Joined: Dec. 2007
|Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 13 2009,14:08)|
|I can't evaluate the math, but I think people are being led down a garden bath with the concept of search. |
I don't see any evidence that biology is modeled by a search algorithm. In biology a change might affect fitness for unknown reasons, and a subsequent change to the same position might further affect fitness. There is no single correct value for any given position in the string.
Behe and Dembski want you to believe that evolution must progress toward goals (consider Behe's obsession with the flagellum), but biology merely chugs along with whatever is adequate.
I agree entirely. I raised the issue of whether optimization was a good model of biological evolution in my first NFL paper, back in 1996. Now I am completely convinced that it is not. As Allen MacNeill rightly emphasizes, the consequence of variety, heredity, and fecundity is demography. A novel biological type can survive by virtue of its difference from the type that gave rise to it. There is not necessarily any basis for saying that the difference makes it better or worse.
Dembski and Marks have indicated that there are "implicit targets" for biological search. It's hilarious that they smuggle in teleology while accusing others of smuggling information into computational models of biological evolution. Creationists have long mistaken what did happen for what had to happen.
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman