Tom English: (If Mung does not know that authors at Evolution News and Views often disagree with one another, but never point out their disagreements, then I’ve given him way too much credit. For instance, Dembski told us that “evolutionary search” really does search for targets. But Meyer and Axe have both gone out of their ways to explain that “evolutionary search” actually does not search.)
Did Tom ever reveal his sources?
New article up at Evolution News and Views:
Douglas Axe on Evolution’s Search Problem
Are they flat out lying?
Imagine if Einstein did the same after proposing his novel theory of gravity: everybody asking him about his new theory and instead of explaining what it means, and how it helps explain the data he retorted and said “what’s with all your fixation with General Relativity? Geez!”
colewd,
What persuades you that all the differences between prokaryotes and eukaryotes arose in one generation?
No Joe, what I meant was, NAME ONE EVOLUTIONARY ALGORITHM THAT IS NOT A SEARCH!
Clear enough?
Let me help you:
An evolutionary algorithm does magnitudes less than simulate evolution.
Show your workings.
petrushka,
I will re read the book but this is from his website where he claims Darwin’s mechanism is inadequate. Early in the book he describes the sequence problem and the need for a new mechanism. I think he and James Shapiro are on the right track trying to solve a very tough problem.
It’s not clear what you’re referring to when you say, “You already said you don’t believe that.”
I didn’t realize I’d had anything to say about fitness landscapes.
I accept common descent. Is that what you mean?
Does common descent require a step-by-step gradual pathway in which every step is selected?
Perhaps evolution’s search problem is that there’s been nowhere near enough time for such a search. Unless it’s guided.
I forgot to mention that I lack belief in design or Designers. Next time I see a lump of clay I’ll be sure to comment on how it fails to support the hypothesis of a sculptor or Sculptor.
It’s in the bible, doofus. And if it isn’t it should be.
I would say yes (re: step-by-step gradual pathway), unless you’re willing to suggest that “dogs give birth to cats” if you know what I mean.
Perhaps there’s no “search problem”, let’s explore the implications of your assumptions Mung, considering that you accept common descent and therefore, according to you (and me) there’s clearly been enough time for it. What is that guidance you’re talking about and how does it help overcome the problems you’re talking about?
Hi Tom. Sure.
The term algorithm is used in computer science to describe a problem-solving method suitable for implementation as a computer program.
– Robert Sedgewick, Algorithms in C, p. 4.
The term algorithm is used in computer science to describe a problem-solving method suitable for implementation as a computer program.
– Robert Sedgewick, Algorithms in C++, p. 4.
The term algorithm is used in computer science to describe a problem-solving method suitable for implementation as a computer program.
– Robert Sedgewick, Algorithms in Java, p. 4.
Algorithms are well-defined procedures for solving problems.
– Kyle Loudon, Mastering Algorithms with C, p. 3.
“Computer” science isn’t the study of computers; it’s the study of computing, in other words, the study of processes for mechanically solving problems. … Roughly speaking, an algorithm is a process for solving a problem.
– Baldwin and Scragg, Algorithms and Data Structures: The Science of Computing, pp. 1, 4, 5.
While the notion of an algorithm can be defined precisely, for the time being we will settle for an intuitive definition: namely, a series of elementary computation steps which, if carried out, will produce the desired output.
– Moore & Mertens, The Nature of Computation, p. 17.
[Pictures of these books available on request, in case someone think I just went online to find these.]
Pretty sure though that I’ve pointed out before the nature of genetic algorithms as problem-solving algorithms only to be loudly booed by the peanut gallery here at TSZ.
Wikipedia:
You shouldn’t. But I am actually interested in carrying on discussions where I can learn something or have my beliefs questioned in a way that doesn’t insult my obvious stupidity. 🙂
When I was asked what I believe I tried to be open and honest. I’d love to see more discussion and less insult. Sometimes I try to take a step in that direction and at other times I wonder why I should bother.
I don’t have Dembski memorized. I’ll tell you what I did do. I read your entire paper as published in the Springer book I’ve quoted from, looking specifically for what you had to say about search.
Not sure what that’s worth, but at least I put in the effort.
Didn’t mean to make a big deal of it. It was just the timing of the article at ENV. If Axe and others at the DI disagree about evolutionary search I want to know about it. That’s all.
Mung loves putting people’s names in posts.
And the idea you’ve addressed is?
Patrick: Please address the ideas and not the person.
C’mon Richardthughes. Give Patrick a hand.
Jeeze, colewd, it was a rhetorical question.
Mung,
They idea is you love putting people’s names in posts, Mung. This is amenable to emperical investigation.
When I quote someone, like I am quoting you, I do try to include the name of the person I am quoting. I even try to make the hyperlink work, a fact which seems to be lost on our dear Patrick [did he ever admit his mistake?].
Do I love to do so? I await your empirical investigation of that, including how a claim that you love to make false claims about the existence of fitness functions can likewise be subjected to the same empirical investigation.
How many false claims must you make for it to be true that you love to make false claims?
Mung,
You’re not even a good word lawyer:
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/love
Wha *do* you bring to the party?
Yet I’ve no doubt you’ll be able to word-lawyer your way into explaining why you are not addressing the person.
Patrick: Please address the ideas and not the person.
Help Patrick out, please.
Chips, Beer, and a party atmosphere. Duh.
I agree. IMO unguided evolution would only be capable of producing a runaway, imbalanced, disorderly expansion of life similar to the way that cancer spreads throughout a body. Have a read of the following quote from NCBI entitled
“How cancer shapes evolution, and how evolution shapes cancer”
They are basically saying that animals evolved tumor suppressive mechanisms in order to achieve a target. Multi-cellular life being the target in question. Why did life feel “the need to limit cancer”? From an unguided evolutionary point of view cancer cells are very successful. Where did the forethought that cancer is detrimental in the long run come from?
Here is another piece I came across that purports to demonstrate the remarkable foresight of blind evolution.
According to this article blind evolutionary forces seem to be capable of understanding that in order to perpetuate life as a whole, certain individuals must be sacrificed. I’m beginning to think that blind evolution is in fact omnipotent and omniscient 🙂
Cancer is a group of diseases involving abnormal cell growth with the potential to invade or spread to other parts of the body.
How do we know that cancer is abnormal? Perhaps organisms “with cancer” produce more offspring than organisms “without cancer.”
Why hasn’t evolution found a way to eliminate cancer?
ETA: The obvious answer is that cancer is not deleterious.
Mung would like to point out that pointing out that when he addresses persons not ideas we are addressing persons not ideas. This is quite meta and will doubtless prove challenging for those who don’t understand evolution. Or shoelaces.
Meta discussions belong in moderation issues. Or didn’t you get the memo?
yeah, there’s that party atmosphere.
When the patient dies, that eliminates that cancer.
Cancers that kill the patient before the age of reproduction are much less common than cancers in old age.
Neil Rickert,
O’magain will tell you cancer is God’s fault-he wants a world where you can just sit in a chair all day long and have 24 hour bliss without moving. He is pissed that this was not God’s plan.
Of course, if he had 24 hours of bliss, he would still be pissed, because if the world only had bliss, you would never know, because what would you compare it to.
phoodoo,
Interesting. What was his plan with stillborn children, or those who died due to malnutrition shortly after birth?
Mung,
Drinking deep from the cup of Bad Analogy.
I feel a paper coming on. Have you been in touch with the Biologic people? I’m sure they would be interested in this. After all, you’ve shown that:
A) evolution cannot search and find in the time available
B) Guidance can solve this problem.
As you seem to know that this is in fact the case you will no doubt be able to explain your evidence for this. After all, you believe it because of evidence, right?
If you don’t have evidence for this claim, why are you making it?
If you do have evidence for this claim, present it or withdraw it. That is, after all, the honerable thing to do.
And you are an honorable Christian ain’t ya Mung?
Perhaps WJM will be along soon to help Mung out…
Mung,
But why should it? Why should evolution lead to perfection in all things, if true?
(eta – in elephants and naked mole rats, it appears to have done so. So now the question will be “why is there variation?”).
Deleteriousness is a continuum, not a uniform bin in the trichotomous subsets beneficial, neutral and deleterious.
Surely the more logical question is why did the designer design cancer in the first place?
OMagain,
The Fall. One bad apple and all that.
Exactly. Cancer cells grow in the same way as unguided evolution progresses. That is, without any regard for future consequences. But from the point of view of the whole system, if it is to survive into the future, any imbalance such as cancer must be overcome; it must be kept in check.
In order for early life to have any chance of continuation into the future the whole system has to be co-ordinated in space and in time. Unguided evolution, like cancer, lacks this overall control because it cannot look into the future. It will be killed off by its own waste products.
Could unguided evolution have produced life that has endured for so long as we see before us? I do not think so. What we see is death and destruction of the particulars but enduring balance of the whole.
OMagain,
You were hoping for a world where everyone is immortal right?
CharlieM,
Well, what they will tell you, if you want to swallow the whole lucky life springing up from the primordial soup after being struck by lightning story, is that yea, maybe it only happened once here on our planets, but on other planets, and in other universes (you know there are an infinite number you see-nevermind the whole evidence problem for that one, that only counts against Gods) it happens all the time, then evolution begins, but most of the time life is just like cancer, it spreads so fast that it kills everything, then you are back to zero. BUT, we just so happen to be on the one lucky one where it worked!
Now that seems very very unlikely obviously we know, but, but if you have infinite universes! Then of course it will happen!
Please demonstrate that there is a challenge in that challenge. And by that I don’t mean you quote some sort of number and wave your arms.
First, use the correct number (not Axe’s). Or at least a plausible estimate of it.
Then show with a calculation that that number is actually a problem.
Still waiting.
Apparently whenever the thin veneer is slightly scratched in a courtroom.
How many dembskis is that?
Don’t be too sure he isn’t one of them. (But please don’t try to out him.)
When you exponentiate its “information” measures.
Polyworld, discussed in a recent thread here and Tierra, for two.
It seems to be encouraged at UD. Distasteful and low class, but allowed by the rules here.
Rumraket,
You dismiss Axe’s number. Can you back up that claim?
Patrick,
Right, Polyworld isn’t a search. Ok Patrick. I didn’t mean to wake you.
Joe, you want to give it a try?
phoodoo,
What is it searching for, Phoodoo. And where is that explicit in the code?
https://github.com/polyworld/polyworld
PORSU.
If it was correct, I know of at least twelve different laboratory experiments who’s results would be impossible.