RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (12) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 >   
  Topic: Evolutionary Computation, Stuff that drives AEs nuts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2009,07:45   

Heck, in the preview, all the nice Omegas, phis, etc. appeared! So, please, insert 16 X Omega, 7 X phi, 2 X Theta and 4 X Phi...

   
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2009,07:46   

..or look here.

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2009,10:45   

Thnaks for your effort and work.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2009,11:23   

I hope I can get some people interested in this paper of W. Dembski and R. Marks - before it is published and has this majesty of peer review attached to it (William Dembsky in an interview with Casey Luskin)

BTW: As a follow-up to their previous paper, the sensible thing would be to get it published in the same journal. But, seemingly, there have been problems...

   
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,04:37   

It took a while, but now I think my trashing of W. Dembski's and R. Marks's new article "The Search for a Search" (currently - and I suppose indefinitely -  held in peer-review) is fairly complete. See for yourself. Any idea of an improvement is welcome!

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,05:12   

http://marksmannet.com/RobertMarks/REPRINTS/short/S4S.pdf is now a dead link. Surprise, wot?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,05:44   

Wow, it disappeared from their list of publications at the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, too...

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,05:50   

Yep, I noticed that. Marky-Mark's been watching.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,07:25   

This seems to be quite typical: They still have the announcement for the article "A Search for a Search" on the Evolutionary Informatics Lab site, but they don't link to the actual article as they did earlier. Instead, they link to the article "Conservation of Information in Search" - wherein one cannot find the announced results, i.e., the vertical and the horizontal no free lunch theorems...

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:19   

Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 09 2009,02:37)
It took a while, but now I think my trashing of W. Dembski's and R. Marks's new article "The Search for a Search" (currently - and I suppose indefinitely -  held in peer-review) is fairly complete. See for yourself. Any idea of an improvement is welcome!

The problem with making your work public is that Dembski and Marks will basically steal your work. Dembski had bragged that he posts his papers to take advantage of his critics.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2009,14:28   

yeah like the pivot man takes advantage of the glomming hordes

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2009,16:35   

Dembski seems to be studiously ignoring your comments and questions at UD, DiEb -- at least publically.

Behind-the-scenes seems another matter. I expect he and Marks are brainstorming about how or if they can salvage what's left.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,00:51   

I tried it again, on the thread ID and Science Education:

Quote


2
DiEb
11/11/2009
1:45 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Articles like W. Dembski's and R. Marks's "The Search for a Search" will  shape the view of Intelligent Design in general and help us to judge whether it is a scientific theory. So, when will it be published? Any problems?

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10080
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,01:07   

Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 11 2009,00:51)
I tried it again, on the thread ID and Science Education:

 
Quote


2
DiEb
11/11/2009
1:45 am
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Articles like W. Dembski's and R. Marks's "The Search for a Search" will  shape the view of Intelligent Design in general and help us to judge whether it is a scientific theory. So, when will it be published? Any problems?

It's been deleted.

ETA - or probably not approved yet.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,02:45   

I'm used to extensive periods of moderation at Uncommon Descent, but only one of my comments over the last weeks didn't appear at last.

Granted, some delays were so long that a discussion was made rather impossible...

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3551
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,06:18   

Quote
Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success.


From Dembski's abstract.


I keep wondering how this line of argument is relevant to evolution. There are some rare instances in which populations "need" to find solutions to changing conditions. The record of extinction suggests this "search" is not generally successful.

Behe and Dembski suggest that structures such as flagella are the end result of a search, but I am no aware of any biologist who thinks flagella ever constituted a goal. As with many other biological structures, they happened.

But it is a monumental intellectual fraud to suggest that specific structures are sought after by biological evolution.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 11 2009,07:26   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 11 2009,06:18)
 
Quote
Many searches are needle-in-the-haystack problems, looking for small targets in large spaces. In such cases, blind search can stand no hope of success.


From Dembski's abstract.


I keep wondering how this line of argument is relevant to evolution. There are some rare instances in which populations "need" to find solutions to changing conditions. The record of extinction suggests this "search" is not generally successful.

Behe and Dembski suggest that structures such as flagella are the end result of a search, but I am no aware of any biologist who thinks flagella ever constituted a goal. As with many other biological structures, they happened.

But it is a monumental intellectual fraud to suggest that specific structures are sought after by biological evolution.

I'm only a mathematician, so I just wanted to show that Marks and Dembski are wrong according to the rules of their own world, not that their world is just a la-la-fantasy-land...

But a thought: I get the impression that (intelligent design) creationists believe in the power of the word, all words, literally. So, if someone calls some algorithm a evolutionary strategy, it has to be linked with the Theory of Evolution in general, and burning the effigy means destroying the real thing.

Or look at the information shell game: all different kinds (Shannon, Fisher,...) may be used as aspects of the real information, like the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are aspects of the real god. Of course, an unbeliever will get that always wrong...

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2009,10:51   

This is based on a modification of Gregor's Bookkeeper.

An original isogenic population with a fitness of one. Mutation is considered damage to an allele. If both alleles are damaged, then the fitness for the entire organism is zero. Otherwise, we can adjust the effect. With a slight deleterious effect of 0.1 per gene, the population is more stable than if the damage is completely hidden.

Here is a typical scenario, each with a stable population after a hundred generations.

Population = 100
Offspring per individual = 2
Recessive = -0.1
Average Fitness = 0.62

Population = 100
Offspring per individual = 1.5
Recessive = -0.1
Average Fitness = 0.41

Population = 200
Offspring per individual = 1.5
Recessive = -0.1
Average Fitness = 0.53


No beneficial mutations, no variance, no phylogenetic noise. Doesn't change the overall result anyway.

Population = 100
Offspring per individual = 2
Recessive = -0.0
Average Fitness = 0.58


With silent recessives (i.e. Recessive = -0.0), the Offsprings have to be at least ~1.9 per individual for a stable population.

-
Xposted to Telic Thoughts.
Xposted to Uncommon Descent. Hey! It showed up!!!!


--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2009,14:22   

Interesting comparison, after 1000 generations. (The previous examples used 20 genes. This is with 100 genes.)

Population = 100
Offspring per individual = 2.5
Recessive = 0
Average Fitness = 0.58


Average Fitness refers to average fitness of the children, so of 250 children, 58% have a fitness of one, more than enough to replenish the population of 100. The remaining 42% have a fitness of zero.

Population = 100
Offspring per individual = 2.5
Recessive = -0.001
Average Fitness = 0.98


The majority of children have a fitness between 0.993 and 0.999. Only a handful were stillborn.

Notice the large difference in average fitness due to the very slight effect of the recessive allele.

-
"Ah, I don't have to outrun the bear, dear Albert," said Niels. "I only have to outrun you."

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2009,17:28   

Dembski didn't like it when I discussed Section I - III of his article The Search for a Search at RationalWiki. So, I just added a short paragraph on Section IV: IMO, Dembski's and Marks's formulation of the integral they use in their Theorem IV: Conservation of Uniformity doesn't make sense...

   
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 17 2009,20:53   

Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 17 2009,17:28)
Dembski didn't like it when I discussed Section I - III of his article The Search for a Search at RationalWiki. So, I just added a short paragraph on Section IV: IMO, Dembski's and Marks's formulation of the integral they use in their Theorem IV: Conservation of Uniformity doesn't make sense...

Out of curiousity, has any response to their IEEE article "Conservation of Information in Search" been submitted.  I thought you were working with Tom English on one.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
DiEb



Posts: 228
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2009,14:13   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Nov. 17 2009,20:53)
 
Quote (DiEb @ Nov. 17 2009,17:28)
Dembski didn't like it when I discussed Section I - III of his article The Search for a Search at RationalWiki. So, I just added a short paragraph on Section IV: IMO, Dembski's and Marks's formulation of the integral they use in their Theorem IV: Conservation of Uniformity doesn't make sense...

Out of curiousity, has any response to their IEEE article "Conservation of Information in Search" been submitted.  I thought you were working with Tom English on one.

I was a little bit preoccupied with the whole "The Search for a Search", but, thankfully, Tom English is doing all the heavy lifting ;-)

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3551
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 21 2009,19:23   

Possibly off topic, but maybe not...

http://pi.nersc.gov/

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,03:39   

From the Ewert, Dembski, and Marks paper on Avida:

 
Quote

If the fitness of the organism
does not decrease, we keep the mutation and repeat the
iteration. If the fitness does increase, the mutation is
discarded and the process repeated.


What is this, the almost completely neutral evolution strategy?

It's the middle of the night, and maybe my eyes just are too glazed over, but can anybody else see why all the R strategy values for successes in Table III are the same, 353?

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

    
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,04:13   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 12 2009,03:39)
From the Ewert, Dembski, and Marks paper on Avida:

       
Quote

If the fitness of the organism
does not decrease, we keep the mutation and repeat the
iteration. If the fitness does increase, the mutation is
discarded and the process repeated.


What is this, the almost completely neutral evolution strategy?

It's the middle of the night, and maybe my eyes just are too glazed over, but can anybody else see why all the R strategy values for successes in Table III are the same, 353?

I don't know, but I did notice that under Table III
   
Quote
ALL SIMULATIONS, EXCEPT Q, HAVE 353 RUNS

with the same values for the random strategies - but this does not match Marks' comparable slide


Which now gives avida strategy values in place of the random strategy values cited in the paper. Huh? What is going on?

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Quack



Posts: 1749
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,06:02   

Quote
But a thought: I get the impression that (intelligent design) creationists believe in the power of the word, all words, literally. So, if someone calls some algorithm a evolutionary strategy, it has to be linked with the Theory of Evolution in general, and burning the effigy means destroying the real thing.

At the other end of the spectrum we have a nincompoop like Ray Martinez employing a similar method. It is all about words, and using his own definitions of words and terms to create a fantasy world of evidence why evolution is false.

Ignorance and denial of reality is a prerequisite for all flavors of creationism.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Turncoat



Posts: 123
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,17:34   

I'm sorry, folks, but I have trouble attending to the minutiae when ED&M are fundamentally wrong in their orientation. From Wikipedia: "Avida is an artificial life software platform to study the evolutionary biology of self-replicating and evolving computer programs (digital organisms)." As I recall, the ability of a virtual organism to reproduce itself depends on how much work it can do, which is determined by its fitness. Different organisms must do different amounts of work to reproduce. Right?

Avida, with the fitness function addressed by ED&M, does not engage in optimization, let alone search. The virtual organisms are operating in a virtual environment offering different payoffs for different behaviors. The  population of virtual critters in fact changes to obtain greater payoffs, but this does not mean that the purpose of Avida is optimization. An outcome is not a purpose. More importantly, when a run of Avida does not yield a critter of maximum fitness, the run has not failed. There are still a bunch of "living" virtual organisms, and they always exhibit greater complexity than did the organisms in the initial population.

The objective of the Avida research under consideration was to address emergence of complex features in artificial life. ED&M analyze runs of Avida as though they were runs of an optimizer, and then argue that the ALife simulator is not a good optimizer. This is the kind of abysmal stupidity you get from pretend-scholars who are on a "mission from God" to deliver payback.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
Turncoat



Posts: 123
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 12 2009,17:54   

Oops. Avida is an ALife program, not simulator.

--------------
I never give them hell. I just tell the truth about them, and they think it's hell. — Harry S Truman

  
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 13 2009,16:36   

Quote (Turncoat @ Dec. 12 2009,17:34)
I'm sorry, folks, but I have trouble attending to the minutiae when ED&M are fundamentally wrong in their orientation. From Wikipedia: "Avida is an artificial life software platform to study the evolutionary biology of self-replicating and evolving computer programs (digital organisms)." As I recall, the ability of a virtual organism to reproduce itself depends on how much work it can do, which is determined by its fitness. Different organisms must do different amounts of work to reproduce. Right?

Avida, with the fitness function addressed by ED&M, does not engage in optimization, let alone search. The virtual organisms are operating in a virtual environment offering different payoffs for different behaviors. The  population of virtual critters in fact changes to obtain greater payoffs, but this does not mean that the purpose of Avida is optimization. An outcome is not a purpose. More importantly, when a run of Avida does not yield a critter of maximum fitness, the run has not failed. There are still a bunch of "living" virtual organisms, and they always exhibit greater complexity than did the organisms in the initial population.

The objective of the Avida research under consideration was to address emergence of complex features in artificial life. ED&M analyze runs of Avida as though they were runs of an optimizer, and then argue that the ALife simulator is not a good optimizer. This is the kind of abysmal stupidity you get from pretend-scholars who are on a "mission from God" to deliver payback.

IMHO, this is all about the fact that Richard Dawkins talks about "optimals" (clutch size at the group or individual level, sex ratios, etc.) in The Selfish Gene. Naturally they muck up with words, exploiting the public's possible confusion about theory, optimum, etc., in various contexts, in their arrogance in believing that if they can come up with the right phrase, they'll turn the prince Dawkins into a toad in the eyes of the public, and assume their rightful place as guardians of the world's science, and thus of morals (particularly those of women). They have a bee in their bonnets about Dawkins, who used "optimal" in his book (but they don't mention his discussing Wynne-Edwards's and Fisher's use of the word, what it means in terms of different environments or strategies, etc.). This was another "gotcha" aimed specifically at Dawkins IMO which fell short again.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2009,06:59   

Before any Turncoats turn up to show this off...

Hahhahahaaa!

Nice one.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

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

Pages: (12) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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