METHINKS IT IS A WEASEL

[Lord Vader]

What's a whetstone?

Eh, well, it's a fine grain stone for honing tools... but it sometimes gets used to refer to a person who allows us to sharpen ourselves; as of someone you debate.

 

[bob b]

For any who are listening, I will explain what is going on here in the "discussion" between harvey and myself.

In a courtroom each lawyer is trying to "win over" the jury to his/her side by any means possible.

One way to do this is to convince the jury that the opposing lawyer does not know "beans" about anything and hence any argument advanced should be viewed with suspicion.

This is sometimes referred to as the "shoot the messenger" tactic.

In the above argument Harvey wants to focus on the definition of terms. Thus he calls me stupid.

Other times he attacks my credibility and reinforces his own, i.e. the "professor" lectures the student on some point having little to do with the main issue..

Watch for these kinds of arguments in creation/evolution debates, because evolutionists do not want the discussion to focus on the weaknesses of their theory: things like the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

Forewarned is forearmed.

 

[Johnny]

In the above argument Harvey wants to focus on the definition of terms. Thus he calls me stupid.

Unless I missed something, he specifically called your post stupid, and by extension your argument. I don't recall any "Bob is dumb, ignore his argument" going on. Perhaps you could direct my attention to the post.

Other times he attacks my credibility and reinforces his own, i.e. the "professor" lectures the student on some point having little to do with the main issue..

I think your blatant misrepresentation of Dawkins and your complete disregard for any shread of intellectual honesty is a huge point. When you've built your point around this it becomes a main issue.

 

[Lord Vader]

the weaknesses of their theory: things like the "random mutations plus natural selection" mechanism.

Forewarned is forearmed.

Why is that a weakness? Thanks for the word "stochastic". I collect words. I intuit on a verbal level, so I'm slow with the math.

 

[bob b]

Unless I missed something, he specifically called your post stupid, and by extension your argument. I don't recall any "Bob is dumb, ignore his argument" going on. Perhaps you could direct my attention to the post.

Johnny thinks you should note the distinction between calling a post stupid and calling the person stupid. Thus, since I have made a stupid blunder in not properly defining the situation, the point which was being discussed must be invalid and should be ignored.
That's a pretty good illustration of the point I was making. Thanks, Johnny.

I think your blatant misrepresentation of Dawkins and your complete disregard for any shread of intellectual honesty is a huge point.

And that makes the point which I was making invalid too. Right?

When you've built your point around this it becomes a main issue.

What issue is that Johnny? That I am intellectually dishonest and hence any point which I make is automatically "out of court"?

Another excellent example of the point I was making. Thanks again Johnny.

You're learning the legal trade pretty well Johnny. Might come in handy someday when the Neo-Darwinism paradigm collapses.

 

[Johnny]

Johnny thinks you should note the distinction between calling a post stupid and calling the person stupid.

Yes, I do. Distinctions between what happened and what didn't happen are important.

Thus, since I have made a stupid blunder in not properly defining the situation, the point which was being discussed must be invalid and should be ignored.

Your point was that he called you stupid and thus shot the messenger. But your point was wrong. He called your post stupid. So yes, the point you were making was invalid and should be ignored. But not because of the messenger who said it, but because of the message itself was wrong. Again, an important distinction.

And that makes the point which I was making invalid too. Right?

Yes. If you misrepresent someone elses viewpoint to insist that their view is wrong, then your point is invalid. Again, this is not the messenger syndrome you so desire to be a victim of. It's your message that is wrong. An important distinction.

What issue is that Johnny? That I am intellectually dishonest and hence any point which I make is automatically "out of court"?

No. Your points throw themselves "out of court". Messenger identity is not required.

Bob, you'll notice that no one has dismissed any of your arguments because you said it. They are being dismissed because of what was said. An important distinction.

I hope you are clear on this now.

 

[Lord Vader]

Yes, I do. Distinctions between what happened and what didn't happen are important.

Your point was that he called you stupid and thus shot the messenger. But your point was wrong. He called your post stupid. So yes, the point you were making was invalid and should be ignored. But not because of the messenger who said it, but because of the message itself was wrong. Again, an important distinction.

Yes. If you misrepresent someone elses viewpoint to insist that their view is wrong, then your point is invalid. Again, this is not the messenger syndrome you so desire to be a victim of. It's your message that is wrong. An important distinction.

No. Your points throw themselves "out of court". Messenger identity is not required.

Bob, you'll notice that no one has dismissed any of your arguments because you said it. They are being dismissed because of what was said. An important distinction.

I hope you are clear on this now.

I think he's arguing that it was a misrepresentation, but that he was making some other point... I could be wrong; I don't quite follow what is going on.

 

[Johnny]

I think he's arguing that it was a misrepresentation, but that he was making some other point... I could be wrong; I don't quite follow what is going on.

It seems he's quite willing to make that sacrifice if it will allow him to become the victim of messenger shooting. But he misrepresents Dawkins and then said Dawkins is wrong because..

Richard Dawkins claims that the process of evolution can be demonstrated by comparing it to its ability to generate an English sentence, namely, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

Great idea but flawed in its execution.

 

[Lord Vader]

It seems he's quite willing to make that sacrifice if it will allow him to become the victim of messenger shooting. But he misrepresents Dawkins and then said Dawkins is wrong because..

I guess I'll have some idea with the reply to my question, "why is it a weakness?"

 

[bob b]

I think he's arguing that it was a misrepresentation, but that he was making some other point... I could be wrong; I don't quite follow what is going on.

You are correct in thinking that I am saying that Dawkins was engaging in misrepresentation.

Basically he is trying to "sell" the idea that "cumulative selection" is similar to random mutations plus natural selection.

First he sets up the WEASEL example and uses it to describe how it rapidly converges on a "target" phrase. Later he admits that the target phrase selection is not a realistic equivalent to natural selection but dismisses this as unimportant because natural selection "has no goal" and hence the target phrase portion of the example can be dispensed with.

Although the monkey/Shakespeare model is useful for explaining
the distinction between single-step selection and cumulative
selection, it is misleading in important ways. One of these is that, in
each generation of selective 'breeding'the mutant 'progeny' phrases
were judged according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal
target, the phrase METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL. Life isn't like
that. Evolution has no long term goal. There is no long-distance target,
no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selection, although human
vanity cherishes the absurd notion that our species is the final goal of
evolution. In real life, the criterion for selection is always short-term,
either simple survival or, more generally, reproductive success. If, after
the aeons, what looks like progress toward some distant goal seems,
with hindsight, to have been achieved, this is always an incidental
consequence of many generations of short-term selection. The
'watchmaker' that is cumulative natural selection is blind to the
future and has no long term goal.
We can change our computer model to take account of this point.

But instead of explaining how, he abruptly drops further discussion of WEASEL and switches to a different computer model, the famous "biomorphs".

In addition, Dawkins states:

There is a big difference, then, between cumulative selection (in
which each improvement, however slight, is used as a basis for future
building), and single-step selection (in which each new 'try' is a fresh
one). If evolutionary progress had had to rely on single-step selection, it
would never have got anywhere. If, however, there was any way in
which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have
been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might
have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what
happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent,
if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences.

Emphasis added. The IF is the hooker. Not only that but the "cumulative selection" Dawkins talks about is really "random tries followed by selection". He has set up the "straw man" of random selection and knocked it down with his fictional "cumulative selection" which is really nothing more than a "stalking horse" for the evolutionary fairytale that random mutations plus natural selection can transform a hypothetical primitive protocell into all the life which has ever existed on this globe.

No mention of the fact that according to the evolutionary paradigm each "success" to be a real success must result in not only a creature that "works", but one that works better than the one to be replaced. This is why I stated that WEASEL was flawed, and proposed an addition to it which includes "the "word must work(exist)" and later "the altered sentence must fit the context of the paragraph". (I also eliminated the "target phrase" as Dawkins indicated needed to be done).

Microevolution: maybe. Macroevolution: no way.

 

[No Worries]

One of the sillier opening posts.

Bob, going back to the opening post, it shows that if you have 6 letters then the chances of having a good six letter word is much less than if you have only 2 letters and the chances of having a good 2 letter word. But if you have 6 letters then the chances of you having a good 2 letter word is much, much higher than if you only had 2 letters. The more letters you have the greater the probability of having a good lower number word.

And how many chances do you get? If you don't get a good set of letters the first time can you go back a step and try again, and again, and again ad infinitum. Because thats exactly what happens in the real world. In fact start looking at it from that perspective your post is actully an argument for macro evolution.

I think you knew that you were not providing all the evidence and being open with the argument you set. That doesn't make you dishonest, it does mean that you are unscientific in your thought process.


What model of plane do you help make again?

 

[bob b]

One of the sillier opening posts.

Bob, going back to the opening post, it shows that if you have 6 letters then the chances of having a good six letter word is much less than if you have only 2 letters and the chances of having a good 2 letter word. But if you have 6 letters then the chances of you having a good 2 letter word is much, much higher than if you only had 2 letters. The more letters you have the greater the probability of having a good lower number word.

And how many chances do you get? If you don't get a good set of letters the first time can you go back a step and try again, and again, and again ad infinitum. Because thats exactly what happens in the real world. In fact start looking at it from that perspective your post is actully an argument for macro evolution.

I think you knew that you were not providing all the evidence and being open with the argument you set. That doesn't make you dishonest, it does mean that you are unscientific in your thought process.

Your "probability" argument is flawed.

Your statement: "The more letters you have the greater the probability of having a good lower number word" is misleading on the face of it because a lower number word embedded in a higher number word is beside the point. Remember, the original higher number word had spaces separating it from the other words and the modified sentence has to make sense to be preserved by the "editor" (natural selection). Try an example and it will become clear.

But that is beside the point. I was explaining to Lord Vader (and others) why Dawkins was playing a shell game with his readers (and perhaps himself), and I took a great deal of time preparing a long posting only to have someone interrupt with a nonresponsive posting.

What model of plane do you help make again?

I was originally a member of the Systems Analysis group for the TALOS ship-to-air long range supersonic ramjet-powered guided missile where we treated as "black boxes" the various subsystems comprising the missile electronics, pneumatics and hydraulics systems as a closed loop control system. Later I was asked to join a newly formed Operations Research group where we analyzed the entire Fleet Air Defence system in much the same way, i.e. missiles and ships were mere components or smaller subsystems of a much larger overall system, the entire fleet and its various defence systems. I also spent some time in this period analyzing and computer modeling various ICBM overall systems in support of our Advanced Weapon System group, for in this era I was simultaneously in charge of both the Scientific Computer Group and the Operations Research Group.

 

[No Worries]

Your "probability" argument is flawed.

Your statement: "The more letters you have the greater the probability of having a good lower number word" is misleading on the face of it because a lower number word embedded in a higher number word is beside the point. Remember, the original higher number word had spaces separating it from the other words and the modified sentence has to make sense to be preserved by the "editor" (natural selection). Try an example and it will become clear.

But now you are saying that the letters must be in a certain order too. Still given time and retrials it is a given that a word will be spent and who is to say that the letters must form a permutation not a combination.

Does junk DNA exist?

 

[bob b]

But now you are saying that the letters must be in a certain order too. Still given time and retrials it is a given that a word will be spent and who is to say that the letters must form a permutation not a combination.

Does junk DNA exist?

If you wish to change the subject from the very important subject of Dawkins WEASEL and why it is flawed, please start a new thread. Thanks.

 

[dataanapar]

If you wish to change the subject from the very important subject of Dawkins WEASEL and why it is flawed, please start a new thread. Thanks.

Amen to that.

 

[No Worries]

If you wish to change the subject from the very important subject of Dawkins WEASEL and why it is flawed, please start a new thread. Thanks.

I believe I was addressing the initial post. If you do not wish to respond then I shall respect that.

(you don't work on planes then....I can fly again - thankyou).


Everybody else please take from where bob left off.
:wave2:

 

[bob b]

I am still interested in comments on my refutation of the Dawkins WEASEL.

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1037488&postcount=210

 

[aharvey]

Is "Monopoly" a game of random chance because the players throw the dice?

bob,

I notice you didn't answer billwald's question. What say you? How about poker? Is that a game of random chance because you shuffle the deck beforehand? How about football? You toss a coin to see who starts.

Do you really think "partly random" is the same as "random"?

I have already granted you that some people prefer to speak of random versus non-random whereas I, as well as some mathematicians, prefer to speak of random versus deterministic.

Interesting non-sequitur. While scientists and mathemeticians may refer to stochastic vs. deterministic, I can guarantee you that they classify neither random processes nor stochastic processes as "any process that isn't completely deterministic"!

Dawkins was obviously using his example to "slide in" the idea that natural selection (the head monkey) can turn a situation of low probability into one of certainty. That is the whole point of his Blind Watchmaker book.

Ah. So you take the point of an entire book and you apply it to every chapter, every sentence, every example? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Weasel program was designed to illustrate one small piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle. You simply can't say the Weasel program fails to illustrate anything because it can't illustrate everything! And you can't say the point of the Weasel example was obviously exactly the same as that of the entire book!

A "partly" random process is what I call a "random process".

Yeah, we've covered that. You still want to stick with this?

Baloney. He was trying to illustrate how selection turns a hopelessly rare situation into one that converges rapidly on the target sentence.

I don't even know what to say to this. Dawkins takes considerable pains to make it clear that it was not intended to be a model of how evolutionary processes actually work. How on earth do you justify claiming that a model based on a letter game could in any way be intended to demonstrate how evolutionary processes actually work, especially given Dawkins' careful and explict caveats to the contrary?

My "parable" illustrates the point I have been trying to illuminate here for all these weeks: "random mutations plus natural selection" is not the answer to large scale changes, and by inference why starting with multiple advanced life forms is a much better scenario.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. A really, really, really big excluded middle. One that includes all of evolutionary theory, as far as I can tell.

Incidentally, bob, Johnny is exactly right that it is appropriate to reject a claim because it is stupid, at least one that is demonstrated as such (as I did). If you want to claim the title of "stupid" for yourself because one of your posts was deemed "stupid," well, no one can stop you, but you have no logical basis for it.

 

[bob b]

bob,

I notice you didn't answer billwald's question. What say you? How about poker? Is that a game of random chance because you shuffle the deck beforehand? How about football? You toss a coin to see who starts.

Do you really think "partly random" is the same as "random"?

Depends on one's classification scheme. I stated mine as random (more precisely stochastic for the purists) versus deterministic.

You apparently don't like my classifications, but you are free to use yours if you like. I gave you my permission.

Interesting non-sequitur. While scientists and mathemeticians may refer to stochastic vs. deterministic, I can guarantee you that they classify neither random processes nor stochastic processes as "any process that isn't completely deterministic"!

Better look up the definition. I did.

Ah. So you take the point of an entire book and you apply it to every chapter, every sentence, every example? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Weasel program was designed to illustrate one small piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle. You simply can't say the Weasel program fails to illustrate anything because it can't illustrate everything! And you can't say the point of the Weasel example was obviously exactly the same as that of the entire book!

Not my words but those of Dawkins:

If, however, there was any way in which the necessary conditions for cumulative selection could have been set up by the blind forces of nature, strange and wonderful might
have been the consequences. As a matter of fact that is exactly what happened on this planet, and we ourselves are among the most recent, if not the strangest and most wonderful, of those consequences.

Yeah, we've covered that. You still want to stick with this?
I don't even know what to say to this. Dawkins takes considerable pains to make it clear that it was not intended to be a model of how evolutionary processes actually work. How on earth do you justify claiming that a model based on a letter game could in any way be intended to demonstrate how evolutionary processes actually work, especially given Dawkins' careful and explict caveats to the contrary?

Because he contradicts himself with his own words?

Incidentally, bob, Johnny is exactly right that it is appropriate to reject a claim because it is stupid, at least one that is demonstrated as such (as I did). If you want to claim the title of "stupid" for yourself because one of your posts was deemed "stupid," well, no one can stop you, but you have no logical basis for it.

You only think you demonstrated my claim was stupid.

 

[aharvey]

Depends on one's classification scheme. I stated mine as random (more precisely stochastic for the purists) versus deterministic.

So how about answering the question for your classification scheme? How would you classify Monopoly, poker, football? All of these have random elements just like evolution. But would you call them games of random chance?

You apparently don't like my classifications, but you are free to use yours if you like. I gave you my permission.

I already know how I would classify these things. I'm asking you specifically because you seem to use an atypical classification. So how about it, bob? Are the only choices "random" and "purely deterministic"?

Better look up the definition. I did.

Don't need to. Referring to a process as deterministic simply means you can predict the outcome if you have enough relevant information about the system. Referring to a process as stochastic (okay, we'll use your term random) means you can't, no matter how much information you have. In case you haven't noticed, these are end points. You are treating them as mutually exclusive AND comprehensive: either something is random or it is deterministic, and since evolution is not purely deterministic, it must be random. Few (non-trivial) processes are purely random or purely deterministic, and that includes evolution. I'll give you points for sheer chutzpah in trying to bluff me on this one, though.

aharvey: Ah. So you take the point of an entire book and you apply it to every chapter, every sentence, every example? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Weasel program was designed to illustrate one small piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle. You simply can't say the Weasel program fails to illustrate anything because it can't illustrate everything! And you can't say the point of the Weasel example was obviously exactly the same as that of the entire book!

Not my words but those of Dawkins:

Ah, more quote mining. If we got back to your own post #210, you specifically state that this quote comes NOT from a discussion of the weasel program but after his abrupt switch to the biomorph program.

Because he contradicts himself with his own words?

According to your earlier post, bob, you are now taking what he said in reference to one model and applying it to what he said about a different model. Who's being self-contradictory? So far it seems you're perfectly illustrating my argument, that you are erroneously taking individual pieces, now individual quotes, and using them as if they are all referring to the same thing. They're not, only this time you've already made that arguement for me!

You only think you demonstrated my claim was stupid.

Whether I was successful or not, you then crossed the line by claiming I called you stupid. I do not think you are making these misrepresentations and fallacious arguements out of stupidity. And so far, I haven't seen much support for the intelligence of your argument that any process that is not purely deterministic is therefore random