Evo-Info review: Do not buy the book until…

Posted on by
Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics, by Robert J. Marks II, the “Charles Darwin of Intelligent Design”; William A. Dembski, the “Isaac Newton of Information Theory”; and Winston Ewert, the “Charles Ingram of Active Information.” World Scientific, 332 pages.
Classification: Engineering mathematics. Engineering analysis. (TA347)
Subjects: Evolutionary computation. Information technology–Mathematics.

… the authors establish that their mathematical analysis of search applies to models of evolution.

I have all sorts of fancy stuff to say about the new book by Marks, Dembski, and Ewert. But I wonder whether I should say anything fancy at all. There is a ginormous flaw in evolutionary informatics, quite easy to see when it’s pointed out to you. The authors develop mathematical analysis of apples, and then apply it to oranges. You need not know what apples and oranges are to see that the authors have got some explaining to do. When applying the analysis to an orange, they must identify their assumptions about apples, and show that the assumptions hold also for the orange. Otherwise the results are meaningless.

The authors have proved that there is “conservation of information” in search for a solution to a problem. I have simplified, generalized, and trivialized their results. I have also explained that their measure of “information” is actually a measure of performance. But I see now that the technical points really do not matter. What matters is that the authors have never identified, let alone justified, the assumptions of the math in their studies of evolutionary models.a They have measured “information” in models, and made a big deal of it because “information” is conserved in search for a solution to a problem. What does search for a solution to a problem have to do with modeling of evolution? Search me. In the absence of a demonstration that their “conservation of information” math applies to a model of evolution, their measurement of “information” means nothing. It especially does not mean that the evolutionary process in the model is intelligently designed by the modeler.1

I was going to post an explanation of why the analysis of search does not apply to modeling of evolution. But I realized that it would give the impression that the burden is on me to show that the authors have misapplied the analysis.2 As soon as I raise objections, the “Charles Ingram of active information” will try to turn the issue into what I have said. The issue is what he and his coauthors have never bothered to say, from 2009 to the present. As I indicated above, they must start by stating the assumptions of the math. Then they must establish that the assumptions hold for a particular model that they address. Every one of you recognizes this as a correct description of how mathematical analysis works. I suspect that the authors recognize that they cannot deliver. In the book, they work hard at fostering the misconception that an evolutionary model is essentially the same as an evolutionary search. As I explained in a sidebar to the Evo-Info series, the two are definitely not the same. Most readers will swallow the false conflation, however, and consequently will be incapable of conceiving that analysis of an evolutionary model as search needs justification.

The premise of evolutionary informatics is that evolution requires information. Until the authors demonstrate that the “conservation of information” results for search apply to models of evolution, Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics will be worthless.

1 Joe Felsenstein came up with a striking demonstration that design is not required for “information.” In his GUC Bug model (presented in a post coauthored by me), genotypes are randomly associated with fitnesses. There obviously is no design in the fitness landscape, and yet we measured a substantial quantity of “information” in the model. The “Charles Ingram of active information” twice feigned a response, first ignoring our model entirely, and then silently changing both our model and his measure of active information.

2 Actually, I have already explained why the “conservation of information” math does not apply to models of evolution, including Joe’s GUC Bug. I recently wrote a much shorter and much sweeter explanation, to be posted in my own sweet time.

a ETA: Marks et al. measure the “information” of models developed by others. Basically, they claim to show that evolutionary processes succeed in solving problems only because the modelers supply the processes with information. In Chapter 1, freely available online, they write, “Our work was initially motivated by attempts of others to describe Darwinian evolution by computer simulation or mathematical models. The authors of these papers purport that their work relates to biological evolution. We show repeatedly that the proposed models all require inclusion of significant knowledge about the problem being solved. If a goal of a model is specified in advance, that’s not Darwinian evolution: it’s intelligent design. So ironically, these models of evolution purported to demonstrate Darwinian evolution necessitate an intelligent designer. The programmer’s contribution to success, dubbed active information, is measured in bits.” If you wonder Success at what? then you are on the right track.

588 thoughts on “Evo-Info review: Do not buy the book until…”

  2. Mung,

    What prevents you from picking whatever fitness function you want in a GA? Allan picks one that assigns equal unfitness to everyone.

    Not every time I don’t. Only when illustrating the baseline process.

  3. Mung: LoL. So much for “the power of cumulative selection.” Evolution is not synonymous with the power of cumulative selection.

    Correct. Cumulative selection is an aspect of the evolutionary process, but it is not the totality of evolution, nor the only mode of evolution.

    The evolutionary process does not need the power of cumulative selection.

    .. in order to constitute an evolutionary process, correct. Nevertheless, cumulative selection is an aspect of an evolutionary process. There are modes of evolution with, and without, cumulative selection.

  4. Mung: What prevents you from picking whatever fitness function you want in a GA? Allan picks one that assigns equal unfitness to everyone. What do you pick?

    Nothing prevents that. Why should anything prevent that?

    Programmers can program computer programs with different attributes. Therefore… what?

  5. Robin: Ok. So couple this “narrowing constraining force” with mutation. Doesn’t mutation fit the “present feature” (or at least, “present change towards a feature”) bill in your summary above?

    If by mutations you mean unguided, accidental changes, then. no, I do not think that it does fit.

    From American Scientist

    But many biologists claim they know for sure that random mutation (purposeless chance) is the source of inherited variation that generates new species of life and that life evolved in a single-common-trunk, dichotomously branching-phylogenetic-tree pattern! “No!” I say. Then how did one species evolve into another? This profound research question is assiduously undermined by the hegemony who flaunt their “correct” solution. Especially dogmatic are those molecular modelers of the “tree of life” who, ignorant of alternative topologies (such as webs), don’t study ancestors. Victims of a Whiteheadian “fallacy of misplaced concreteness,” they correlate computer code with names given by “authorities” to organisms they never see! Our zealous research, ever faithful to the god who dwells in the details, openly challenges such dogmatic certainty. This is science.

  6. GlenDavidson: Yes, but why do cone snails have high mutation rates for the DNA encoding their toxins?It appears to be in order to have the “creative force” that natural selection can preserve.

    Glen Davidson

    You seem to be saying that there is a purpose behind this mutation rate.

    Your mention of cone snails prompted me to take a look at some of the research into them and I found some interesting information.

    For a start:
    The signal sequence is, unexpectedly, highly conserved

    In contrast to every other known gene superfamily of secreted polypeptides, in Conus peptide gene superfamilies there is a striking sequence conservation of the signal sequence at the N-terminus of the precursor. This is unexpected because signal sequences, do not require a specific amino acid sequence to function as secretion signals, but rather only need to have a general hydrophobic character. The unprecedented degree of sequence conservation strongly suggests that conopeptide gene superfamily signal sequences play additional important roles.

    So some areas of the genome are targeted for conservation and, as you say, some have a high mutation rate, confirmed here

    Cone snail toxins (conotoxins) are highly variable, a consequence of a high mutation rate associated to duplication events and positive selection. As Conus and terebrids diverged in the early Paleocene, the toxins from terebrids (teretoxins) may demonstrate highly divergent and unique functionalities.

    Also a bit of a digression, but interesting:

    The potency and complexity of the venom fascinates scientists. Over millions of years cone snails have evolved toxins that target specific species in specific environments. No one toxin is exactly like another.

    In addition, any cone snail can alter the compounds in its venom at will.

    and

    A team of Austrian researchers has found that Hebomoia glaucippe, known as the great orange tip butterfly, has a toxin in its wing tips that is identical to a toxin used by a predatory sea snail to kill prey. They write in their paper describing their finding, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that it appears the toxin in butterfly wings is used as a means of defense rather than as a weapon.

    How did this butterfly come to have the same toxin as a snail?

  7. CharlieM,

    Charlie, I think you’re confusing mutation rate with fixation rate. Fixation rate varies across the genome a lot more than mutation rate. Of course your source also confuses things by poor phrasing. But I suspect it’s the positive selection that produces the high rates of evolution, rather than any basic difference in mutation rates.

    Hey, your American Scientist quote seems to come from Lynn Margulis, who by that point had descended into crackpottery, though a quite different form than yours and definitely incompatible with yours.

  8. John Harshman,

    Do you have any figures that can give me some idea of the mutation rates in relation to fixation for these areas of these snail genomes? I’m not sure how anyone could know this.

    How close do you think the models under discussion mirror real life?

  9. CharlieM: If by mutations you mean unguided, accidental changes, then. no, I do not think that it does fit.

    From American Scientist

    From Lynn Margulis’ essay in American Scientist, you mean. Which is fine, she’s entitled to her opinion, but I’ll simply note that she is not the voice of science and she does not represent the consensus. And in fact, the science continues to support mutation providing new characteristics for selection.

    So all I can do is shrug at Margulis’ rather outdated thoughts on the subject…

    ETA: Somewhat newer assessment on mutation than Margulis’ 2006 thoughts:

    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346

    So instead of quoting someone’s opinion on mutation, can you try to explain your own words why mutation does not constitute something that selection can work on? What is the issue you have with it?

  10. Robin: Which is fine, she’s entitled to her opinion, but I’ll simply note that she is not the voice of science and she does not represent the consensus.

    Funny Robin.

    In other words there is a scientific consensus, so if someone doesn’t follow the scientific consensus, they are not part of the consensus, thus we have a consensus because all those who follow the consensus, believe the consensus.

    Brilliant stuff.

    There’s a consensus that American’s love Donald trump. Just ask anyone who loves Donald Trump.

  12. keiths,

    I found this, does it come from the latin, contra?

    con1
    kɒn/
    informal
    verb
    verb: con; 3rd person present: cons; past tense: conned; past participle: conned; gerund or present participle: conning

    1.
    persuade (someone) to do or believe something by lying to them.
    “I conned him into giving me your home number”

    noun
    noun: con; plural noun: cons

    1.
    an instance of deceiving or tricking someone.
    “the Charter is a glossy public relations con”
    synonyms: swindle, deception, trick, racket, bit of sharp practice, fraud; More…

    con2
    kɒn/
    noun
    noun: con; plural noun: cons

    a disadvantage of or argument against something.
    “borrowers have to weigh up the pros and cons of each mortgage offer”

  14. CharlieM:
    John Harshman,

    Do you have any figures that can give me some idea of the mutation rates in relation to fixation for these areas of these snail genomes? I’m not sure how anyone could know this.

    How close do you think the models under discussion mirror real life?

    I do not understand the questions.

  15. Robin: From Lynn Margulis’ essay in American Scientist, you mean. Which is fine, she’s entitled to her opinion, but I’ll simply note that she is not the voice of science and she does not represent the consensus. And in fact, the science continues to support mutation providing new characteristics for selection.

    Well I could have said from the then president of Sigma Xi, Lynn Margulis; but I was more interested in what was said than who said it.

    So all I can do is shrug at Margulis’ rather outdated thoughts on the subject…

    I would say her thoughts here are a preview of what is to come. Rather than being outdated they are ahead of their time and the revealed complexity of the living genome is confirming this.

    ETA: Somewhat newer assessment on mutation than Margulis’ 2006 thoughts:

    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/mutations-are-the-raw-materials-of-evolution-17395346

    So instead of quoting someone’s opinion on mutation, can you try to explain your own words why mutation does not constitute something that selection can work on? What is the issue you have with it?

    I will be happy to explain why I agree with the quote from Margulis and the questions that I have after reading your link.

    The link explains the sequence changes in Fig.1 as failures and errors. They are not failures and errors, they are part of the genome of viable fish. How do you know that the differences in the DNA of these fish are not responses to a new environment? That the error protection mechanism didn’t fail to correct them but let them through, as it were? There are many changes to the genome that are not accidental. How do you tell one from the other?

    Fig.1 shows us how one sample of DNA varies between five species of closely related fish. How do these changes relate to the relative phenotypes? It tells us that these samples are from intron 6 of the gene LDH-A but it doesn’t tell us how the differences affect the actual animals. There is more to the genome than just a simple string of letters.

    As

    …apart from meiosis, a single-nucleotide change in the protein-coding DNA of any cell could activate a cryptic splice sitelink, resulting in deletion of an entire section of a protein.
    Classically the geneticist would have asked first of all (and very narrowly) about the effects of our mutation either in altering a codonlink of a protein-coding genelink, or in modifying the activity of the gene’s associated transcription factorslink — proteins that bindlink to DNAlink and help to bring about gene expressionlink or repress it. Transcription factors were thought to “read” DNA as a straightforward linear codelink, bind to appropriately encoded sequenceslink, and more or less directly induce (or repress) the transcription of nearby geneslink.

    But now researchers cite a mind-numbing variety of methods by which plastic transcription factors interact with plastic stretches of DNA, producing endless nuances of expressionlink (Rohs et al. 2009). Many transcription factors can bind to thousands of different genes, but regularly do bind only to a few needful ones. They often find their relevant targets by entering into a sculptural embrace whereby they re-shape the local DNA and in turn are re-shaped by it and by many cooperating proteins in a performance of mutual gesture and response that defines the functional outcome. It is not so much a matter of code as of the compatibility of “athletically” interacting forms.

    None of this vast wealth of expressive potential looks very much like the kind of thing that might be specified by the approximately two “yes-or-no” bitslink of information supposedly contained in one letter of the DNA sequence — or by a thousand bits, for that matter. Despite the earlier views, write molecular biologists Barry Honig and Remo Rohs, “it soon became clear that there was . . . no simple code to be read”. Citing the “plasticity of the canonical double helixlink”, they go on to explain:

    Part of the problem is that DNA can undergo conformational changes that distort the classical double helix. The resulting variations in the way that DNA bases are presented to proteins can thus affect the recognition mechanism . . . Protein–DNA binding is still commonly thought of purely in terms of codeslink and sequence motifslink, rather than as the bindinglink of two large macromolecules that have complex shapes and considerable conformational flexibility. (Honig and Rohs 2011)
    In reality, everything is a matter of shape and transformation. This is equally true of that other premier “informational molecule”, RNAlink. A research team from the department of chemistry and biophysics at the University of Michigan write in Nature that “Changes to the conformation of coding and non-codinglink RNAs form the basis of elements of genetic regulation and provide an important source of complexity, which drives many of the fundamental processes of life”. The authors go on to write: “The conventional view that one sequence codes for one structure and one function is being replaced by a dynamic view of RNA”, whose repertoire of shifting conformational states can be employed by the cell as needed to produce “a broad range of functional outcomes” (Dethoff et al. 2012).

    A one-dimensional code has given way to the infinite expressive potentials of dynamic spatial form changing with time. The molecules of our cells dance their way through life rather than yielding to the militaristic rigidity of fixed codes.

    Fortuitous changes to the genome might allow a fish to better suit a changing environment, but it does not have the intricate forming abilities to get from a fish to an air-breathing mammal no matter how many intermediate steps you would like to posit. Evolution has a direction in the same way that an individual’s development from egg to adult has a direction.

  16. Robin,

    From your link:

    Natural selection in some ancestral snakes has favored enzymes with increasingly more aggressive properties, but the mutations themselves have been random, creating different venoms in different groups of snakes.

    I would like to ask how random mutations and natural selection achieve the feat of allowing snakes to have this capability in the first place?

    What was the sequence of events between producing the venom, producing glands capable of containing the venom, producing the form of teeth that are capable of delivering the venom into the prey, producing self-immunity to the venom? These are complex processes.

    And speaking of nasty substances. No one has responded to my earlier point of how the great orange tip butterfly, has a toxin in its wing tips that is identical to a toxin used by a predatory sea snail to kill prey.

    Anyone have any ideas?

  17. CharlieM: I would like to ask how random mutations and natural selection achieve the feat of allowing snakes to have this capability in the first place?

    “Beats me!”

  18. phoodoo: Funny Robin.

    Ok…

    In other words there is a scientific consensus, so if someone doesn’t follow the scientific consensus, they are not part of the consensus, thus we have a consensus because all those who follow the consensus, believe the consensus.

    Uh…whaaa?

    Good grief Phoodoo, this isn’t that hard…
    Science consists of peer review and other scientists looking at results and getting on-board with someone’s hypothesis. What…you think Einsteins Theory of Special Relativity was just working science the day he published it? C’mon!

    Brilliant stuff.

    Well strawmen are easy to mock. Try dealing with what scientific consensus actually is though.

    There’s a consensus that American’s love Donald trump.Just ask anyone who loves Donald Trump.

    Seriously Phoodoo…do you really not know what the word “consensus” actually means? Is that your problem here?

  19. John Harshman: I do not understand the questions.

    Well maybe my firts question was a bit silly because I do not understand how these things are observed and put into some sort of meaningful format. That is no doubt the case.

    Regarding my second question:
    How close do you think the models under discussion mirror real life?

    I’d just like to know how you think programs like AVIDA compare with the real life complexities and coordinated intricacies observed on this living planet. Does fiddling with a few digital codes have any proper relationship to the vast network of protein production, distribution and disassembly that goes on in living systems?

    I’d say it deals with abstractions which have very little to do with real life.

  20. CharlieM: How close do you think the models under discussion mirror real life?

    I didn’t know there were models under discussion. You would have to be more specific.

    I’d just like to know how you think programs like AVIDA compare with the real life complexities and coordinated intricacies observed on this living planet. Does fiddling with a few digital codes have any proper relationship to the vast network of protein production, distribution and disassembly that goes on in living systems?

    Ah, is that what you’re talking about? I know almost nothing about AVIDA, much less “programs like” it, whatever they may be. But yes, fiddling with a few digital codes can have something to do with living systems, even though it’s grossly simpler.

    I’d say it deals with abstractions which have very little to do with real life.

    Real life isn’t something you seem to know much about. Your notion that mutations are designed by some internal system of a cell, for example. You have no evidence of any such thing, and there is much evidence against it. Do you know what replica plating is? And if you want to know what affect differences in intron sequences have in fish species, I suggest that the answer in almost all cases is “none”. Junk is junk. You are fond of confident assertions, but you can never back up any of them.

  21. Robin,

    I understand if it gives you emotional comfort to believe there is a scientific consensus. Its ok.

  22. CharlieM:
    I would say her thoughts here are a preview of what is to come. Rather than being outdated they are ahead of their time and the revealed complexity of the living genome is confirming this.

    Ok. Except of course that newer research (like the research I linked to) shows actual mutation moving through populations. As shown, there’s no way to get new features without it.

    And I don’t see anyone in biology running with the idea that there’s no such thing as mutation.

    But do let me know when you find some evidence this “ahead of it’s time” perspective starts becoming popular.

    I will be happy to explain why I agree with the quote from Margulis and the questions that I have after reading your link.

    I’m all ears.

    The link explains the sequence changes in Fig.1 as failures and errors.

    Well no, not exactly. The author is quite specific that the changes are the results of mistakes and errors in the copying function. A rather important distinction. He is simply noting that genetic copying isn’t perfect. If you prefer a different term, have at it.

    They are not failures and errors, they are part of the genome of viable fish.

    Oookaaay…what’s this mean exactly?

    How do you know that the differences in the DNA of these fish are not responses to a new environment?

    I have no idea what this even means. How would the environment change the DNA?

    Certainly the environment plays a large role in changes moving through a population – that’s what natural selection is. But that does not appear to be what you are suggesting.

    So, what do you mean by “the differences in the DNA of these fish are not responses to a new environment”?

    Aside from my not being clear on what you actually mean, however, let’s say the differences ARE responses to a new environment (whatever that actually means.) How exactly would the changes themselves not still be considered mutations? What would you call those changes?

    That the error protection mechanism didn’t fail to correct them but let them through, as it were?

    Well aside from there being no evidence that DNA repair mechanisms have any ability to “let [anomalies?] through”, Sure…great. I’m game with this possibility. How is this not a mutation? What do you want to call that “let them through” phenomenon? It’s still a change to the sequence of the organism’s DNA, so I don’t see how it doesn’t still qualify as “mutation”.

    And I’ll just note, what you are describing has nothing to do with Margulis’ perspective, so I’m scratching my head here.

    There are many changes to the genome that are not accidental. How do you tell one from the other?

    How do you know there are changes to the genome that are not accidental?

    Fig.1 shows us how one sample of DNA varies between five species of closely related fish. How do these changes relate to the relative phenotypes? It tells us that these samples are from intron 6 of the gene LDH-A but it doesn’t tell us how the differences affect the actual animals. There is more to the genome than just a simple string of letters.

    I don’t see this as relevant to the point. The issue is the basis of change for selection to work on. This research demonstrates a basis of change for selection to work on. What difference does it make what the changes are and how they manifest?

    As

    Ah…Mr. Talbott. Not a fan myself, but thanks for the reference. I’ll stick with the results from actual researchers…

    Fortuitous changes to the genome might allow a fish to better suit a changing environment, but it does not have the intricate forming abilities to get from a fish to an air-breathing mammal no matter how many intermediate steps you would like to posit.

    And the barrier to such a evolutionary transition is…what?

    Evolution has a direction in the same way that an individual’s development from egg to adult has a direction.

    I’m not disputing this (nor is anyone else here that I can see). So what’s your point?

  23. phoodoo:
    Robin,

    I understand if it gives you emotional comfort to believe there is a scientific consensus.Its ok.

    I’m at a loss Phoodoo. I have no idea what your point is here. Of course scientific consensus gives me comfort; it indicates we are actually learning how things work.

  24. CharlieM: No one has responded to my earlier point of how the great orange tip butterfly, has a toxin in its wing tips that is identical to a toxin used by a predatory sea snail to kill prey.

    Anyone have any ideas?

    Well, I will note that the identity is not quite as significant as you seem to think…

  25. Robin: Charlie: Evolution has a direction in the same way that an individual’s development from egg to adult has a direction.

    I’m not disputing this (nor is anyone else here that I can see). So what’s your point?

    I dispute it, assuming I know what Charlie meant. He seems to be promoting orthogenesis.

  26. John Harshman: I dispute it, assuming I know what Charlie meant. He seems to be promoting orthogenesis.

    Ahh! My bad then. If that’s what you mean, Charlie, then yes I DO dispute that nonsense!

  27. From the OP:

    The premise of evolutionary informatics is that evolution requires information.

    Isn’t that the scientific consensus?

    Surely evolution does not proceed by LOSS of information. 😉

  29. Robin: So instead of quoting someone’s opinion on mutation, can you try to explain your own words why mutation does not constitute something that selection can work on? What is the issue you have with it?

    Selection is not a craftsman. Not even a blind one. It does not “work on” anything.

  30. Rumraket: Programmers can program computer programs with different attributes. Therefore… what?

    They could program computers by tossing a coin. After all, we’re talking simple bits and bytes here. But they don’t. Why not?

  31. Allan Miller: Not every time I don’t. Only when illustrating the baseline process.

    There’s a baseline evolutionary process? Have you published?

  32. Allan Miller: I really, really, don’t get why you think this clever. Evolution is not synonymous with selection /= selection never happens.

    Creative evolution requires a creative force. If the model you are proposing has as it’s creative force “it just happened, that’s all,” then I don’t understand the objections I’ve seen here at TSZ. Do you really not understand what the debate is about?

    Darwin came up with a designer substitute. Natural selection. By analogy with intelligent (artificial) selection. You toss out selection then you’ve got no designer substitute.

    May as well appeal to brownian motion to explain everything.

  33. dazz: And what does it mean to say that evolutionary algorithms support ID anyway? What was supposed to be designed? The whole process? The fitness landscape (the environment)? The mutations? And how does that undermine evolution? All one could get from that crap is that evolution works exactly as it’s supposed to but either some aspect of it, or all of it, was somehow “designed”

    What was supposed to be designed?
    The whole process? YES.
    The fitness landscape (the environment)? YES.
    The mutations? YES.
    And how does that undermine evolution? LOL.

  34. Rumraket: There isn’t any line (or collection of lines) of code in Avida that says that some particular trait that emerges from the mutational mechanism in the copying process, is an advantageous (aka high-fitness) trait.

    So? Do you even know what Avida is? Because It doesn’t sound like you do.

  35. Mung: So? Do you even know what Avida is? Because It doesn’t sound like you do.

    Yes I do. There is the option of rewarding certain functions, but that’s an option and the program can be run without it.

  36. Mung: Rumraket: Programmers can program computer programs with different attributes. Therefore… what?

    They could program computers by tossing a coin. After all, we’re talking simple bits and bytes here. But they don’t. Why not?

    Your question makes no sense in the context of the one I asked of you. If you want to discuss something, you’re going to have to try to make sense.

  37. Rumraket:

    If you want to discuss something, you’re going to have to try to make sense.

    That’s a lot to ask of Mung.

  38. Mung: Selection is not a craftsman. Not even a blind one. It does not “work on” anything.

    And here we have a religious person somehow being selectively obtuse to the concept of a metaphor. Remarkable.

  39. Mung: dazz: And what does it mean to say that evolutionary algorithms support ID anyway? What was supposed to be designed? The whole process? The fitness landscape (the environment)? The mutations? And how does that undermine evolution? All one could get from that crap is that evolution works exactly as it’s supposed to but either some aspect of it, or all of it, was somehow “designed”

    What was supposed to be designed?
    The whole process? YES.
    The fitness landscape (the environment)? YES.
    The mutations? YES.
    And how does that undermine evolution? LOL.

    This is idiotic. Computer programs made by programmers have to be programmed. Yes, that’s how it is with computer programs. But what matters is whether that computer program does, the simulation, is then a sufficiently good analogy to the real thing, not the fact that the computer program was programmed.

    Just because it is like that with computer programs (they’re programmed by programmers), doesn’t mean the real world they’re deliberately being programmed to simulate, is therefore also programmed. It isn’t even implied.

    Your whole idea here is based on a fallacy. It’s pure nonsense. If you disagree, stop making vague hints about it and do the actual argument in correct logical form. You will discover the connection you think you’re making isn’t actually there.

  40. Mung,

    And how does that undermine evolution? LOL.

    Said the evolution supporter.

  41. I googled “fart simulator” and found some interesting stuff. Therefore, the Designer stinks. That’s how IDC science works, right?

  42. dazz: That’s how IDC science works, right?

    Nah, you just need to find the threshold of the audience’s understanding then go slightly over it so that your claims seem to be supported by scientific sounding words.

  43. Rumraket: Mung: Selection is not a craftsman. Not even a blind one. It does not “work on” anything.

    And here we have a religious person somehow being selectively obtuse to the concept of a metaphor. Remarkable.

    Perhaps one day, instead of metaphors for what evolution does, but doesn’t actually do, someone can explain what evolution ACTUALLY does.

  44. If we’ve learned anything in the past 50 years about software development, we’ve learned that standardization brings freedom and reduces entropy.

    – Fowler, Susan J.. Production-Ready Microservices: Building Standardized Systems Across an Engineering Organization

    Heh. Reduced entropy. I’m all in favor of that. If it will help save the planet. But doesn’t reduced entropy lead to global warming?

  45. Mung: Heh. Reduced entropy. I’m all in favor of that. If it will help save the planet. But doesn’t reduced entropy lead to global warming?

    Can I suggest a title for the presentation?

    “Software Standardization, Global Warming and the Problem of Evil “

  46. phoodoo: Perhaps one day, instead of metaphors for what evolution does, but doesn’t actually do, someone can explain what evolution ACTUALLY does.

    Sure but I would have to agree that it would seem utopian to imagine that you’d ever understand it.

  47. phoodoo: Perhaps one day, instead of metaphors for what evolution does, but doesn’t actually do, someone can explain what evolution ACTUALLY does.

    It’s a naturally occurring feedback process which causes populations to move towards and/or track local reproductive fitness maxima in their environment as the environment changes over time.

  49. phoodoo:

    What would an unnaturally occurring process be?

    God says, “Let there be echolocating lizards,” and lo, instantly there are echolocating lizards.

  50. phoodoo: Perhaps one day, instead of metaphors for what evolution does, but doesn’t actually do, someone can explain what evolution ACTUALLY does.

    Something I’ve worked at in the past couple years is to speak of evolution as occurring rather than doing. It may sound silly, but the exercise has helped me discover and correct some of my conceptual errors.

Leave a Reply