RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   
  Topic: Unacknowledged Errors in Marks and Dembski essay, Critique of "ev" backfires< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4936
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2007,14:26   

Here's the sort of thing one can find out with just a little bit of fact-checking:

Remember how Dembski and Marks claimed that the only reason Dawkins's "weasel" worked better than blind search was because it used "partitioned search"? Remember how I pointed out that Dawkins never said anything that could even be construed as "partitioned search"? Well, the chart above shows that the other part of the assertion from Dembski and Marks is bogus, too. Plain old evolutionary computation without help from "partitioned search" comes within an order of magnitude of the efficiency of "partitioned search". The difference between the two is about 3.4x, or about 8.2 milli-dembskis of error.

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

  86 replies since Sep. 30 2007,22:57 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (3) < [1] 2 3 >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]