Of Weasels and weasling

I thought Dawkins weasel was pretty neat, but I could play with that tap thing all day.

In my comments at UD I have repeatedly pointed out that by the apparent definition of latching and ratcheting, this is a basic property of all search algorithms other than blind random walk. That comment keeps being ignored - I wonder why?

@VM: It is pretty neat, and it can even be turned into a pretty cool game. See http://itatsi.com/

As I read it, the purpose here is an attempt to discredit the Unholy Text. The program is being treated as a competing scripture. Since the original source is known to be lost, demanding that it be produced shows that it must have been imaginary in the first place, and therefore there's nothing to be worshiped.

So we have competing understandings. Evolutionists focus on the power of selection, of which this is only one of a potentially infinite number of different valid illustrations. Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can't be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

I first read about the weasel program when BD was whining, and I thought, I'll give that a go (I'm an out of work software developer who needs to keep my skills up to date), it took my about 35 minutes and I got the same results as reported with no locking. It took them 23 days? Are these people idiots? (this is a rhetorical question).

With respect to Dembski and Marks's paper, let me ask you folks one question. Suppose that D&M had actually gotten the latching issue right, and analyzed a non-latching version of the Weasel program. (They didn't get it right, but let's suppose). They would have computed their “active information” and come out with a modestly different number.

So would their paper then be OK? Would it then be a valid argument for ID?

I have argued (in the posts that Ian kindly refers to),
that their paper would not then be a pro-ID argument, but is just as consistent with theistic evolution, or even nontheistic evolution.

That is why I think the obsession of posters on the pro-evolution side with the latching issue is a waste of time, and plays into the hands of the ID people by, in effect, agreeing with them that the latching issue is the fundamental one. But I repeat myself.

(that would be Mark Chu-Carroll)

Joe Felsenstein said: With respect to Dembski and Marks's paper, let me ask you folks one question. Suppose that D&M had actually gotten the latching issue right, and analyzed a non-latching version of the Weasel program. (They didn't get it right, but let's suppose). They would have computed their “active information” and come out with a modestly different number. So would their paper then be OK? Would it then be a valid argument for ID? I have argued (in the posts that Ian kindly refers to), that their paper would not then be a pro-ID argument, but is just as consistent with theistic evolution, or even nontheistic evolution. That is why I think the obsession of posters on the pro-evolution side with the latching issue is a waste of time, and plays into the hands of the ID people by, in effect, agreeing with them that the latching issue is the fundamental one. But I repeat myself.

Flint said: As I read it, the purpose here is an attempt to discredit the Unholy Text. The program is being treated as a competing scripture. Since the original source is known to be lost, demanding that it be produced shows that it must have been imaginary in the first place, and therefore there's nothing to be worshiped. So we have competing understandings. Evolutionists focus on the power of selection, of which this is only one of a potentially infinite number of different valid illustrations. Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can't be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

Mike Elzinga said: My general take on the paper is that it is a typical barrage of mischaracterizations and misrepresentations that ID/creationists have always done when pretending to “refute” science.

Mike Elzinga said: Since I was one of the people offering a considerable number of comments and critiques on your threads, I would say that I certainly was under the impression that the latching issue was totally irrelevant. In fact, in one of my posts I compared the unlatched and latched versions with radioactive decay with and without activation respectively. Unless I missed something, I didn’t see too many other posts that latched onto this latching issue as a significant problem. I had the impression that people were simply noting Dembski’s obsession with it.

Joe Felsenstein said: And if you go over to Uncommon Descent, you will find the pro-evolution posters in the corresponding threads there spending almost all of their effort on arguing about latching.

I say channel all this blog-energy into a rebuttal paper at IEEE. Dissect the thing, since Dembski is claiming, after the fact, that it's a pro-ID paper.

And if you go over to Uncommon Descent, you will find the pro-evolution posters in the corresponding threads there spending almost all of their effort on arguing about latching.

James F said: I say channel all this blog-energy into a rebuttal paper at IEEE. Dissect the thing, since Dembski is claiming, after the fact, that it's a pro-ID paper.

"Seriously, even if there was a disk around with AppleBasic finding a machine to run it and make copies would be an adventure in itself."

I know that you weren't serious, but I still have my Apple //e, and it booted a disk the last time I tried it, so if you ever do need one, the adventure is already over. Chances are magnetic deterioration has corrupted most of the disks from that era, though.

magnetic deterioration = mutation
corrupted = selected against

Latching Smatching. I want the free book! ;-)

I don't even care which book it is, if I can make them shell out a few bucks for the postage, I'll call it a win.

perl -e '@a=split //,uc join " ",@ARGV;@b=("A".."Z");%c=map{($_=>1)}@b;sub d{($c{$_[0]})&&($_[1]>rand(1))?$b[rand(@b)]:$_[0]}sub g{$h=0;@i=@a;for(@_){$h++if($_ ne shift(@i))}$h}@e=map{d($_,1)}@a;print @a,"\n",map{$c{$_}?"=":$_}@a,"\n";while(1){print @e,"\n";@f=sort{g(@$a)<=>g(@$b);}map{[map{d($_,.01)}@e]}(1..20);@e=@{$f[0]}}' Methinks it is like a weasel. | less

It is just about as bare-bones a GA model one can make.

Here's the same code written for benefit of humans:

#/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;

our @goal = split(//, uc(join(" ", @ARGV))); # Take the words on the
# command line, capitalize
# them and split them into
# characters.

our @alphabet = ( "A" .. "Z" ); # Our choice of mutating alphabet

our %is_in_alphabet = map { ( $_ => 1 ); } @alphabet; # Allows for easy
# detection of
# a letter in our
# alphabet

sub mutate {
my ($letter, $mutate_chance) = @_;
if ( $is_in_alphabet{$letter} and rand(1) < $mutate_chance ) {
return $alphabet[rand(scalar(@alphabet))];
} else {
return $letter;
}
}

sub evaluate {
my @candidate = @_;
my $count_of_mistakes = 0;
my @copy_of_goal = @goal;
foreach my $next_letter_of_candidate ( @candidate ) {
my $next_letter_of_goal = shift @copy_of_goal;
$count_of_mistakes++
if $next_letter_of_candidate ne $next_letter_of_goal;
}
return $count_of_mistakes;
}

# The next line mutates away any information in the goal which can be
# changed by the mutating function. We just turn the level of mutation up
# to a 100% chance.

our @single_surviving_candidate = map { mutate($_, 1.00); } @goal;

# We now print the goal and underline what letters can change.
print @goal, "\n", map { $is_in_alphabet{$_} ? "=" : $_ } @goal, "\n";

our $global_mutate_chance = 0.01;
our $offspring_per_generation = 20;

# Main loop -- We loop forever.
while(1){

print @single_surviving_candidate, "\n";

# Create mutated offspring
my @list_of_mutated_offspring =
map { [
map { mutate($_, $global_mutate_chance); }
@single_surviving_candidate
] }
(1..$offspring_per_generation);

# Sort them by how well they did (relative fitness)
@list_of_mutated_offspring =
sort { evaluate(@$a) <=> evaluate(@$b); }
@list_of_mutated_offspring ;

# Because this is a toy model, choose one and only one -- the best one
@single_surviving_candidate = @{$list_of_mutated_offspring[0]};
}

Joe Felsenstein said: With respect to Dembski and Marks's paper, let me ask you folks one question. Suppose that D&M had actually gotten the latching issue right, and analyzed a non-latching version of the Weasel program. (They didn't get it right, but let's suppose). They would have computed their “active information” and come out with a modestly different number. So would their paper then be OK? Would it then be a valid argument for ID?

rpenner said: perl -e '@a=split //,uc join " ",@ARGV;@b=("A".."Z");%c=map{($_=>1)}@b;sub d{($c{$_[0]})&&($_[1]>rand(1))?$b[rand(@b)]:$_[0]}sub g{$h=0;@i=@a;for(@_){$h++if($_ ne shift(@i))}$h}@e=map{d($_,1)}@a;print @a,"\n",map{$c{$_}?"=":$_}@a,"\n";while(1){print @e,"\n";@f=sort{g(@$a)<=>g(@$b);}map{[map{d($_,.01)}@e]}(1..20);@e=@{$f[0]}}' Methinks it is like a weasel. | less

unmaintainability = ULTIMATE POWER (ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...)

perl [...]

rpenner said: perl -e '@a=split //,uc join " ",@ARGV;@b=("A".."Z");%c=map{($_=>1)}@b;sub d{($c{$_[0]})&&($_[1]>rand(1))?$b[rand(@b)]:$_[0]}sub g{$h=0;@i=@a;for(@_){$h++if($_ ne shift(@i))}$h}@e=map{d($_,1)}@a;print @a,"\n",map{$c{$_}?"=":$_}@a,"\n";while(1){print @e,"\n";@f=sort{g(@$a)<=>g(@$b);}map{[map{d($_,.01)}@e]}(1..20);@e=@{$f[0]}}' Methinks it is like a weasel. | less

I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but Dawkins wrote another program to illustrate how evolution works. Does anyone remember his little insect creatures? He started with a little vertical line segment, and allowed it to evolve by branching (or not) at one end for several generations. It was easy to see how these figures (many of which started to resemble insects) could be selected: for "tall and thin," or "short and fat," or "highly branched," etc.

They are unable to accept correction, even on a minor point, and they can’t accurately represent the content of the sources they cite. It’s one more example of a behaviour pattern we’ve been seeing for years.

Flint said: As I read it, the purpose here is an attempt to discredit the Unholy Text. The program is being treated as a competing scripture. Since the original source is known to be lost, demanding that it be produced shows that it must have been imaginary in the first place, and therefore there's nothing to be worshiped. So we have competing understandings. Evolutionists focus on the power of selection, of which this is only one of a potentially infinite number of different valid illustrations. Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can't be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

I think the whole paper is a little bit sloppily written: It lacks meaningful definitions, and carelessly recycles older articles. I understand that Dembski and Marks have some favourite quotes, which they used earlier, but couldn't they check the references instead of just cutting-and-pasting? For instance, Christensen's and Oppacher's article is called ”What can we learn from No Free Lunch? A First Attempt to Characterize the Concept of a Searchable Function”, not just ”What can we learn from No Free Lunch? A First Attempt to Characterize the Concept of a Searchable,” as Dembski and Marks have stated at least twice now...

DiEb, I wouldn't be at all surprised if D&M's truncated version of a paper's title is deliberate.

Creationists focus on the Word Itself, which is to be interpreted as needed to fit foregone conclusions. And if the Word Itself can’t be produced, why, ANY interpretation is as good as any other.

— Flint

Dene Bebbington said: DiEb, I wouldn't be at all surprised if D&M's truncated version of a paper's title is deliberate.

This issue has certainly generated a lot of discussion.

At the end of the day -

1) Dawkins wrote a very simple program to illustrate a difference between random variation without selection, and random variation with selection.

2) It is very easy to write a similar program which illustrates the same thing.

3) The difference between random variation and random variation with selection can be illustrated in many, many types of models, computer, mathematical, etc, and is also intuitively obvious.

4) The program Dawkins wrote has nothing to do with the overall evidence for biological evolution.

5) The program Dawkins wrote has nothing to do with the overall credibility of Dawkins, because it is so easy to write such a program that it is the obvious default position to accept his claim that he did so, unless strong evidence to the contrary exists. Trying to attack the overall credibility of Dawkins by arguing that a trivially simple computer program he discussed over twenty years ago might not exist is not a convincing strategy, to say the least.

6) These points are obvious. Creationists are driven by an emotional agenda related to socio-political ideology and cult membership. They will say anything. They overlap strongly with the extreme political right, and use of the same obfuscation propaganda techniques is probably not a coincidence. It could represent mutual cross-inspiration, or parallel reasoning by psychologically similar minds, or both.

Joe Felsenstein said: I have argued (in the posts that Ian kindly refers to), that their paper would not then be a pro-ID argument, but is just as consistent with theistic evolution, or even nontheistic evolution.

That is why I think the obsession of posters on the pro-evolution side with the latching issue is a waste of time,

Lately I’ve had the impression - given the “birthers” and the howling right-wing militia groups - that this kind of thinking has begun to permeate a large segment of society.

...WHO / UN for conspiring to decimate the human population with a reverse engineered virus concoction to be delivered via a global mass mandatory vaccination program in the fall of 2009? Did you know that the world’s governments including the US have signed over their sovereignty to this same WHO in a time of ‘crisis’? And are you aware that the US and Europe fully intend to militarily enforce the lethal injections to be mandated this fall?

raven said: When nothing much happens this winter they will promptly forget it and go on to another fantasy.

What complacency. Have we all now forgotten the global apocalypse that followed the Y2K rollover?

DiEb, I don't know why Dembski or Marks would misquote the title of that paper, so it could just be a mistake. However, Dembski has been known to, ahem, manipulate quotations. Here's an example:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/dembski-quote-m.html

Mike Elzinga said: Glen Beck on Fox Noise has gone completely off the rails with conspiracy theories. He claims that the current Obama administration is building a secret “citizens’ army”. Horrors! For what purpose? Beck then goes on with an apparent disclaimer that he has been unable to find any evidence whatsoever for this. Therefore this is proof of just how secretive and diabolical “they” are; we should be very worried and afraid.

Dene Bebbington said: DiEb, I don't know why Dembski or Marks would misquote the title of that paper, so it could just be a mistake. However, Dembski has been known to, ahem, manipulate quotations. Here's an example: http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/09/dembski-quote-m.html

Seriously, arguing over whether Dawkins “weasel” program implements locking is a bit like arguing over whether the measuring cylinder in the Measuring Cylinder/Tap model of drug clearance is emptied by a tube or a bloke with a cup. Both are simplified systems that make demonstrating a concept easy, and do much the same thing.

— Ian Musgrave

ckc (not kc) said:

James F said: I say channel all this blog-energy into a rebuttal paper at IEEE. Dissect the thing, since Dembski is claiming, after the fact, that it's a pro-ID paper.

You know, it shouldn't be all that difficult, given the resources here (blogosphere) - what would be really enjoyable would be to do it (prepare the paper, submit, deal with review and revisions) all on-line and "exposed". We could even invite Dembski to contribute.

My understanding is that the presence of medicines in the body decay exponentially. However, I don’t know how they are taken up by the body when administered intravenously.

harold said: In theory if we knew all the variables, an equation like the one you present above could fairly easily be used to predict drug concentration in the blood or other tissue of interest at any given time. In practice, an empirical approach is usually necessary.

harold said: In theory if we knew all the variables, an equation like the one you present above could fairly easily be used to predict drug concentration in the blood or other tissue of interest at any given time. In practice, an empirical approach is usually necessary.

How accurate is my initial reaction, thinking the empirical approach is a way to get all the variables – or at least as many as can be obtained?

On the other hand, it’s probably not a scary as it appears if the medical practitioners have plenty of experience, good intuition, and input from research trials.

Matt G said: I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but Dawkins wrote another program to illustrate how evolution works. Does anyone remember his little insect creatures? He started with a little vertical line segment, and allowed it to evolve by branching (or not) at one end for several generations. It was easy to see how these figures (many of which started to resemble insects) could be selected: for "tall and thin," or "short and fat," or "highly branched," etc.

If anyone wants examples of the weasel program, I have a few posted at my home page:

http://home.earthlink.net/~matthewjheaney/

Note that the algorithm does not lock in successful hits (of a particular letter). Each generation is made from the genome that has the best score, computed over all letters. Yes, this means sometimes a letter changes from a hit to a miss -- but so what: other letters migrate closer to their targets.

Matthew Heaney said: If anyone wants examples of the weasel program, I have a few posted at my home page ...

man, it's been a while since i've seen that video.

it's actually obvious watching it that the program does not "lock" in correct letters, but allows for random mutations of any particular character, even if that character is correct.

but seriously. this whole thing is a big red herring attack on an incomplete and greatly simplified analogy for one small part of evolution. it's nothing to do with anything. even dawkins himself acknowledges that the program is not that good of an analogy for evolution, because the program is directed. it's just a simple demonstration of what why selection > no selection.

RBH said:

Matt G said: I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but Dawkins wrote another program to illustrate how evolution works. Does anyone remember his little insect creatures? He started with a little vertical line segment, and allowed it to evolve by branching (or not) at one end for several generations. It was easy to see how these figures (many of which started to resemble insects) could be selected: for "tall and thin," or "short and fat," or "highly branched," etc.

Biomorphs.

Has anybody examined the IEEE connection. I can understand somebody out of the culture war (or just plain sloppy) not checking the Weasel reference but the title is "Conservation of Information". Wouldn't that be a pretty ground breaking claim to make as I understand that nobody but creationists make this claim.
Either the reviewers were so out of their depth on the document (and could not be call peer-reviewers) or they are sympathetic to the ID cause.
One thing about this is that if it was a mistake, Dembski and Marks are a one trick pony with this (you must be smuggle information in to get a GA to work). How many more papers can they produce on the same narrow topic.

Marks is an electrical engineer by trade and has probably published heavily in that journal before. I think he did a lot with neural networks for the IEEE itself.

raven said:

Lately I’ve had the impression - given the “birthers” and the howling right-wing militia groups - that this kind of thinking has begun to permeate a large segment of society.

Birthers are old hat. The latest cause is the swine flu vaccine. It is designed to kill billions of people and "vaccination" (actually it is a lethal injection) will be mandatory and enforced by the military.

...WHO / UN for conspiring to decimate the human population with a reverse engineered virus concoction to be delivered via a global mass mandatory vaccination program in the fall of 2009? Did you know that the world’s governments including the US have signed over their sovereignty to this same WHO in a time of ‘crisis’? And are you aware that the US and Europe fully intend to militarily enforce the lethal injections to be mandated this fall?

IMO, what you are seeing are just lunatic fringes. These days of cheap mass communications allows anyone to put anything on the internet with a potential audience of much of the world. As the world leader in many areas, the USA also seems to be the world leader in...lunatic fringes. When nothing much happens this winter they will promptly forget it and go on to another fantasy.

Matt G said: I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but Dawkins wrote another program to illustrate how evolution works. Does anyone remember his little insect creatures? He started with a little vertical line segment, and allowed it to evolve by branching (or not) at one end for several generations. It was easy to see how these figures (many of which started to resemble insects) could be selected: for "tall and thin," or "short and fat," or "highly branched," etc.

Toidel Mahoney said: How can a computer program be used to simulate evolution when it is a product of intelligent design and not random chance. Greg Chatin doesn't know when any given random program will halt, does Richard Dawkins know if any random program will evolve? I'd love to see the evolanders tackle that one!

Toidel Mahoney said:

Matt G said: I don't think I've seen it mentioned here, but Dawkins wrote another program to illustrate how evolution works. Does anyone remember his little insect creatures? He started with a little vertical line segment, and allowed it to evolve by branching (or not) at one end for several generations. It was easy to see how these figures (many of which started to resemble insects) could be selected: for "tall and thin," or "short and fat," or "highly branched," etc.

How can a computer program be used to simulate evolution when it is a product of intelligent design and not random chance.

I think Latching is important. And the reason is not searching. It is the informationmining. Evolution in nature "don't lock right mutations". So in claiming that algorithm needs this kind of cheating talks about pre-coding.

So I don't wonder why ID:ist's use it all the time.

When program works without, it is just the shape of the "fittness landscape". And the argument of pre-coding is layed under unproven claim that "natural causes" cant in any relevant case generate any lawlike or even partially soft lanscapes. That "totally random" is only possible undesigned shape of fittness lanscape = Softening it is "precoding".

But in other hand: If we are talking complexicity, is'nt the random lanscape as complex as it can be? (Kolmogorov etc.-stuff.)

...evolanders...

— Toidel Mahoney

Folks, don't feed the troll please.

Rolf said:

Toidel Mahoney said: How can a computer program be used to simulate evolution when it is a product of intelligent design and not random chance. Greg Chatin doesn't know when any given random program will halt, does Richard Dawkins know if any random program will evolve? I'd love to see the evolanders tackle that one!

Do you know anything about computers and computer simulations?

Matt G said:

Rolf said:

Toidel Mahoney said: How can a computer program be used to simulate evolution when it is a product of intelligent design and not random chance. Greg Chatin doesn't know when any given random program will halt, does Richard Dawkins know if any random program will evolve? I'd love to see the evolanders tackle that one!

Do you know anything about computers and computer simulations?

Does he/she know anything about biology?

Toidel Mahoney said:

Matt G said:

Rolf said:

Toidel Mahoney said: How can a computer program be used to simulate evolution when it is a product of intelligent design and not random chance. Greg Chatin doesn't know when any given random program will halt, does Richard Dawkins know if any random program will evolve? I'd love to see the evolanders tackle that one!

Do you know anything about computers and computer simulations?

Does he/she know anything about biology?

I am an unequaled master of both. Now, evolanders, answer my question if you can.

And speaking of information arising in the genome from random events, here is a story about human genes arising from non-coding primate DNA. I guess the cdesign proponetsists are right after all: junk DNA IS useful!

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/901/2

If the above link loses information, this one will work:

http://tinyurl.com/nkbwne

Matt G said: And speaking of information arising in the genome from random events, here is a story about human genes arising from non-coding primate DNA. I guess the cdesign proponetsists are right after all: junk DNA IS useful! http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/901/2 If the above link loses information, this one will work: http://tinyurl.com/nkbwne

Matt G said: And speaking of information arising in the genome from random events, here is a story about human genes arising from non-coding primate DNA. I guess the cdesign proponetsists are right after all: junk DNA IS useful!

I don't know nothin' about weasels, or cups-vs-tubes, or ratcheting. But I do know this: if they want to see "our" original document, we should see theirs. The original papyrus - no not the ones found in the desert, and certainly not the one found in your hotel room - those are just copies and copies of copies - but the *original* ones.

How can we be sure their argument makes the least amount of sense if we can't see the original data?

Matt G said: ... If the above link loses information, ...

stefan said: ...if they want to see "our" original document, we should see theirs. The original papyrus - no not the ones found in the desert, and certainly not the one found in your hotel room - those are just copies and copies of copies - but the *original* ones. How can we be sure their argument makes the least amount of sense if we can't see the original data?

SWT said:

Matt G said: ... If the above link loses information, ...

Not possible ... I'm told that information is conserved ...

Matt G said: And speaking of information arising in the genome from random events, here is a story about human genes arising from non-coding primate DNA. I guess the cdesign proponetsists are right after all: junk DNA IS useful!

OMG! Given the quote mining instincts of the cdesign proponentsists they will completely miss the point about a random mutation in non coding DNA makes it a useful gene. Instead they will quote mine you thus: Matt G himself has been forced to concede that, “ I guess the [Creationists] are right after all, junk DNA is useful”

— Ravilyn Sanders

Kevin B said: If information is conserved, there wouldn't be a market for data backup solutions.

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

$|=1;
$s="These people are so unbelievably stupid. --Richard Dawkins (http://bit.ly/Cq8EC)";
$e="METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL";
$try=31; # New offspring per generation.

@e=unpack("C*",$e);

# Print the starting string
$n=0;
# Count the characters in the new string that mismatch the target string
@ns=unpack("C*",$s);
$j=0;
$mn = (($#e<$#ns)? $#e : $#ns)+1;
$mx = (($#e>$#ns)? $#e : $#ns)+1;
$mm = $mx;
while($j<$mn){$mm-- if $e[$j] == $ns[$j++]}
printf("Gen %5d, %-2d mismatches:\t\t\t%s\n",$n,$mm,pack("C*",@ns));

while($mm > 0) {
$i=-1;
# Make $try new strings
while($i++ < $try){
$mmi = $mm;

# Mutate one character of the new string
$chr = int(rand(126-32+1))+32;
$chr[$i] = $chr;

# Delete or add the character to the string
$p = int(rand($#ns+3))-1;
$p = 0 if ($p<0 && $#ns==0);
$p[$i] = $p;

# Count the characters in the new string that mismatch the target string.
if (0 <= $p && $p <= $#ns) { # $ns[$p] changes to chr($chr)
if ($p <= $#e) {
$mmi-- if ($e[$p] == $chr);
$mmi++ if ($e[$p] == $ns[$p]);
}
} elsif ($p == -1) { # $ns[$#ns] is deleted
$mmi-- if ($#ns > $#e);
$mmi++ if ($#ns <= $#e && $e[$#ns] == $ns[$#ns]);
} elsif ($p == $#ns+1) { # $ns[$#ns+1] appended with chr($chr)
$mmi++ if ($#ns >= $#e);
$mmi-- if ($p <= $#e && $e[$p] == $chr);
}
$mmc[$i] = $mmi;
}

# Find high scoring offspring strings.
@sc = sort {$mmc[$a]<=>$mmc[$b]}(0..$#mmc);

@new=(shift @sc);
while(@sc && $mmc[$sc[0]] == $mmc[$new[0]]){push @new,shift @sc}

# Set new string to a random offspring strings from among the high scoring offspring.
$i = int(rand(@new));
$j = $new[$i];
$mm = $mmc[$j];
$p=$p[$j];
$chr=$chr[$j];
if ($p<0) { $#ns = $#ns-1; } #delete
else { $ns[$p] = $chr; } #replace/append character

printf("Gen %5d, %-2d mismatches (\$p=%2d,\$chr=%s):\t%s\n",++$n,$mm,$p,chr($chr),pack("C*",@ns));
}

Works in reverse too, with the correct conclusion:

./weasel

METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

TETHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

TETHINKS7IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

TETHINKS7IT Ia LIKE A WEASEL

ThTHINKS7IT Ia LIKE A WEASEL

ThTHINKS7IT Ia LIKE A WEASELa

ThTHINKS7IT Ia LIKE A nEASELa

ThTHINKS7IT &a LIKE A nEASELa

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Th?te p<6%le are so unb&Fie;ably'

Th?te p<6%le are so unb&Fie;ably'

Th?te p<6%le are so unb&Fie;ably'L

Th?te p<6%le are so unb&Fie;ably'

Th?te p%le are so unb&Fie;ably'

Th?te p%le are so unb&;ably'

Th?te p%le are so unb&lie;ably'

Th?te p%le are so unb&lie;ably'[

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

These people ar_ so unbelievaXly stupid. --Richard Dawkins (http://bit.ly/Cq8EC)

These people ar_ so unbelievably stupid. --Richard Dawkins (http://bit.ly/Cq8EC)

These people are so unbelievably stupid. --Richard Dawkins (http://bit.ly/Cq8EC)

What a surprise! No-one in Evoland has answered Mr Mahoney's pt that a computer prog is intelligent design. Or, in Dawkins's case, sophomoric design.

novparl said: What a surprise! No-one in Evoland has answered Mr Mahoney's pt that a computer prog is intelligent design. Or, in Dawkins's case, sophomoric design.

novparl wrote:

"What a surprise! No-one in Evoland has answered Mr Mahoney’s pt that a computer prog is intelligent design."

That should tell you something. Unfortunately, you will probably not intelligently determine what. There is information in all of the non responses,

Is there a mosquito in here?

Anyway, nicely documented, seratosaurus.

Of course the argument is "Well, the end result is pre-determined!".

(shrug)

Plug in any string to represent survival slash reproductive success, i.e. "I can digest citrate."

Or enter a routine that changes the target string at random intervals. Selection will still move toward the new target faster than a random search.

Still, if ever "tempest in a teapot" was a propos, it's now.

What a surprise -- novparl pretends no one has answered a "point," after several respondents answer it. Typical creationist deliberate ignorance.

It might also be enlightening to document all the outputs that were not successful. I haven't look closely at your script, serat., but rather than a pre-determined number of "best of" results, how about any number of strings that fit in a "close enough" window (metaphorical window, that is, not a desktop)?

Yes, the trolls will continue to harp on “intelligence” in the computer program without the slightest awareness that these programs are toy models of the way Nature works. Evolution works within the laws of Nature.

That parts of a system randomly flip toward putting the entire system in equilibrium with its surroundings is so commonplace that one can draw general conclusions from this fact.

A gas coming into equilibrium with pressure changes in its surroundings does so because individual molecules randomly make energy and momentum exchanges with the surroundings until eventually the average energy and momentum of the entire gas is consistent with its surroundings.

That is what the random function performs in a computer program.

What the cdesign proponentsists are telling us is that it is “illegal” to use any knowledge of the physical world in our computer models of it. They want our programs to randomly thrash around with no point to them.

In other words, we are cheating if our computer programs actually reflect our understanding of Nature rather than matching the ID/creationists caricature of Nature.

Mike Elzinga said: Yes, the trolls will continue to harp on “intelligence” in the computer program without the slightest awareness that these programs are toy models of the way Nature works. Evolution works within the laws of Nature. That parts of a system randomly flip toward putting the entire system in equilibrium with its surroundings is so commonplace that one can draw general conclusions from this fact. A gas coming into equilibrium with pressure changes in its surroundings does so because individual molecules randomly make energy and momentum exchanges with the surroundings until eventually the average energy and momentum of the entire gas is consistent with its surroundings. That is what the random function performs in a computer program. What the cdesign proponentsists are telling us is that it is “illegal” to use any knowledge of the physical world in our computer models of it. They want our programs to randomly thrash around with no point to them. In other words, we are cheating if our computer programs actually reflect our understanding of Nature rather than matching the ID/creationists caricature of Nature.

Mike Elzinga said: In other words, we are cheating if our computer programs actually reflect our understanding of Nature rather than matching the ID/creationists caricature of Nature.

fnxtr said: It might also be enlightening to document all the outputs that were not successful. I haven't look closely at your script, serat., but rather than a pre-determined number of "best of" results, how about any number of strings that fit in a "close enough" window (metaphorical window, that is, not a desktop)?

As long as we have a PERL example posted here, I guess I’ll give in to the nerd thing and make more explicit some of the allusions I had been making earlier.

When I had earlier given examples of radioactive decay in the presence of activation, a resistor discharging while it is also being charged, and a gas coming into equilibrium with its surroundings, I was giving examples that can be modeled on a number of different levels. The same can be said for the Measuring Cylinder/Tap Model that Ian linked to.

For example, radioactive decay can be modeled at the “stochastic level” in which individual atoms are randomly decaying. The result is an exponential decay curve that reflects a rate of decay that is proportional to the number of atoms left. Even beginning calculus courses discuss this differential equation.

When we place such a decay process in the presence of “activation”, we can often use an activation rate that is constant (say, due to background radiation).

So we now have a first order differential equation in which the net rate of change in a quantity, dQ/dt, is due to the fixed rate of “activation” R minus a decay rate that is proportional to the quantity remaining. Thus

dQ/dt = R – kQ.

This is a very easy equation – involving logarithms – and covered in elementary calculus. It is first order and requires that a constant be found from initial conditions. The answer is

Q(t) = (R/k)(1 – e^{- kt}) + Q(0)e^{- kt}.

If we can characterize a process as “decaying in the presence of a constant activation”, this will be the form of the equation governing the process.

In the case of Dawkins’ Weasel program, we see a process in which the “target string” represents the “ground state” of the evolving string. Random flips of characters in the evolving string in the “wrong” direction represent the presence of activation. We are actually observing this process at the stochastic level. Latching removes activation.

Note that the characters in that target string are irrelevant to the target being a ground state. That fact alone should eliminate any confusion about “intelligence being smuggled into the answer”.

Now the ID/cretinists have to justify removing any simulation of the process of decay toward a ground state. This misconception of theirs directly relates to their mischaracterization of Nature as a bunch of particles scattering randomly and elastically off each other (“In the beginning …”).

So the rebuttal needs to focus on what justification they offer for leaving out our understanding of physical laws in any of our research.

After all, we see how far their caricature of Nature has taken them in over 40 years of ID/creationist “research”.

novparl said: What a surprise! No-one in Evoland has answered Mr Mahoney's pt that a computer prog is intelligent design. Or, in Dawkins's case, sophomoric design.

The Pogues were founded in King's Cross,[3] a district of North London, in 1982 as Pogue Mahone—pogue mahone being the Anglicisation of the Irish póg mo thóin, meaning "kiss my arse"

Toidel Mahoney seems to be related.

Sylvilagus said:

novparl said: What a surprise! No-one in Evoland has answered Mr Mahoney's pt that a computer prog is intelligent design. Or, in Dawkins's case, sophomoric design.

Do you believe tornados happen randomly? If not they were designed. As a child I once created a "tornado simulator" by revolving colored water and soap suds in a jar to produce a model tornado in the fluid. By your logic, this demonstrates that tornados are intelligently designed. Get a grip. His question/comment is so inane as to not be worthy of reply.

Toidel Mahoney said:

Matt G said:

Rolf said:

Toidel Mahoney said: How can a computer program be used to simulate evolution when it is a product of intelligent design and not random chance. Greg Chatin doesn't know when any given random program will halt, does Richard Dawkins know if any random program will evolve? I'd love to see the evolanders tackle that one!

Do you know anything about computers and computer simulations?

Does he/she know anything about biology?

I am an unequaled master of both. Now, evolanders, answer my question if you can.

Sylvilagus said: By your logic, this demonstrates that tornados are intelligently designed.

Having dabbled with GAs myself, I have to say that ID acolytes attempts to criticise them are laughable in the extreme.

I always ask them, "Seeing as the outputs of some GAs defy deterministic analysis (for example, coding FPGAs via GAs produces some very weird, but functioning, results), how can the programmer have 'smuggled in the information'?" Indeed, the idea that engineers working in the private sector would waste time and money writing a GA to search for a solution when they know the optimal answer already is pure comedy.

Lately, ID priests and priestesses have been trying to dodge the issue entirely claim that the "algorithmic behaviour" of such simulations is proof of ID. This is usually followed up with some half-baked analogy linking DNA to computing languages. The goalpost shift is obvious, and I have no doubt that they'll continue to be shifted all the way back to the ultimate "fine tuned universal constants" get-out-clause.

All this is typical of a doctrine whose only aim is to create an intellectual vacuum into which to parachute theology. What a pathetic state of affairs.

ah_mini said: Indeed, the idea that engineers working in the private sector would waste time and money writing a GA to search for a solution when they know the optimal answer already is pure comedy.

ah_mini said: The goalpost shift is obvious, and I have no doubt that they'll continue to be shifted all the way back to the ultimate "fine tuned universal constants" get-out-clause.

Personally I prefer to cut right to the chase and focus on the fine tuning problem in cosmology where the smoothness is much more amenable to precise measurement compared to the biological fitness landscape.

se-rat-o-SAWR-us said: The code does exactly as you describe: there is not a "pre-determined number of 'best of' results", but rather a sorted tabulation of the mismatches in all offspring in every generation. A random offspring is chosen from the "window" of all offspring that have the minimum number of mismatches. This is what this code fragment accomplishes: @sc = sort {$mmc[$a]<=>$mmc[$b]}(0..$#mmc);
@new=(shift @sc);
while(@sc && $mmc[$sc[0]] == $mmc[$new[0]]){push @new,shift @sc}
$i = int(rand(@new));
$j = $new[$i];

Raging Bee - ah yes, the usual evoland claim that a pt doesn't have to be answered as it's bin answered already.

The origin of tornadoes (los tormentos) has nothing to do with Richard Dawkins designing a program. However, tornadoes were designed as part of the mundo, along with pythons, earthquakes, human aggression (esp. evo), AIDS, etc. etc. We assoom the gods are nice. Curiously, the ancients didn't do that. E.g. Kali the Black...

novparl,

If your god designed AIDS and earthquakes, why do you worship her?

DS said: novparl, If your god designed AIDS and earthquakes, why do you worship her?

Robin said:

DS said: novparl, If your god designed AIDS and earthquakes, why do you worship her?

Because they are excellent punishments for novparl's enemies... There's nothing like a god created in one's own image. :-)

novparl said: What a surprise! No-one in Evoland has answered Mr Mahoney's pt that a computer prog is intelligent design. Or, in Dawkins's case, sophomoric design.

I guess bad weather is a manifestation of ID too, cuz we can simulate that on a computer too.

In an attempt to win the prize, i used a vintage Commodore 64 and a BASIC version of Conway's game of Life. When I got back after dinner I found it had written all of Dembski's books and every post on Uncommon Descent!! At that stage it was demanding tenure (and access to the Baylor cafeteria).

Marion Delgado said: When I got back after dinner I found it had written all of Dembski's books and every post on Uncommon Descent!! At that stage it was demanding tenure (and access to the Baylor cafeteria).

This reminds me of a true story.

Back in the 1990s, Victor Weisskopf was giving a talk at a session of the American Physical Society’s April Meeting in Washington, DC.

I was in the audience.

The talk was about the history of the Physical Review, its exponential growth over the years, and the deterioration of the quality of most of the papers therein.

Near the end of his talk, Weisskopf said he made a back-of-the envelope calculation of how much the velocity of the right-hand edge of the Physical Review was increasing, as we think of it sitting on a long shelf.

With the numbers from the exponential increase in growth, he estimated the date in the future when the right-hand edge would be traveling faster than light.

Then he finished with, “But that’s ok, because there will be no information in it anyway.”

It brought down the house.

DS - your usual sloppiness. When did I say I worshipped a god or gods? Kindly cite the exact passage.

Do try and read without daydreaming. I keep my answers short to make it easy for the attention deficit folks of Evoland.

Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

novparl said: Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

novparl said: Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

novparl wrote:

"Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making."

Yea and the Thinker is a statue carved by an intelligent being. That is not evidence that humans were made by an intelligent being. Do try to learn some logic.

Now, why don't you worship the god who created pythons? You must live in constant fear of her rath.

I am puzzled as to why this guy believes anyone failed to understand his point.

The only point in response is that a simulation can be made of any process: evolution, stellar fusion, the orbits of planets, weather, chemical reactions, the
settling of dry particulate materials in storage, and so on ad infinitum.

The fact that a simulation can represent a process tells nothing about the origin of that process. Simply because a toy robot panda is built in a factory in China does not say that a real panda is built in a factory in China.

I am NOT puzzled as to why this painfully obvious response is not understood. Evobashers have been trotting out this limp argument for a long time and have been ignoring its blatant flaw for just as long -- it seems on the principle that looking thick doesn't matter as long as the barking continues.

It may be reasoning as silly as painting a tunnel opening in the side of a mountain and then showing a train coming out, but some folks cling to silly because they don't have anything else.

And, sigh, then we get the dodge that the entire Universe demonstrates Design ... maybe it does for all I know or care, but that notion is consistent with the Theistic Evolution standpoint, which any good evobasher firmly rejects.

wile coyote said: I am puzzled as to why this guy believes anyone failed to understand his point.

novparl said: DS - your usual sloppiness. When did I say I worshipped a god or gods? Kindly cite the exact passage. Do try and read without daydreaming. I keep my answers short to make it easy for the attention deficit folks of Evoland. Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

Wheels said:

novparl said: Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

So first year Science Fair baking soda/vinegar volcanoes, being designed, indicate that real volcanoes are also designed.

novparl said: Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

Lol. The usual insistence that you-all don't understand an obvious pt. Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia.

Mike Elzinga. I do know an algorithm from a prog. I used to know how to find square roots on a slide rule but since I never need to, I've forgotten.

Funny you people are so worried by a "troll" (introlerant word).

Darwin ueber alles.

eric said:

ah_mini said: Indeed, the idea that engineers working in the private sector would waste time and money writing a GA to search for a solution when they know the optimal answer already is pure comedy.

Well, there goes theistic evolution.

novparl said: Lol. The usual insistence that you-all don't understand an obvious pt. Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia. Mike Elzinga. I do know an algorithm from a prog. I used to know how to find square roots on a slide rule but since I never need to, I've forgotten. Funny you people are so worried by a "troll" (introlerant word). Darwin ueber alles.

novparl wrote:

"However, tornadoes were designed as part of the mundo, along with pythons, earthquakes, human aggression (esp. evo), AIDS, etc. etc."

Well your god seems to want us to believe that pythons evolved. After all, they fit into the nested genetic hierarchy with all other snakes. This is true regardless of whether nuclear of mitochondrial genes are used as characters in the analysis:

MPE 24:194-202 (2002)

Computer programs designed by humans demonstrate conclusively that processes operating in nature are sufficient to generate information and increase complexity. Pointing out that the programs are designed is irrelevant. If you have any other point to make then make it. If not, then quit complaining about being labeled a troll.

Well, let’s move to where the troll can’t follow, and get back to the topic of this thread.

On a previous thread, Dave Thomas posted his nice program with some plotting that reveals some underlying patterns.

In an earlier post I showed the general equation that governs exponential decay in the presence of activation.

If you look at the equation I showed,

Q(t) = (R/k)(1 – e- kt) + Q(0)e- kt,

and note its asymptotic behavior when t approaches infinity, you will see this approaches a baseline of R/k.

So let’s rewrite the equation as

R/k – Q(t) = (R/k – Q(0)) e^{- kt}.

Now we see that if we subtract the baseline, R/k, from the data, take the absolute value, and then plot this on a semi-log plot (log vs. linear), we get a straight line from which we can extract k. Having k and R/k, we can extract R.

Thus, if the process we are observing behaves like decay in the presence of activation, we can get the decay rate and the activation rate.

Hmm, that link to my earlier post was wrong; it’s here.

And let’s get the exponents right also.

Q(t) = (R/k)(1 – e^{- kt}) + Q(0)e^{- kt}.

It’s hard to get used to this KwickXML after using equation-writing software like MathType.

novparl said: Lol. The usual insistence that you-all don't understand an obvious pt. Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia.

ah_mini said: No, they are just feeding you. Perhaps they should stop as you've failed to address any of the comments that trashed your basic premise already.

Wheels: I don’t have time to argue with you, I’m too busy making model volcanoes, which proves that real volcanoes are also Designed.

Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED "The Blind Watchmaker" (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he "wrote a program." I'll give you a minute to take that in.

HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins' intelligent design began!

The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Marion Delgado said: Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED "The Blind Watchmaker" (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he "wrote a program." I'll give you a minute to take that in. HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins' intelligent design began! The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Stuart Weinstein said:

Marion Delgado said: Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED "The Blind Watchmaker" (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he "wrote a program." I'll give you a minute to take that in. HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins' intelligent design began! The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Must be a full tonight or something.

Geez this is boring:

"Dawkins DESIGNED a program to model evolution and that means that he has proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"

"So if I make a science-fair volcano, that means volcanoes are intelligently designed, too?"

"Ah, you don't get it. Dawkins DESIGNED a program to model evolution and that means that he has proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"

"So if I make a science-fair volcano, that means volcanoes are intelligently designed, too?"

"But Dawkins himself has admitted it!
He DESIGNED a program to model evolution and that means that he has proven INTELLIGENT DESIGN!"

"So if I make a science-fair volcano, that means volcanoes are intelligently designed, too?"

And so on ...

Stuart Weinstein said:

Stuart Weinstein said:

Marion Delgado said: Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED "The Blind Watchmaker" (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he "wrote a program." I'll give you a minute to take that in. HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins' intelligent design began! The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Must be a full tonight or something.

That was supposed to be "full moon tonight" ...

Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia.

stevaroni said:

Wheels: I don’t have time to argue with you, I’m too busy making model volcanoes, which proves that real volcanoes are also Designed.

If you create a conceptual model, does that mean that real volcanoes are also imaginary?

Robin said:

stevaroni said:

Wheels: I don’t have time to argue with you, I’m too busy making model volcanoes, which proves that real volcanoes are also Designed.

If you create a conceptual model, does that mean that real volcanoes are also imaginary?

The better question, Stevaroni - if one imagines a volcano (or a cat, or the speed of light, or a scone recipe, etc) does this mean that real volcanos are imaginary?

Don't bet on it. It takes a surgical operation to get blindingly obvious logic into the head of a lunatic-fringer.

Robin sez: It appears I repeated your question, Stevaroni, but you see I imagined that you posted such, and figured that in posting my response, it would be the only one there.

stevaroni said:

Robin sez: It appears I repeated your question, Stevaroni, but you see I imagined that you posted such, and figured that in posting my response, it would be the only one there.

Is this one of those weird quantum physics thingies? I seem to remember that somehow those always involved radioactive cats, but I fell asleep in that class a lot so I don't exactly remember how.

novparl said: Lol. The usual insistence that you-all don't understand an obvious pt. Orwell used to be annoyed with commies who wd take the attitude that you were only pretending not to agree that Stalin was creating a (survival of the fittest) Utopia. Mike Elzinga. I do know an algorithm from a prog. I used to know how to find square roots on a slide rule but since I never need to, I've forgotten. Funny you people are so worried by a "troll" (introlerant word). Darwin ueber alles.

novparl said: Mr Whinestine - a computer simulation is DESIGNED. The pt I was making.

Marion Delgado said: Okay, Darwinists, this will blow the whole scam wide open. Unlike you, I actually WATCHED "The Blind Watchmaker" (It had no blind watchmaker in it - typical Darwinist bait-and-switch). Not far into it, Dawkins says he "wrote a program." I'll give you a minute to take that in. HE ADMITTED THAT THE PROGRAM WAS INTELLIGENTLY DESIGNED. Those of us who can determine CSI by inspection already knew that, of course. Not only did the program not arise by chance, as Darwinists say the eye, the immune system, and the flagellum did, but the computer it was intelligently designed on was itself intelligently designed - by men - at a computer factory. Furthermore, all the conditions for programming the computer were fine-tuned before Dawkins' intelligent design began! The High Priest of Darwinism admitted he cheated and used ID to get a job done he claimed showed evolution. Same trick Darwin pulled. Like ideological forebear, like son!

Weasels are more interesting; they go Pop! when you collapse the wavefunction. My favourite variant is “Schrodinger’s Physicist”, which conflates the cat-in-the-box with the question about whether, if in a train travelling at the speed of light, you can see yourself in the shaving mirror. This leads to the prediction that there are three possible states for the Physicist, alive, dead and Undead (in the latter stat, of course, the Physicist can’t see himself in the mirror anyway.)

Henry J said: Does the physicist use Occam's razor? :) Henry

Stanton said:

Henry J said: Does the physicist use Occam's razor? :) Henry

Only when shaving.

Kevin B said:

Stanton said:

Henry J said: Does the physicist use Occam's razor? :) Henry

Only when shaving.

Actually, the "Schrodinger's Physicist" idea came out of a conversation over lunch with our place's only remaining physicist who was, at the time, feuding with an Australian physicist who has divergent views on the answer to the "mirror question" ...... and a beard.

Wheels said:

Kevin B said:

Stanton said:

Henry J said: Does the physicist use Occam's razor? :) Henry

Only when shaving.

Actually, the "Schrodinger's Physicist" idea came out of a conversation over lunch with our place's only remaining physicist who was, at the time, feuding with an Australian physicist who has divergent views on the answer to the "mirror question" ...... and a beard.

I refuse to believe that a situation this hilarious came about by blind, random chance.