METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[aharvey]

Well, the program was designed ( :chuckle: ) to show the difference between random selection and cumulative selection, which it does just fine.

So are you asking whether cumulative selection has any applicibility to evolution?

I guess bob has never heard the creationist reference to evolution via natural selection as a "random" process!

No, I don't really believe that for a second. There is rather more evidence that suggests that creationists feel it is their best interests to continue under any circumstances to refer to this process as random, as evidenced by this fairly astonishing AiG criticism of the Weasel (my emphasis added below):

"I described the basic procedure to a Christian lawyer recently: a computer program generates 28 random letters (or spaces) one after the other and these are matched in order to the sentence ‘METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’. The experiment is repeated for only the positions where a match did not occur (see Figure 1, below). Eventually the desired sentence is reproduced. By analogy to this allegedly ‘random’ process, mutations could presumably give rise to the complexity we see in life forms."


Dawkins' whole point is that it is not a random process, and yet creationists bitterly complain that Dawkins falsely alleges that it is a random process!

 

[fool]

Tell me if I'm not getting this.
Does the whole problem revolve around the issue of the "Correct" letters from the last try not being retained for subsequent trys?

 

[SUTG]

Yeah - when I was doing my Google search, I came across that "Answers" in Genesis site. Something didn't look right, so I decided to keep searching until I could find the actual, relevant quotes from Dawkins himself.

Just about every Christian site I have found that discusses the weasel makes the same error. Either they are being dishonest, they don't understand what Dawkins was saying, or they haven't read Dawkins and are just repeating the same mistakes from other Christian sites.

It amazes me that, having never heard of the WEASEL program before, I could go to Google and gain a better understanding of it in 10 minutes than these Christian websites are posting all over the place. Talk about willful ignorance!

 

[Johnny]

There seems to be a lot of "just repeating the same mistakes from other Christian sites." That's what happens when your ability to critically think is secondary to maintaining your dogmatic world-view.

 

[bob b]

Yeah - when I was doing my Google search, I came across that "Answers" in Genesis site. Something didn't look right, so I decided to keep searching until I could find the actual, relevant quotes from Dawkins himself.

Just about every Christian site I have found that discusses the weasel makes the same error. Either they are being dishonest, they don't understand what Dawkins was saying, or they haven't read Dawkins and are just repeating the same mistakes from other Christian sites.

It amazes me that, having never heard of the WEASEL program before, I could go to Google and gain a better understanding of it in 10 minutes than these Christian websites are posting all over the place. Talk about willful ignorance!

I think you underestimate the people on those Christian websites. They were not fooled for a minute by Dawkin's "innocent" claim that all he was doing was giving an example to show the difference between "single-step selection" and "cumulative selection".

 

[SUTG]

I think you underestimate the people on those Christian websites. They were not fooled for a minute by Dawkin's "innocent" claim that all he was doing was giving an example to show the difference between "single-step selection" and "cumulative selection".

They sure seem to be fooled by something! They don't even get the claim correct:

Zoology Professor Richard Dawkins claimed to show that random mutations could generate new structures such as organs or limbs by a computer programming exercise.

Since you have the book, can you show me where Dawkins claimed that the weasel program did this? His claim appears to be just the opposite from the quotes I've seen.

How are you guys supposed to be refuting Dawkins when you don't even understand what he is saying? That is why I wanted to hear his argument from you in your own words. Do you not see that these websites are misrepresnting Dawkins' claim for the program?

 

[aharvey]

Yeah - when I was doing my Google search, I came across that "Answers" in Genesis site. Something didn't look right, so I decided to keep searching until I could find the actual, relevant quotes from Dawkins himself.

Just about every Christian site I have found that discusses the weasel makes the same error. Either they are being dishonest, they don't understand what Dawkins was saying, or they haven't read Dawkins and are just repeating the same mistakes from other Christian sites.

It amazes me that, having never heard of the WEASEL program before, I could go to Google and gain a better understanding of it in 10 minutes than these Christian websites are posting all over the place. Talk about willful ignorance!

I agree with bob, you might be underestimating the people on those Christian websites. I think they are fully aware that Dawkins was specifically illustrating a non-random process, but they are equally aware that painting evolution as a "random process" helps make it seem ridiculous ("How could something as complex and well-integrated as DNA be the result of mindless random chance processes?"). There are lots of Lynn73's and bowhunter's in the world on whom such duplicity apparently works very well.

 

[Lord Vader]

I agree with bob, you might be underestimating the people on those Christian websites. I think they are fully aware that Dawkins was specifically illustrating a non-random process, but they are equally aware that painting evolution as a "random process" helps make it seem ridiculous ("How could something as complex and well-integrated as DNA be the result of mindless random chance processes?"). There are lots of Lynn73's and bowhunter's in the world on whom such duplicity apparently works very well.

There is a great deal of money in it. Discovery Institute gets millions in donations. Right wing book readers are easily parted from their money.

 

[bob b]

I agree with bob, you might be underestimating the people on those Christian websites. I think they are fully aware that Dawkins was specifically illustrating a non-random process, but they are equally aware that painting evolution as a "random process" helps make it seem ridiculous ("How could something as complex and well-integrated as DNA be the result of mindless random chance processes?"). There are lots of Lynn73's and bowhunter's in the world on whom such duplicity apparently works very well.

Of course almost all evolutionists agree that evolution is a random process, but try to downplay the randomness, which they assume is due to random mutations, by claiming that natural selection removes the randomness.

Wrong. It doesn't.

Dawkins was illustrating a process that although random could converge on a target phrase in stages by making use of intelligent selection. This has similarities to the algorithms used by Engineers and others to optimize various processes. We used to refer to these as "Monte Carlo methods".

His example (as well as his text) implied that this has something to do with "random mutations plus natural selection plus billions of years" being able to transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into all life on Earth.

It doesn't.

His example was spurious, but effective in achieving an objective, much like so many advertisements we see on television.

 

[aharvey]

Of course almost all evolutionists agree that evolution is a random process but try to downplay the randomness, which they assume is due to random mutations, by claiming that natural selection removes the randomness.

Need I say more?

"Evolution is a random process."
"Evolution is a process with both random and non-random components."

Can anyone seriously think these mean the same thing?

 

[bob b]

Need I say more?

"Evolution is a random process."
"Evolution is a process with both random and non-random components."

Can anyone seriously think these mean the same thing?

Semantics.

The Monte Carlo method is a random process as opposed to a deterministic process.

Yet the result of this method generally converges on a unique answer, usually in just a few iterations. This is because it involves a correction function, typically non-random.

If you choose to call evolution a non-random process, even though it assumes random mutations, be my guest.

Much ado about nothing.

 

[bob b]

Time for the next "level" of the "parable".

Richard Dawkins claims that the process of evolution can be demonstrated by comparing it to its ability to generate an English sentence, namely, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Great idea but flawed in its execution.

Evolution must proceed by going from one feasible lifeform to another feasible lifeform. Any lifeforms that are not feasible will be eliminated by Natural Selection.

Thus, we would see in the English language analogy that one "feasible" sentence should logically lead to another "feasible" sentence.

But wait, Natural Selection, in this case represented by an "editor" would want not only a "feasible" sentence but one that gave an improved meaning to the sentence.

But wait. Sentences do not normally exist in isolation, they are usually embedded in a paragraph, and the overall meaning of the paragraph would restrict which sentences would "fit" into the overall meaning of the paragraph.

Does this relate to proteins in lifeforms?

Oh yes.

It is known, for example, that a single "bad" point mutation can cause deleterious multiple effects in different subsytems of lifeforms. In other words a genetic disease traced back to a single deleterious point mutation can screw up more than expected. This must be because the effected protein is used not only in one subsystem, but in other subsystems as well. Sort of a "wheel within a wheel" situation.

Such situations are somewhat similar to the need of the "editor" in our English language example to consider not only the meaning of the immediate sentence in which a change affects its meaning, but the effect the change has on the paragraph in which that altered sentence is embedded.

This is why it would be so difficult to make major beneficial changes in a lifeform by a process that makes only small changes acting one step at a time.

When I first started reading about DNA some 23 years ago it was obvious to me, a former control system engineer, that the "small change scenario" could not possibly work (I had previously attended seminars where scientists had revealed that lifeforms were "loaded" with automatic feedback control systems). I fully expected that there would be better and more feasible mechanisms coming along than "random mutations plus natural selection", but I never found any, and in the ensuing 23 years nobody else has found any either.

 

[aharvey]

Semantics.

The Monte Carlo method is a random process as opposed to a deterministic process.

Yet the result of this method generally converges on a unique answer, usually in just a few iterations. This is because it involves a correction function, typically non-random.

If you choose to call evolution a non-random process, even though it assumes random mutations, be my guest.

Much ado about nothing.

Is there a "jaw-droppingly stupid" emoticon? Because this is about the most jaw-droppingly stupid post you have ever made on TOL, bob. I was about to refer you to Dawkin's monkey/Shakespeare example to illustrate this, but I see from your next post you have no clue about that one either.

Sigh... what can we do? Ever play poker? A fair game of poker starts with a randomly dealt hand, correct? Does that make poker playing nothing more than a random process? Are there not good poker players and bad poker players? Just because there is an element of randomness doesn't mean that it is nothing more than a random process! I can't believe you don't understand that this is a fundamental distinction, and once again am led to suspect that in the holy war against evolution there is no need for the niceties of fair play.

Time for the next "level" of the "parable".

Richard Dawkins claims that the process of evolution can be demonstrated by comparing it to its ability to generate an English sentence, namely, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

This is what we've been oh so anxiously awaiting?!? Your complete misunderstanding/misrepresenting of the entire point of Dawkins's demonstration?!?

Dawkins's example illustrates the difference between single-step and cumulative selection, between purely random and partly random processes. He takes considerable pains to make it clear that it was not intended to be a model of how evolutionary processes actually work. For you to base your whole, profoundly idiotic "parable," on not only a deeply defective "model" of your own but now, we see, a blatantly deceptive misrepresentation of Dawkins's model leads me once again to ponder what this crusade you've taken on has done to your moral compass.

 

[bob b]

Is there a "jaw-droppingly stupid" emoticon? Because this is about the most jaw-droppingly stupid post you have ever made on TOL, bob. I was about to refer you to Dawkin's monkey/Shakespeare example to illustrate this, but I see from your next post you have no clue about that one either.

Sigh... what can we do? Ever play poker? A fair game of poker starts with a randomly dealt hand, correct? Does that make poker playing nothing more than a random process? Are there not good poker players and bad poker players? Just because there is an element of randomness doesn't mean that it is nothing more than a random process! I can't believe you don't understand that this is a fundamental distinction, and once again am led to suspect that in the holy war against evolution there is no need for the niceties of fair play.

I have already granted you that some people prefer to speak of random versus non-random whereas I, as well as some mathematicians, prefer to speak of random versus deterministic.

This is what we've been oh so anxiously awaiting?!? Your complete misunderstanding/misrepresenting of the entire point of Dawkins's demonstration?!?

Dawkins was obviously using his example to "slide in" the idea that natural selection (the head monkey) can turn a situation of low probability into one of certainty. That is the whole point of his Blind Watchmaker book.

Dawkins's example illustrates the difference between single-step and cumulative selection, between purely random and partly random processes.

A "partly" random process is what I call a "random process".

He takes considerable pains to make it clear that it was not intended to be a model of how evolutionary processes actually work.

Baloney. He was trying to illustrate how selection turns a hopelessly rare situation into one that converges rapidly on the target sentence.

For you to base your whole, profoundly idiotic "parable," on not only a deeply defective "model" of your own but now, we see, a blatantly deceptive misrepresentation of Dawkins's model leads me once again to ponder what this crusade you've taken on has done to your moral compass.

My "parable" illustrates the point I have been trying to illuminate here for all these weeks: "random mutations plus natural selection" is not the answer to large scale changes, and by inference why starting with multiple advanced life forms is a much better scenario.

 

[Lord Vader]

Isn't purely random something without selection; no rule for selecting that which looks most like the target word; and partly random the scenario where the letter change is random (now I've said "random" so many times I'm not sure what it means) but the selected word is not? Just trying to keep up. Many thanks.

 

[billwald]

Is "Monopoly" a game of random chance because the players throw the dice?

 

[noguru]

The more Bob expounds on his ideas the less confidence I have in his judgement.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think your an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt."

 

[Lord Vader]

The more Bob expounds on his ideas the less confidence I have in his judgement.

"It is better to keep your mouth shut and have people think your an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt."

Now, now; let's be nice. A whetstone is a blessing!

 

[noguru]

Now, now; let's be nice. A whetstone is a blessing!

What's a whetstone?

 

[bob b]

Isn't purely random something without selection; no rule for selecting that which looks most like the target word; and partly random the scenario where the letter change is random (now I've said "random" so many times I'm not sure what it means) but the selected word is not? Just trying to keep up. Many thanks.

It is true that there is a better word that conveys a more accurate picture, but many people are not familiar with the word "stochastic".