession. You are just refusing to look at the evidence staring you in the face. That is sad, very sad. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

http://www.antievolution.org/features/ec/weasel102.html A Dawkins approved implementation. Don't take my word for it. Go there and find out yourself. Mutation rate upped to 10% per letter in order to get a stepback (i.e. a correct letter that changes to an incorrect number) in a reasonable run that won't fill the blog! Run is incomplete. Notice the fact that the population is 100 strong (as shown by the Stepback detected, population dump follows:) What does that say about the "table" that Kariosfocus is using as the foundation of his argument? What was the population there? 1? Logically Kariosfocus postion makes no sense when you consider the population issue. Beginning run Gen. 1, 3 letters, tlqqxnuzia idsiesuvjaynpdvve Gen. 2, 5 letters, tlqqxNuzia idS eIuvjAynhdv e Gen. 3, 6 letters, hlqqxNuziaTadS eIcvjAynhdv e Gen. 4, 7 letters, hlqqINuzizTadS eIcvjAynhdv e Gen. 5, 8 letters, hlTqINuzizTadS eIcvjAynydv e Gen. 6, 9 letters, hlTqINuzizTadS eIcvjAynydv L Gen. 7, 10 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIcvjAynxwv L Gen. 8, 11 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIcEjAynxwv L Gen. 9, 12 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIsEjA nxov L Gen. 10, 13 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIsEjA nxoS L Gen. 11, 14 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIsEjA nxoSEL Gen. 12, 14 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIsEjA nxoSEL Gen. 13, 15 letters, hlTqINvzizTadS LIsEjA nxASEL Gen. 14, 15 letters, lTqINvzizTadS LIjEjA nxASEL Gen. 15, 17 letters, lTHINvzizTadS LIKEjA nxASEL Gen. 16, 17 letters, lTHINvzizTadS LIKEpA nxASEL Gen. 17, 17 letters, lTHIN zizTadS LIKEcA nxASEL Gen. 18, 18 letters, ETHIN zizTadS LIKEcA ngASEL Gen. 19, 19 letters, ETHIN oizTadS LIKEnA WgASEL Gen. 20, 20 letters, METHINlo zTadS LIKtnA WgASEL Gen. 21, 20 letters, METHINlo zTadS LIKtnA WyASEL Gen. 22, 21 letters, METHINlo zTadS LIKt A WyASEL Gen. 23, 21 letters, METHINlo zTauS LIKt A WxASEL Gen. 24, 21 letters, METHINlo zTauS LIKt A WxASEL Gen. 25, 21 letters, METHINlo zTauS LIKt A WxASEL Gen. 26, 22 letters, METHINlo zTauS LIKt A WEASEL Gen. 27, 23 letters, METHINlo zTauS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 28, 23 letters, METHINgo aTauS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 29, 23 letters, METHINgo aTauS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 30, 23 letters, METHINgo aTauS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 31, 23 letters, METHINgo aTauS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 32, 24 letters, METHINeo aTaIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 33, 24 letters, METHINeo aTaIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 34, 24 letters, METHINeo aTaIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 35, 24 letters, METHINeo aTaIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 36, 24 letters, METHINeo aTaIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 37, 24 letters, METHINea aTaIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 38, 24 letters, METHINet aTcIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 39, 24 letters, METHINet aTcIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 40, 24 letters, METHINet aTcIS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 41, 25 letters, METHINet kT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 42, 25 letters, METHINet pT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 43, 25 letters, METHINet pT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 44, 25 letters, METHINet pT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 45, 25 letters, METHINet pT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 46, 25 letters, METHINxt pT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 47, 25 letters, pETHINxS pT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 48, 25 letters, zETHINxS sT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 49, 25 letters, zETHINxS sT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 50, 25 letters, zETHINwS sT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 51, 26 letters, zETHINKS sT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 52, 26 letters, zETHINKS sT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 53, 26 letters, zETHINKS sT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 54, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 55, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 56, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 57, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 58, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 59, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 60, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 61, 26 letters, eETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 62, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 63, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 64, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 65, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 66, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 67, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 68, 26 letters, jETHINKS T IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 69, 26 letters, jETHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 70, 26 letters, jETHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 71, 26 letters, jETHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 72, 26 letters, jETHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 73, 26 letters, jETHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 74, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 75, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 76, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 77, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 78, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 79, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 80, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 81, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 82, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 83, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 84, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 85, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 86, 27 letters, METHINKS lT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 87, 27 letters, METHINKS zT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 88, 27 letters, METHINKS zT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 89, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 90, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 91, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 92, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 93, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 94, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 95, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 96, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 97, 27 letters, METHINKS jT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 98, 27 letters, METHINKS cT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 99, 27 letters, METHINKS cT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 100, 27 letters, METHINKS cT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 101, 27 letters, METHINKS cT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 102, 27 letters, METHINKS cT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 103, 27 letters, METHINKS bT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 104, 27 letters, METHINKS bT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 105, 27 letters, METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 106, 27 letters, METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 107, 27 letters, METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 108, 27 letters, METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 109, 27 letters, METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 110, 27 letters, METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL Stepback detected, population dump follows: METHIgKS wT IS LIKE AuWEASEL MEaHoNKShwT IS LIKE A WExSmL METHINKS wT fS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKj wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKEqA WEAdEp hETHINaS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT Ij LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE t WEASEL METHINKS wT ISfLIKE A yEAaEL M THINKS tT IS LIKE AiWEAShL METHINKS wT IS LIiE A WEASEL METHIaKS wz IScLIKE A WErSEL METHINKS wT IS LIqE AiWEASEL METHIrKS wT IS LcKE A WEASEL METHINKS wTzIS LIKE A WEASEL METpINKS mT IS LIcE A WqASEL lETHcNuS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL MEsHINKS wT S LIKE A WwASEL MdTHINKS mT Iw LIKw A WEoSkL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WjASEs MElHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wTfIr LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A aEAxEL wETHINKS wT IS LzKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE AyWEASEL METHIeKS wT Ip LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT Iq LIKE A WEvSEL METHINKS wT Iy LIKE A uEA aL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASpL METHINKS wT IS LIKEmAeWEAoEL METHINKS wT Ix vIKE A WEAfEL METHfzzS rT S LIKE A WEAmEp METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEAyEL METHmNKS mT IS LIKE AbWEASEL MEjHINKS zT ISwLIKE A WEASEL METaINKS wT ISdLIKE WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE AyWmASEL METHINKz wTekS LIKE A WEASEL MEbHINKS wT IqvLIKE A WEASEL METHINKS tT IS LI E A WEASEL MvTHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEeSEL METHINKS wT IS LmuE A WEASEL METHINKi wT IS LaKE A WEASpL MjTHIeKS wT IS LIKE A WEAdEd METHINKSqwT IS LIKE A WEASxL METHINKS wT IS dIKErA bEAlEL METyINKS wT Iq LIKE AvWEASiL METHINKSzwg IS LIKE A WEASEL vETHINKS wT lS LIKE A lEAzEL METHINKS wT IS LlKb q WEASEL METHINKSiwT IS LIKE z WEASEL METHINKS wTcIS LIKE A WEASyL METHINKS wT IS oIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKEpA WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WExaEL METHINKS sTyIS LIKE A WEASEL METHItKS wTcIS LIKE A WwASEL METHINKS wT ISvLIKE A WEASEf METHINKS wT ISvLIKn A WEASEw ME HINKS wT IS LIbE A WEASEL METHINKS wd IS LIKE A WEASEL MEqHhqKS wT IS LIKE A WEdSEL M THIiiStwTuIS LIKEwA WEASEL METHINKSbwT IS LIKE A jEAnEL MEiHINKS wT IS LIKf A WEASEL METHIaKS wT eS LIuE A WEASEL MdTHjNKS IT IS LIKE A WEySEL METHINKSvwT ISeLIKEsA WEAbEL METsaNKS eT ISyLIKE A WEASEL MEuHINKh wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT gS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wTbIS LIKE A WEAeEL M bHImKSwwT IS LIKE e WEASEL METHINKS zT IS LImE A WEASEL METHINKd wTqIS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASE METHINK wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHINKd wf IS LIKE A WEASEL METHIoKj wn IS LIKm A WEpSEL METHINKS wT xj LvKa A WEAtEL METHINKS wTtIS yIKE A WEcSEL METHINKShwT ISjLIKE A WEAeEL METHINKS wT IS LIKE A WErSEL METHINKu wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHrNaS wT IS LrKE A WEASEL METHINKS wT IS LIKEfA WEASEL METvINKS wT IS LIKE A uEASEL ETHINKS wT IS LIKE A WuwSEL METHINtS bk IS LInE A WEASEL MEpHINKS wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METsINKS wT IS LIKE A WwASEL METHINKS wT IpzLIKE A WEASEL MguHINKe tT IS LIKq A WEASmL MEnHINKS aT IS LI E A WEASEL hETHkNKS wT IS LIKE A WEgiEL METHuNKS wT IS LxKE A WEASEL METHINtm wT IS LIKE A WEASEL METHIdKS wT IS LIKE A WwASEL METHIpKS wT IS LIcE A WEASEL Gen. 111, 26 letters, METHINKS wT fS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 112, 26 letters, METHINKS wT fS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 113, 26 letters, METHINKS wT fS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 114, 26 letters, METHINKS wT nS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 115, 26 letters, METHINKS wT nS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 116, 26 letters, METHINKS wT nS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 117, 26 letters, METHINKS wT nS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 118, 26 letters, METHINKS wT nS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 119, 26 letters, METHINKS wT jS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 120, 26 letters, METHINKS wT jS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 121, 26 letters, METHINKS xT lS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 122, 26 letters, METHINKS xT lS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 123, 26 letters, METHINKS xT lS LIKE A WEASEL Gen. 124, 26 letters, METHINKS xT lS LIKE A WEASELGeorge L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Moreover, as Atom has observed — and as I repeatedly pointed out in details above — we are dealing at root with targetted, warmer/colder oracular search strategies, and that the resulting program is NOT an illustration of the BLIND watchmaker Mr Dawkins wrote the book of that name and time to support.
You ability to ignore inconvinent information is quite astounding. Have you no reponse to what R0B said?
That would be a big issue if Weasel were pitched as a non-targeted search or as an ateleological search (both of which sound like oxymorons to me). But nobody, least of all Dawkins, has presented Weasel as such. Dawkins explicitly contrasts the targeted Weasel algorithm with the non-targeted process of biological evolution.
Dawkins himself addresses the issue himself and yet you act as if he did not. Amazing.
In short, it is very clear that the original Weasel program is as I described it.
Then provide a quote from Dawkins that proves it. Otherwise it is very clear that you are making it up.
In that very specific context, as I documented above, there is beyond reasonable doubt latching behaviour, as published by Dawkins in BW and in New Scientist.
You understanding appears to be incomplete.George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT}

R0B at 375 and 376 has covered what I was going to say. Kariosfocus
And in cases where there is no consistent early latching, that would be in light of the more modern GA type program as Wiki links and as I cited on its algorithm, above.
Try and concentrate on the issue at hand. The issue is this: Does Dawins' Weasel, as described in Watchmaker, affix each letter in place once correct? Nothing to do with active information. Nothing to do with other implementations of Weasel-like programs. Nothing to do with oil soaked strawmen. Nothing to do with oracles. Nothing to to with hot or cold. Nothing to do with the accuracy of how Weasel represents any aspect of evolution. It's quite simple. You said
Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met.
The issue is if you are capable of representing your opponents argument correctly, and if you are capable of admitting you are in error when it is pointed out to you that you are wrong. As Atom says
you’ll see that nothing changes (except the amount of time it takes to reach the target will be slightly longer on average.)
So why the refusal to admit that Weasel as Dawkins described it does not fix letters? Once again, if you are right it should be a trival matter to provide a quote from Dawkins saying as much. The fact that you have not I hope says as much to the onlookers as it does to me. You are wrong, you know you are wrong and yet refuse to admit it. Why? Please address the issue at hand and refrain from constructing any more strawmen. Does Dawins’ Weasel, as described in Watchmaker, affix each letter in place once correct? If you say it does, please provide a reference from Dawkins saying as much. Otherwise what you are describing is not Weasel as Dawkins laid out in Watchmaker, and who is constructing strawmen then?George L Farquhar_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Onlookers: I think enough has been said on the substantial points above, that hose interested in seeing the truth on this case study on selective hyperskepticism in action and where it leads will see for themselves. For instance, despite the straining to find a loophole, it should be very, very clear that I have -- until I have had over the past few hours to address the different mutations thereof -- ALWAYS spoken in the specific context of Dawkins' Weasel circa 1986. (Indeed, I have usually gone on to distinguish the more modern GA's; which I have also pointed out, use targetting/ foresight and intelligent direction generally.) In that very specific context, as I documented above, there is beyond reasonable doubt latching behaviour, as published by Dawkins in BW and in New Scientist. He also explicitly speaks of warmer/ colder rewarding of non-functional nonsense phrases; the very opposite of what natural selection is supposed to do to differential functionality. And that, I have remarked on. Moreover, as Atom has observed -- and as I repeatedly pointed out in details above -- we are dealing at root with targetted, warmer/colder oracular search strategies, and that the resulting program is NOT an illustration of the BLIND watchmaker Mr Dawkins wrote the book of that name and time to support. In short, it is very clear that the original Weasel program is as I described it. But, the point of the selective hyperskeptical game, once strawmen soaked in ad hominems are burning brightly and smokily, is to cloud the air and to fill it with noxious polarisations. So, the track towards the truth is lost sight of in the smoke. And, that is its rhetorical point -- to the temporary and particular advantage of those playing the selective hyperskepticism game; but to the detriment of our civilisation, as is becoming ever more evident all around us as we speak. In short, such behaviour fails at the Categorical Imperative bar (a test for moral sustainablility of behaviour). If we were to all try to live like the selective hyperskeptics have shown above, our civlisation will collapse into in the end civil conflicts beyond what we have ever seen before. We have been warned. Will we heed the warning? That, sirs, is the question. GEM of TKI PS: Joseph, thanks for the interesting link ion Behe. As for the parental resemblance issue, my T3 shows how that can easily happen even where there is no explicit and 100% latch-in. But, that is not what we are dealing with on the evidence already linked and now put up in the thread: we can see case after case of latching behaviour.kairosfocus_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

Cumulative selection- the weasel thingy is supposed to represent cumulative selection. However, pertaining to biology, cumulative selection has been laid bare in the "Edge of Evolution". Dr Behe has found support in the peer-reviewed literature.Joseph_{March 11, 2009
March
03
Mar
11
11
2009
11:14 AM
11
11
14
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 18 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply