The battle over cumulative selection and Dawkins’ Weasel program has raged on for some months [years?] here at TSZ and across numerous threads. So can it possibly be that we now, finally, have a definitive statement about cumulative selection?
Mung: And whether or not my program demonstrates the power of cumulative selection has not been settled…
To which keiths responded:
keiths: Anyone who understands cumulative selection can see that it doesn’t, because your fitness functions don’t reward proximity to the target — only an exact match. The fitness landscapes are flat except for a spike at the site of the target.
So there you have it. You need a target and a fitness function that rewards proximity to the target.
Imagine my surprise when I discovered that I had said the exact same thing nine months ago.
Mung: Here’s what he Weasel program teaches us:
1.) In order to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection one must first define a target.
2.) In order to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection one must define a fitness function that increases the likelihood of the search algorithm to find the target relative to the likelihood of a blind search finding the target.
Now perhaps I have misunderstood keiths here. Perhaps he did not really say, or really mean, what I think he said, or what it appears like he said. So I’d like to hear his response.
Is it possible that keiths has agreed with me all along while expending every effort possible to make it seem otherwise?
Just so there’s no mistake, here he is again saying the same thing:
keiths: Mung,
Besides failing in your attempt to code a Weasel and contradicting yourself regarding your intent, you also failed to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection in your program.
1) Your program doesn’t evolve a phrase; it evolves individual letters, one after the other, latching each one when it matches.
2) There is a separate fitness function for each letter.
3) The fitness functions don’t reward proximity to the target — they only reward an exact match for a single character.
The only thing your program demonstrates the “power” of is latching, not cumulative selection.
It’s a remarkable display of incompetence.
Perhaps. But it served its’ purpose. keiths admits I was right all along. So incompetence? Perhaps not.
You need a target. You need a fitness function that rewards proximity to the target. Is that your story keiths, and are you sticking to it? Weasel out of this!
I predict keiths will try to make this about my program and what it does or does not demonstrate rather than his revelation about cumulative selection.
Which evolutionary arguments against ID rely on latching? I can’t think of any.
At AtBC, Weasel converges on an indisputable result.
Mung,
Hey man, I was there in the latching wars! Don’t talk about stuff you don’t know about ok! Man, if you’da seen the stuff I’ve seen….
http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/uncommon-descent-contest-question-10-provide-the-code-for-dawkins-weasel-program/
Poor Blue Lotus never came back after that last incursion in the latching wars. He was one of the originals… They found the original video, man. The video! And KF still never backed down. He just invented new types of latching! BL never came baccccckkk!
Someone’ll write a book one day. And 50 people will buy it!
https://imgflip.com/i/1aob4g
I encourage you all to read that entire thread. It’s very entertaining and informative.
It wouldn’t tell you that how it was behaving was due to cumulative selection. You could make that assumption. That seems to be the approach keiths takes.
Just because a given search algorithm performs better than blind search it does not follow that it is using cumulative selection.
My program perform better than blind search and yet keiths argues it does not use cumulative selection to do so. [Not that he’s right, mind you.]
Will that tell us whether cumulative selection was responsible for the difference? I think not.
In the middle of his journey the salesman receives a call telling him new cities have been added that he is to visit. Should be a simple thing for keiths to code that in and show that moving targets don’t matter. 🙂
That’s correct. Although you would have to run the program again.
If the program is running continuously, changing the stops will not affect the behavior of the program. It will still move the population of routes toward shorter ones.
I know this because I’ve written a weasel like program that has no specific target. It simply selects the string that is nearest to a scrabble dictionary word. It can run for thousands of generations without sticking to a target.
And you can change languages at any time and it will cheerfully begin to produce strings that are closer to words in the new language. Moving selection algorithms are no problem.
I might add that a program like yours that latches characters cannot cope with a moving target or a moving selection algorithm.
That may be what keiths has in mind when he says your program is not a weasel.
I have no interest in your feuds. I merely like to try reaching a meeting of minds. If you share that, continue.
keiths makes me laugh. sometimes.
Here’s data from a run from a Weasel program I wrote:
84:METHINKS IT ZS LIKE A WEASCL
85:METHINKS IT ZS LIKE A WEASCL
86:METHINKS IT ZS LIKE A WEASCL
87:METHINKS IT ZS LIKE A WEASCL
88:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
89:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
90:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
91:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
92:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
93:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
94:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
95:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
96:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
97:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
98:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
99:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
100:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
101:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
102:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
103:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
104:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
105:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
106:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
107:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
108:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
109:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
110:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
111:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASCL
112:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
Sure as hell looks like latching to me!
The Dawkins algorithm does not latch.
If you run it enough times you will find instances where a correct letter changes to an incorrect letter, and simultaneously, an incorrect letter will change to a correct one. This happened during one of the Dawkins video demos.
I think we should change the target phrase to “METHINKS IT IS LIKE A LATCHING WEASEL”
263:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
264:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
265:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
266:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
267:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
268:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
269:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
270:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
271:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
272:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
273:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
274:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
275:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
276:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
277:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
278:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
279:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
280:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
281:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
282:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
283:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
284:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
285:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
286:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
287:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
288:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
289:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
290:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
291:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
292:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
293:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
294:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
295:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
296:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
297:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
298:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
299:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
300:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
301:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
302:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
303:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
304:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
305:DETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
306:METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
If it latches like a weasel, maybe it’s a weasel.
In the real world, evolutionary processes are forever chasing moving targets. No sooner does an organism become highly optimized for some environment, when the environment changes. The inevitable results are speciation and extinction. But the process used to chase after the moving environment is cumulative selection, small experimental steps where the successful experiments survive to keep trying.
The Dawkins algorithm does not latch.
Do you know how much your inability to understand this makes to the world outside this forum?
Not a fucking bit.
The original Weasel didn’t latch.
Although ID folks said that that Weasel only performed as it did because it latched, that was not correct — it didn’t latch, and even if it had, that would have not made it work a lot better.
You said that arguments against ID “rely on latching”. Most of those arguments do not make any use of any Weasel, latching or no.
You have not provided any evidence that these arguments “reply on latching”.
If you think a weasel must latch, then I’ll pm you my bank account so you can send those 10 grand
LoL!
49995:METHINKS IT I OIFE A WAASHE
49996:METHINKS IT IC OIFE A WAASHE
49997:METHINKS IT IC SIFE A WAASHE
49998:METHINKS IT IC SIFE A WAASHE
49999:METHINKS IT IC SIFE A WAASHE
50000 tries to find the target and it fails. It must be IC
This is so funny. The Kariofiasco redux.
If by IC you mean “Incapable of Coding”, then I would agree
I don’t think a Weasel must latch.
otoh, ketihs claims that if it latches it is not Weasel. He also claims that if it latches it is not cumulative selection.
InConceivable.
Feel free to join in with a definition of cumulative selection and a statement of what must be present in order to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection.
I just produced a run of 50,000 generations in which the target was not reached. How many runs should we allow before we should reject the hypothesis of “cumulative selection”?
An awesome design feature!
I don’t play the definition lawyering/apologetics game, mung. Dictionary publishers have rooms full of people writing and editing definitions, and they still don’t cover all the bases.
Understanding requires a willingness on all sides to seek a meeting of minds.
I don’t know anything about the program you are running, but I can bet my house that it isn’t running the Dawkins algorithm.
In the spirit of covering all the bases, the Dawkins algorithm requires a reasonable mutation rate.
Again, if you are seeking to misunderstand, there are many paths to not understanding.
If it lacks a target it is not “a weasel like program.” Have you not been paying attention to anything keiths has said?
Yes, a program can run for thousands of generations without sticking to a target, but how that demonstrates the power of cumulative selection remains elusive.
keiths claims that targets and a fitness function that rewards proximity to the target is necessary.
If you disagree with keiths, now might be a good time to speak up.
DING! DING! DING!
That’s something keiths left out.
Demonstration of the power of cumulative selection requires a fine-tuned environment!
What else did keiths leave out?
Actually, no. Have you paid any attention when I said I don’t ply the definition game?
I will post corrections when I see incorrect stuff posted, but I don’t care about your feud with keiths.
But you do play the snark game, while decrying others who do the same.
So definition lawyering is more important than having a discussion.
Okay, I’m less than perfect.
So you simply did not see when keiths claimed that I did not understand Weasel and that I did not understand cumulative selection? Because I don’t recall you ever posting anything to the contrary.
Aren’t we all?
🙂
“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”
Even Elizabeth is less than perfect.
keiths?
My statements were correct. You tried to implement a Weasel, but failed. You intended for your program to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection, but it failed to do so.
You’re boring the bejesus out of everyone, Mung. Why not just accept defeat and move on? You should be used to it by now.
According to keiths, my program failed to demonstrate the power of cumulative selection for two reasons:
1.) it lacked a target.
2.) it lacked a fitness function which rewarded proximity to the target.
Even if that is true, it fails to save keiths.
What is boring is someone who repeatedly fails to support his claims while also claiming that he always support his claims. Worse than boring. Not that keiths doesn’t always post in good faith! God forbid.
Now keiths will tell us what qualifies as a Weasel program, and what does not, and how to tell that a program demonstrates the power of cumulative selection, and how to tell that a program does not demonstrates the power of cumulative selection.
Prediction : He won’t.
Your statements are always correct. Tell us something we don’t already know.
I’m not interested in your feud with keihs or with definition lawyering in general.
If you say something that isn’t true, i might respond, if I’m interested in the topic.
You mean every niche only has ONE solution on how to survive to the next generation?
Where are these niches you are speaking of, I have never heard of such special niches on the planet we reside on. Perhaps you mean we first evolved on some other planet?
And if keiths says something that might not be true you might not respond! Good for you.
Still dodging , Phoodoo.
A couple of comments were guanoed and can be found here.
If you read my posts you will know that I am not thrilled with keiths’ tendency to play the pit bull. So I have decided not to engage him.
I don’t usually pay attention to your stuff either, but occasionally you make a clear and specific statement that is simply wrong.
Of course “looks like latching” turns out to be old mungspeak, vacuous troll bait.
I’m not interested in flamewars, feuds and definition lawyering. I do this for entertainment, and that’s not fun for me.
keiths,
WTF Keiths, why was my comment guanoed?
An admin (not me this time) has moved your comment. If you think it is unjustified you can object in the “moderation issues” thread.
Alan Fox,
Yes, I realize it wasn’t you.
If I had to run to the moderation thread every time Richard broke the rules, well..wait, WAIT, STOP, CUT, CUUUT! Who changed the script? This not what I wrote!
“Keiths, you are drunk! Go sober up. O”Magain, you, yes you, pipe down. Richard, get back in your playpen! And take that dam toilet plunger out of your mouth you sorry imbecile! And no more posting stuff you haven’t even read! “
No, I mean the niche environment is the factor that makes selection non-random. Adaptation is change brought about by differential reproductive success in a population of organisms within a niche environment.
You have one that is populated by millions of bacteria such as Escherichia coli: it is your gut.
All terrestrial organism are found in a niche to which they are adapted. The niche is a dynamic mix of static, slowly changing and rapidly changing factors. Organisms adapt to the changes in the niche, move to find another niche or go extinct. You could say the niche is the “environmental designer”.
Indeed, that is sort of true. Earth of three and a half billion years ago was a very different place when the first evidence of life appears.
But that is totally irrelevant to the point that cumulative selection can not work if there are multiple, and often contradicting, things that are being selected for. That was the point of my post, not the randomness of selection. I am not sure where you got that I was talking about randomness there.
If a fox breeder tries to select ten different features for breeding a fox, and each of those features is unhelpful to the other feature, or even in conflict with, then of course he is going to get a pretty scrambled and useless breeding program. That’s when when you build a car, you probably want to select things that are best for making a car, not for making rubber ducks, and x-ray machines.
Very zen. I like it.