RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolutionary Computation, Stuff that drives AEs nuts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 13
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 12 2009,11:18   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 12 2009,11:06)

I guess Sanford et al would argue that this problem isn't a big issue, since there's never a case in which there are loads (e.g. 90%) of beneficial mutations.

No, the problem is quantitative and not qualitative. If the program doesn't handle the 90% case correctly, it isn't handling the 0.001% case correctly, either. And we know that v1.2.1 did not handle it correctly. If you are going around claiming to have produced an "accurate" simulation, you are on the hook for that.

The 90% case just makes the error blatantly obvious.

Speaking of hypocrisy, how careful is Sanford in not making sweeping generalizations about biologists having gotten things wrong?

Ok, thanks Wesley.  I know nothing about programming, so a lot of what I have to say on realted subjects will be utter nonsense!.

I totally concur about Sanford's sweeping generalisations.  He claims that Mendel's Accountant has "falsified" Neo-Darwinian evolution:

When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.


As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt. In this light, if science is to actually be self-correcting, geneticists must “come clean” and acknowledge the historical error, and must now embrace honest genetic accounting procedures.

I have zero respect for anyone who provides such rhetoric, without actually submitting their claims to review by the scientific community.  The very people they are lambasting.  That is fundamentally dishonest.

Sam at TWeb has emailed Sanford to see if he will engage directly at that messageboard.  Could be interesting.

  419 replies since Mar. 17 2009,11:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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