METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[bob b]

So how about answering the question for your classification scheme? How would you classify Monopoly, poker, football? All of these have random elements just like evolution. But would you call them games of random chance?

They are stochastic as opposed to deterministic.

I already know how I would classify these things. I'm asking you specifically because you seem to use an atypical classification. So how about it, bob? Are the only choices "random" and "purely deterministic"?

I believe It is more accurate to say that they are either deterministic or stochastic. I previously avoided the mathematical term because most people would not have been familiar with it.

Don't need to. Referring to a process as deterministic simply means you can predict the outcome if you have enough relevant information about the system. Referring to a process as stochastic (okay, we'll use your term random) means you can't, no matter how much information you have. In case you haven't noticed, these are end points. You are treating them as mutually exclusive AND comprehensive: either something is random or it is deterministic, and since evolution is not purely deterministic, it must be random. Few (non-trivial) processes are purely random or purely deterministic, and that includes evolution. I'll give you points for sheer chutzpah in trying to bluff me on this one, though.

You need to review the definition of the terms. I did.

Ah, more quote mining. If we got back to your own post #210, you specifically state that this quote comes NOT from a discussion of the weasel program but after his abrupt switch to the biomorph program.

I may have misled you by using the quote at the point that I did in my discussion. The quote was actually not at the end of the WEASEL discussion but probably somewhere nearer the middle. Check it yourself and see.

According to your earlier post, bob, you are now taking what he said in reference to one model and applying it to what he said about a different model. Who's being self-contradictory? So far it seems you're perfectly illustrating my argument, that you are erroneously taking individual pieces, now individual quotes, and using them as if they are all referring to the same thing. They're not, only this time you've already made that arguement for me!

Read the whole WEASEL discussion and you will see that it is Dawkins doing the misleading, not me.

Whether I was successful or not, you then crossed the line by claiming I called you stupid. I do not think you are making these misrepresentations and fallacious arguements out of stupidity. And so far, I haven't seen much support for the intelligence of your argument that any process that is not purely deterministic is therefore random

Sorry for crossing the line (if I did). I guess the professor might have to give me a ticket.

 

[aharvey]

They are stochastic as opposed to deterministic.

I believe It is more accurate to say that they are either deterministic or stochastic. I previously avoided the mathematical term because most people would not have been familiar with it.

You need to review the definition of the terms. I did.

I'll bet you did (funny time to resort to definitional games). So in your view, any process with any stochastic element is a stochastic process? Then what, pray tell, qualifies as a deterministic process? I'm asking for specific examples. It's hardly a criticism of evolutionary theory to state that it, like everything else, is a stochastic process!

I may have misled you by using the quote at the point that I did in my discussion. The quote was actually not at the end of the WEASEL discussion but probably somewhere nearer the middle. Check it yourself and see.

Read the whole WEASEL discussion and you will see that it is Dawkins doing the misleading, not me.

Well, as I don't have the book (I don't really have the time to read the popularized versions of my own profession, I'm afraid), this one will have to remain unresolved. But perhaps you could combine your two different accounts of when and why Dawkins made that for-some-reason-damning quote into a single non-contradictory account.

Sorry for crossing the line (if I did). I guess the professor might have to give me a ticket.

Nah. I do wish you would at least make an effort at accountability (see what I bolded above).

 

[bob b]

I'll bet you did (funny time to resort to definitional games). So in your view, any process with any stochastic element is a stochastic process? Then what, pray tell, qualifies as a deterministic process? I'm asking for specific examples. It's hardly a criticism of evolutionary theory to state that it, like everything else, is a stochastic process!

Well, as I don't have the book (I don't really have the time to read the popularized versions of my own profession, I'm afraid), this one will have to remain unresolved. But perhaps you could combine your two different accounts of when and why Dawkins made that for-some-reason-damning quote into a single non-contradictory account.

Nah. I do wish you would at least make an effort at accountability (see what I bolded above).

I think I explained very well how Dawkins was attempting to slide in an argument for random mutations plus natural selection through the backdoor of something he refered to as "cumulative selection".

If you didn't "get it" that's a shame. But I really didn't expect much from you considering.

I hope a few others got it. If any did please let me know.

 

[Lord Vader]

You are correct in thinking that I am saying that Dawkins was engaging in misrepresentation.

Basically he is trying to "sell" the idea that "cumulative selection" is similar to random mutations plus natural selection.

Isn't that stated out right by biologists; that cumulative selection is this multi step process of random mutations and natural selection?

First he sets up the WEASEL example and uses it to describe how it rapidly converges on a "target" phrase. Later he admits that the target phrase selection is not a realistic equivalent to natural selection but dismisses this as unimportant because natural selection "has no goal" and hence the target phrase portion of the example can be dispensed with.

Isn't this because he was merely debunking a creationist chestnut that random mutations couldn't have resulted in life as we know it since it's statistically impossible; that there is a way to do it even though that way doesn't describe evolution itself in that evolution doesn't use goals, generally speaking?

But instead of explaining how, he abruptly drops further discussion of WEASEL and switches to a different computer model, the famous "biomorphs".

Do you mean he doesn't explain how the computer model is changed?

Emphasis added. The IF is the hooker. Not only that but the "cumulative selection" Dawkins talks about is really "random tries followed by selection". He has set up the "straw man" of random selection

But weren't there creationists making the single step argument?

and knocked it down with his fictional "cumulative selection" which is really nothing more than a "stalking horse" for the evolutionary fairytale that random mutations plus natural selection can transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into all the life which has ever existed on this globe.

So far in my experience biologists have always said this outright. I'm not sure why you're calling it a stalking-horse.

No mention of the fact that according to the evolutionary paradigm each "success" to be a real success must result in not only a creature that "works", but one that works better than the one to be replaced. This is why I stated that WEASEL was flawed, and proposed an addition to it which includes "the "word must work(exist)" and later "the altered sentence must fit the context of the paragraph". (I also eliminated the "target phrase" as Dawkins indicated needed to be done).

Isn't it the case that it's flawed in so far as it does not encompass the entire mechanism of evolution; it only demonstrates that there isn't just the single step way to proceed?

Thanks for your patients.

 

[aharvey]

I think I explained very well how Dawkins was attempting to slide in an argument for random mutations plus natural selection through the backdoor of something he refered to as "cumulative selection".

See Lord Vader's post. It's hard to imagine why you think Dawkins would want to conceal his opinions concerning the role of mutations and natural selection! And for the nth time, the weasel model is not a comprehensive model for Dawkins's views on the evolutionary process; why do you keep damning it as such? Much less as a sneaky version of such?

If you didn't "get it" that's a shame. But I really didn't expect much from you considering.

Considering what? That I don't uncritically swallow dishonest misrepresentations others may toss my way?

I notice you included in your quote but did not reply to the first part of my post. Here, try again, it's important:

'I'll bet you did (funny time to resort to definitional games). So in your view, any process with any stochastic element is a stochastic process? Then what, pray tell, qualifies as a deterministic process? I'm asking for specific examples. It's hardly a criticism of evolutionary theory to state that it, like everything else, is a stochastic process!'

 

[bob b]

See Lord Vader's post. It's hard to imagine why you think Dawkins would want to conceal his opinions concerning the role of mutations and natural selection! And for the nth time, the weasel model is not a comprehensive model for Dawkins's views on the evolutionary process; why do you keep damning it as such? Much less as a sneaky version of such?

Considering what? That I don't uncritically swallow dishonest misrepresentations others may toss my way?

You seem to have done just that in the case of the Dawkins WEASEL example.

Dawkins was trying to convince people that "cumulative selection" was the solution to how life evolved from a hypothetical primitive protocell to a human being. This is evident from the following:

There is a big difference, then, between cumulative selection (in
which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future
building), and single-step selection (in which each new 'try' is a fresh
one). If evolutionary progress had had to rely on single-step selection, it
would never have got anywhere. If, however, there was any way in
which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have
been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might
have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what
happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent,
if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences.

 

[aharvey]

You seem to have done just that in the case of the Dawkins WEASEL example.

Since I've yet to have read Dawkins's word directly, and have been studying evolutionary theory at a professional level for at least a couple of decades now, I don't think you can seriously claim this!

Dawkins was trying to convince people that "cumulative selection" was the solution to how life evolved from a hypothetical primitive protocell to a human being.

Yes, Dawkins is trying to convince people that biodiversity is a result of cumulative selection. Of course he is! What's deceptive about that? I've already asked you about this more than once, and you answer by repeating the "accusation." Cheez, bob!

This is evident from the following:

He used the weasel example to show the difference between single-step and cumulative selection; namely that cumulative selection can lead to large changes far more rapidly than single-step (random) selection.

He argues pretty much everywhere (right?) that cumulative selection is responsible for the diversity of life on earth.

He did not use the weasel example to show that cumulative selection is responsible for the diversity of life on earth!

"If, however, there was any way in
which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have
been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might
have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what
happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent,
if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences."

You seem to think that the bold-faced "that" refers to his weasel model, when in fact it clearly refers to the idea that "the necessary conditions for cumulative selection were in some way set up by the blind forces of nature."

Get it? The weasel model shows that in a very generic sense cumulative selection can be very powerful. If that were not true, then it wouldn't matter whether or not cumulative selection could be a natural process. But demonstrating that cumulative selection can be very powerful is not the same as demonstrating that cumulative selection is responsible for biodiversity, and since (I assume that) Dawkins's several books on the subject of evolution are not simply endless discussion of the weasel model, it seems safe to say that Dawkins is not trying to pretend otherwise. The weasel model is a look at a piece of the puzzle. Stop pretending that he's trying to pass it off as the entire story.

 

[bob b]

Since I've yet to have read Dawkins's word directly, and have been studying evolutionary theory at a professional level for at least a couple of decades now, I don't think you can seriously claim this!

Yes, Dawkins is trying to convince people that biodiversity is a result of cumulative selection. Of course he is! What's deceptive about that? I've already asked you about this more than once, and you answer by repeating the "accusation." Cheez, bob!

He used the weasel example to show the difference between single-step and cumulative selection; namely that cumulative selection can lead to large changes far more rapidly than single-step (random) selection.

He argues pretty much everywhere (right?) that cumulative selection is responsible for the diversity of life on earth.

He did not use the weasel example to show that cumulative selection is responsible for the diversity of life on earth!

"If, however, there was any way in
which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have
been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might
have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what
happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent,
if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences."

You seem to think that the bold-faced "that" refers to his weasel model, when in fact it clearly refers to the idea that "the necessary conditions for cumulative selection were in some way set up by the blind forces of nature."

Get it? The weasel model shows that in a very generic sense cumulative selection can be very powerful. If that were not true, then it wouldn't matter whether or not cumulative selection could be a natural process. But demonstrating that cumulative selection can be very powerful is not the same as demonstrating that cumulative selection is responsible for biodiversity, and since (I assume that) Dawkins's several books on the subject of evolution are not simply endless discussion of the weasel model, it seems safe to say that Dawkins is not trying to pretend otherwise. The weasel model is a look at a piece of the puzzle. Stop pretending that he's trying to pass it off as the entire story.

METHINKS the lad protests too much!!

"As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet"

i.e. cumulative selection, or as it is more popularly known, "random mutations plus natural selection".

 

[aharvey]

METHINKS the lad protests too much!!

"As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet"

i.e. cumulative selection, or as it is more popularly known, "random mutations plus natural selection".

Oh my gosh! You're right! Dawkins IS trying to convince us that organisms evolved via mutations and natural selection! How cleverly he has concealed this, his true intent!

So what is he pretending to say instead?

 

[bob b]

He is pretending that something he calls "cumulative selection" actually exists in nature to transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being.

 

[aharvey]

He is pretending that something he calls "cumulative selection" actually exists in nature to transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being.

bob, that sentence doesn't even make any sense. I'll grant you, that's one way to make your claims unassailable!

Now, let's try again. You have been tossing around accusations that Dawkins has been saying one thing when he means something else. On the surface, all of us gullible sods have been thinking that Dawkins has been taking the position that standard evolutionary mechanisms involving mutations and selection are largely responsible for the diversity of life on earth (the apparent hedging is because actual scientists are aware that there is more to the story than this, but this is the core of it). Now you come along and enlighten us by claiming that his true intent, what he's trying to sneak past us, is: that mutation and selection are largely responsible for the diversity of life on earth?!?

I'm sorry, so far it sounds like Dawkins is really trying to demonstrate what it sounds like he is trying to demonstrate! But then again, maybe the garbled statement above means something else.

In fact, as I reread what you typed, I'm convinced that you did mean something else. It sounds like you are accusing Dawkins of deception because he is advocating something that you disagree with ... that makes no sense either, unless you have reason to think that he actually knows it's wrong but he's doing it anyways. Of course, we've been down this road before (Of course Haldane was surprised by his results, because he must have been, and therefore his apparent lack of surprise must have been a coverup)...

 

[Lord Vader]

He is pretending that something he calls "cumulative selection" actually exists in nature to transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into a human being.

It doesn't?

 

[bob b]

It doesn't?

Of course not. Natural Selection of random mutations has no power to generate new systems not already present in genomes.

The purpose of my modified WEASEL was to suggest that the subsystems and systems in lifeforms were similar in overall concept to the sentences, paragraphs and themes in literature, meaning that single random steps, even when "bad trials" are eliminated by selection, is woefully inadequate to account for the major "types" of lifeforms.

Why such a suggestion is dismissed out-of-hand can only be explained by the dogmatism of evolutionary thought. It apparently "blinds" evolutionists to reality.

 

[aharvey]

Of course not. Natural Selection of random mutations has no power to generate new systems not already present in genomes.

Gee, biologists have known this from the start, right? Here's a recent quote from my current textbook, but we can go back much further than this!

"Selection can edit only existing variations. Natural selection favors only the fittest phenotypes among those currently in the population, which may not be the ideal traits. New alleles do not rise on demand." (Biology, Campbell and Reece, 2005)

The purpose of my modified WEASEL was to suggest that the subsystems and systems in lifeforms were similar in overall concept to the sentences, paragraphs and themes in literature, meaning that single random steps, even when "bad trials" are eliminated by selection, is woefully inadequate to account for the major "types" of lifeforms.

Why such a suggestion is dismissed out-of-hand can only be explained by the dogmatism of evolutionary thought. It apparently "blinds" evolutionists to reality.

Out-of-hand? Meaning you missed all the discussion that accompanied the dismissal? Or is it your humble view that anyone who disagrees with you must automatically be doing so "out-of-hand"?

And why do you refer to what you presented as a "modified WEASEL"? Your 'modification' didn't do anything!

 

[bob b]

Gee, biologists have known this from the start, right? Here's a recent quote from my current textbook, but we can go back much further than this
"Selection can edit only existing variations. Natural selection favors only the fittest phenotypes among those currently in the population, which may not be the ideal traits. New alleles do not rise on demand." (Biology, Campbell and Reece, 2005)

So an isolated sentence out of a single textbook has made your case? I don't think so.

Out-of-hand? Meaning you missed all the discussion that accompanied the dismissal? Or is it your humble view that anyone who disagrees with you must automatically be doing so "out-of-hand"?

I haven't heard any evolutionist say that there might be merit in the concept that like letter changes in languages, changes in individual proteins might be constrained by their appearance and activities in multiple subsystems and higher level systems simultaneously.

And why do you refer to what you presented as a "modified WEASEL"?

Because it is a modification of the Dawkins WEASEL?

Your 'modification' didn't do anything!

So now you admit it was a modification, but then fail to see what the effect of such a modification would be.

"Fascinating", as Mr. Spock would say.

(Did I ever mention that I played the role of a Vulcan in a DVD made at Universal Studies? It was fun saying the line: "Fascinating".)

 

[aharvey]

So an isolated sentence out of a single textbook has made your case? I don't think so.

Excellent. So you are now explicitly claiming that biologists are unaware that natural selection can only select among already existing choices, not generate new ones. That says volumes about how well you know the biological literature. Aren't you also puzzling about the biologists' fixation on mutations? Hmm...

I haven't heard any evolutionist say that there might be merit in the concept that like letter changes in languages, changes in individual proteins might be constrained by their appearance and activities in multiple subsystems and higher level systems simultaneously.

Non sequitur...

Because it is a modification of the Dawkins WEASEL?

Except that WEASEL does something. Yours does nothing.

So now you admit it was a modification, but then fail to see what the effect of such a modification would be.

Um, bob? Have you ever heard of "air quotes"? I do realize that there are a couple of reasons one puts quotes around individual words, but one of the main reasons is the written equivalent of air quotes: specifically to note disagreement with that particular choice of word. I can't quite believe you didn't know this!

"Fascinating", as Mr. Spock would say.

(Did I ever mention that I played the role of a Vulcan in a DVD made at Universal Studies? It was fun saying the line: "Fascinating".)

Whatever floats your boat!

 

[bob b]

Excellent. So you are now explicitly claiming that biologists are unaware that natural selection can only select among already existing choices, not generate new ones.

How you got that from my statement "Natural Selection of random mutations has no power to generate new systems not already present in genomes" is a mystery to me.

Except that WEASEL does something. Yours does nothing.

WEASEL is a computer program based on an analogy with the English language. My analogy (parable) extended the analogy to be closer to the actual structure of the English language as used in books, i.e. sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc.

Um, bob? Have you ever heard of "air quotes"? I do realize that there are a couple of reasons one puts quotes around individual words, but one of the main reasons is the written equivalent of air quotes: specifically to note disagreement with that particular choice of word. I can't quite believe you didn't know this!

I use quotes whenever I feel like it. I can't believe you never noticed this before!

But in your scheme do you disagree with air quotes because you put it in quotes? :doh:

I guess from now on I will have to always put "evolution" in quotes. Happy?

 

[aharvey]

How you got that from my statement "Natural Selection of random mutations has no power to generate new systems not already present in genomes" is a mystery to me.

Not from that quote, bobby, from your following quote in which you laugh off my single feeble quote from a college level biology textbook. Remember? "So an isolated sentence out of a single textbook has made your case? I don't think so." That quote.

WEASEL is a computer program based on an analogy with the English language. My analogy (parable) extended the analogy to be closer to the actual structure of the English language as used in books, i.e. sentences, paragraphs, chapters, etc.

Yes, but Dawkins's does something. There is an outcome. Yours does nothing. You "modified" his program to do nothing. One of my students similarly "modified" a beaker the other day by dropping it.

I use quotes whenever I feel like it. I can't believe you never noticed this before!

In the present context, who cares??? It wasn't your random use of quotes that was the problem, it was your ignoring my use of quotes to try to make it seem like I was contradicting myself!

 

[bob b]

You certainly like to major in the minors, Harvey.

Like missing the point of my "parable" ("analogy") which points to the reason why "evolution" can't make "chicken salad" out of "chicken sh t".

 

[Lord Vader]

You certainly like to major in the minors, Harvey.

Like missing the point of my "parable" ("analogy") which points to the reason why "evolution" can't make "chicken salad" out of "chicken sh t".

What was your analogy, again?

I always like to ask, WWCJD (what would Captain Janeway do)?