A curious couple of days for me at Uncommon Descent!
I’ve always wondered why people who are skeptical about Darwinian evolution aren’t persuaded by the power of evolutionary algorithms to find creative solutions.
There seems to me to be a deep misunderstanding of a) the nature of search space (and its structure) and b) the role a Designer plays in a GA.
The oddest objection I find is the objection that the Designer designs the fitness function. If the ID of ID is the fitness function, then ID is the environment! Because that’s the analog surely.
Which is nicely Earth Motherish, I guess.
But almost equally odd is the apparent objection that because the Darwinian algorithm is programmed into the computer, that makes it designed.
A bit bemused.
But this notion of the structure of the search space seems to me to be important. I’m trying to think of a search space that wouldn’t be easily traversed by a Darwinian algorithm. I guess one that consisted entirely of irreducibly complex features, where nothing worked at all unless it was complete.
OK, that helps. But in that case the whole needle-in-a-haystack argument depends on most things being IC. Or at least crucial things being IC. Including, of course, self-replication itself. Or at least Darwinian-capable self-replication.
Suggestion for you, Cheeseman: Look over Febble’s interactions with ID-pushers on UD, and count the number of times she’s been accused of being dishonest. Then see if you think “at UD, the evilutionists get banned or called liars” is so overwrought/implausible an assertion as to merit a response of “you really need to chill”.
I’d like to know what “the bounds of probability ID proposes” are.
After you’re rested, of course.
Near as I can tell, that’s somewhere between UPB (10^-120) and “tornado in a junkyard”.
Zachriel: Of course I’m not sure. Only the arrogant are convinced of their positions. I just think it is highly unlikely. When evolutionary biologists start publishing gealogical trees showing the origins of modern proteins, by whatever pathway, I would hope I would come around to your point of view. I’ve changed my mind about other issues before. Yes, that evidence may be a long way off, and I might die in my “ignorance”, but then again, are you more “sure” that the biological “Phrase space” is connected?
I invite Elizabeth to start another thread, perhaps more specifically tailored to the nature of the “search space” for protein mutations. I’ve got a lot of other ideas, hunches etc. that it would be interesting to bounce off the bunch of you, most of which are not particularly “ID” in nature. I’ve too much else to do over the next few weeks to try to answer objections from the 3-4 of you at the same time here anymore. Silence in this case doesn’t mean I have no more responses (though you are free to infer whatever you please).
Have a good weekend.
Zachriel: According to your previous comments, there are no connections within phrasespace—whether through random or intelligent mutation and recombination—from short words and phrases to more complex structures, such pathways don’t exist. Are you sure?
SCheesman: I just think it is highly unlikely.
It’s easy enough to test.
a, as, an, can, and, ass, pass, piss, kiss
o, of, or, ore, one, wore, word, world, words, wordy, ward, war, tar, wars, ware
war, wan, man, may, mean, many, bean, bear, beer, bee
be
be-ware.
——-
beware
wordy ward, a wordy ward, word wars
a war, a kiss, world, world war
of words, a war of words
beware a war of words
——-
Now that you see the connections through phrasespace, do you think we can go farther?
http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/Beware.asp
SCheesman: Yes, that evidence may be a long way off, and I might die in my “ignorance”, but then again, are you more “sure” that the biological “Phrase space” is connected?
Yes, but we were interested in dealing first with your particular intuitions about phrasespace.
As for proteins, we have strong evidence that proteins form families and superfamilies (nested hierarchies), implying common descent. Not all protein families are properly rooted, but that is somewhat expected considering the vast times since their divergence, their particulate nature, and the degree of recombination suspected in their early evolution.
SCheesman: I’ve too much else to do over the next few weeks to try to answer objections from the 3-4 of you at the same time here anymore.
That’s understandable. We will be patient.
Perhaps. Unless you view the rest of life as the body that keeps the brain, that is collectively us, alive.
I think the current top thread at UD is relevant here.
The main point of the criticism of Dembski revolves around two points:
1. Evolution isn’t a search. It isn’t looking for the winning lottery ticket. It’s much more like trying various routes to a destination and remembering the faster or shorter ones. Routes that are slower are still routes. I don’t think Dembski or anyone in the ID movement considers this.
2. It isn’t one-dimensional. There are tens of thousands of DNA words, both coding an regulatory, any several of which can be alleles, and any of which can be identical, neutral, favorable, unfavorable, or lethal.
SCheesman,
It’s been a while, but I thought the above egregious enough a misrepresentation to be worth calling out.
Let’s look at the abstract of the paper in question:
Notice that what the abstract says about four proteins is *not* that only four were found that would bind to ATP, but that they found four *new* to science proteins in their sample that would do such binding. I would think that one would have to be a highly motivated reader to miscomprehend that so thoroughly.
PDF of the Keefe and Szostak paper that Dr Elsberry refers to.
@ Wesley
Looking at Google Trends for “intelligent design” seems to indicate a terminal decline in interest in the subject. I haven’t seen SCheesman posting comments here or on UD lately.