Dawkins weasel program random selection or selection at random?

11 views
Skip to first unread message

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 8:15:22 AM4/21/09
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
characters will be random....."

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
taking one does a selection at random?

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 8:27:14 AM4/21/09
to

They are synonymous.

roki...@cox.net

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 8:34:32 AM4/21/09
to

It should have been like a blind draw from 28 letters in a bag with
replacement of the selected letter to the bag before the next draw.

Ron Okimoto

prig...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 11:35:18 AM4/21/09
to
backspace wrote:

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program

and a few responses.

This reminds me of the heated debates of a couple of centuries ago,
when the idle intelligencia clashed over the question of how many
angels could dance on the head of a pin.

Doug Chandler

Occidental

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 12:39:02 PM4/21/09
to

If the Weasel algorithm is implemented in the usual way, the letters
are not chosen randomly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_numbers

John Smith

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 1:24:47 PM4/21/09
to

"backspace" <Steph...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:187cdc46-b875-4ad1...@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

But - an "analogy" experiment or example never truly exemplifies reality.

There are rules, in nature, chemistry and physics, that are NOT included in
either Dawkins assertions, or the basic "marble in a bag" scenario.

Nowhere is it mentioned that when a "selection" is - or approaches - a
"right" answer, is that selection saved or favored in the next "choice".

Just using letters ..... "in" should be given a higher preference than
"ZX" - so incorporating that information would change the time (shorten it
immensely?) to come to a final conclusion.

The second fallacy here is that Dawkins picks the target before the analogy
begins.
Nature was never "directed" to "seek" humans as an evolutionary target!

To discard "Mary had a little lamb", because it does not, exactly, fit the
target set by the experimenter, is fraudulent.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 1:57:25 PM4/21/09
to

The computer in the weasel program is really doing a "selection at
random" or probability sample, meaning intent is involved because it
follows an algorithm from a programmer. It specifically isn't doing a
"random selection" which has the intent of no consciousness. A
probability sample from stats still implies consciousness, somebody
had to devise a sampling algorithm. The application of such an
algorithm in a "non-random" or non-probability sampling way means a
conscious being narrowed the sets over which a sampling was
preformed.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 2:28:07 PM4/21/09
to

That wasn't your question or related to my response (see: red herring
fallacy). The two phrases you chose are in fact synonymous.
Yes, someone had to create whatever thing is doing the selecting but
it doesn't matter. Occidental pointed you to this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandom_numbers
which has a link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_randomness
I would suggest you read them and some other texts on statistics and
sampling and maybe take a course.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 2:37:55 PM4/21/09
to
On Apr 21, 8:15 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

You may also want to read this:
http://www.toarchive.org/indexcc/CF/CF011_1.html

Damaeus

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 2:50:08 PM4/21/09
to
Reading from news:talk.origins,
backspace <Steph...@gmail.com> posted:

Speaking of humans, the problem with that is that natural selection just
assumes that changes are random. But when you consider survival, those
random stabs in the dark eventually led to a successful mutation: a design
that worked better than all the others because it resulted in a higher
chance of survival.

A teleological view would say that there was a design that would work
best, and evolution took random stabs in the dark until finally matching
what evolution had planned for humans as its course of evolution.

So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
wild?

Damaeus

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 2:55:21 PM4/21/09
to
On Apr 21, 8:15 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

PS: I found this and it may be more useful for you to communicate with
it instead of writing your own sentences:
http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/RandomSentence/RandomSentence.aspx

I got, "Any sordid spirit hardens underneath a scotch freak."

Bruce Stephens

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 3:05:31 PM4/21/09
to
Damaeus <no-...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> writes:

[...]

> So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
> we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
> wild?

Why don't they live like each other?

Damaeus

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 3:18:04 PM4/21/09
to
Reading from news:talk.origins,
Bruce Stephens <bruce+...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> posted:

Why don't we live more like one or the other, without computers and cars?
Why did we learn how to heat metal to make swords so much sooner than apes
did?

Damaeus

Ken Denny

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 3:31:04 PM4/21/09
to
> it instead of writing your own sentences:http://watchout4snakes.com/creativitytools/RandomSentence/RandomSente...

>
> I got, "Any sordid spirit hardens underneath a scotch freak."

His posts might start making more sense.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 3:34:40 PM4/21/09
to

There are ten bags of marbles. A non-probability sample or non-random
sample as defined on Wikipedia would be a human deciding which of the
bags he will use. One could also program a computer to make that
decision because the *intent* came from the programmer to en-act a non-
random or non-probability sample. Placing your hand inside the
specific bags say 2, 5 and nr.7 mixing them and extract a marble would
be a *probability sample* or a *selection at random* but not a *random
selection*.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 4:00:13 PM4/21/09
to
On Apr 21, 2:50 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> Reading from news:talk.origins,
> backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> posted:

>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
>
> > ".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
> > assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
> > characters will be random....."
>
> > Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
> > done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
> > taking one does a selection at random?
>
> Speaking of humans, the problem with that is that natural selection just
> assumes that changes are random. But when you consider survival, those
> random stabs in the dark eventually led to a successful mutation: a design
> that worked better than all the others because it resulted in a higher
> chance of survival.

It actually just means that 1) the mutations are functionally random
(i.e. we cannot predict where any given mutation will take place), and
B) Again, as far as we can tell the mutations are random in regard to
traits. You can postulate that they are teleological in nature but we
have no evidence for that. That would be something taken on faith I
suppose. I don't agree but it is a nominally free country. :)

> A teleological view would say that there was a design that would work
> best, and evolution took random stabs in the dark until finally matching
> what evolution had planned for humans as its course of evolution.
>
> So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
> we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
> wild?

Look up niche (or I will I guess):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche

It wasn't that long ago that we did live "in the wild" of course (and
some people still do). Scare quotes are there because "in the wild" is
simply a matter of perspective, but I get what you mean. Why aren't we
running around naked, throwing feces at each other (aside from
politics)? Gotta run, more later maybe.

backspace

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 4:01:37 PM4/21/09
to
On Apr 21, 9:34 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are ten bags of marbles. A non-probability sample or non-random
> sample as defined on Wikipedia would be a human deciding which of the
> bags he will use. One could also program a computer to make that
> decision because the *intent* came from the programmer to en-act a non-
> random or non-probability sample. Placing your hand inside the
> specific bags say 2, 5 and nr.7 mixing them and extract a marble would
> be a *probability sample* or a *selection at random* but not a *random
> selection*.

You extract a marble "at random" until you find the one with M and put
it aside. Then take the other bag until finding E... for "Me
thinks like a weasel".. Thus intent was involved, intent can't be
banished from this probability sampling process by writing a computer
program. The computer is simulating the algorithm that a person has
in his mind. The fatal flaw in the entire article on Wikipedia is the
term "random selection". It should be "selection at random" or
"probability sample".

Mike L

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 4:27:11 PM4/21/09
to
Cecil Adams is pretty good on this one. If interested, see:
<http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-
argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin>

But it does become a rather less idle question if one thinks of it in
terms of infinitely small objects in an infinitely small space.
(Taking it as an idealized needle point rather than a pin's head.) If
we could get Backspace obsessed with this question, he'd probably
leave t.o. alone for years on end.

--
Mike.

David Hare-Scott

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 7:11:53 PM4/21/09
to

That's not going to happen because the only games he likes are word games,
facts and commonly used concepts get in the way of that.

David

Damaeus

unread,
Apr 21, 2009, 8:12:15 PM4/21/09
to
Reading from news:talk.origins,
"Dr. Acula" <jerr...@gmail.com> posted:

> On Apr 21, 2:50 pm, Damaeus <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> > Reading from news:talk.origins,
> > backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> posted:
> >
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
> >
> > > ".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
> > > assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
> > > characters will be random....."
> >
> > > Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
> > > done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
> > > taking one does a selection at random?
> >
> > Speaking of humans, the problem with that is that natural selection just
> > assumes that changes are random. But when you consider survival, those
> > random stabs in the dark eventually led to a successful mutation: a design
> > that worked better than all the others because it resulted in a higher
> > chance of survival.
>
> It actually just means that 1) the mutations are functionally random
> (i.e. we cannot predict where any given mutation will take place), and
> B) Again, as far as we can tell the mutations are random in regard to
> traits. You can postulate that they are teleological in nature but we
> have no evidence for that. That would be something taken on faith I
> suppose. I don't agree but it is a nominally free country. :)

I understand the idea that we could have turned out to be anything at all,
even something that looks like Hammerhead in Star Wars. But how much of
the young lust of gorilla sex is based on pheromones and how much is based
on finding such a sexy gorillaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, I need a dirty woman"?

I can think of no good support for the aesthetics of the human body, nor
support for what brings people to conceive of art that idealizes the human
form to a degree that makes the real thing pale by comparison, without at
least making each of us a creator unto ourselves.

If chimps can be taught to communicate, and then we find that they have
nothing to say, I don't think we should ignore that /we/ *do* have
something to say, and we say it. But we imagine it first.

I don't think that our ability to idealize the human body in our
imaginations is a waste. I believe that this ability is there for a
reason. I know that evolution does not care one bit for our feelings
about evolution. So evolution should not be offended if we find a way to
one-up it and go our own way instead of falling prey to a force that did
not give our closest genetic relatives the ability to imagine themselves
as sexier chimps, nor the ability to communicate any interest of the sort
to us, even after we've taught them sign language.

> > A teleological view would say that there was a design that would work
> > best, and evolution took random stabs in the dark until finally matching
> > what evolution had planned for humans as its course of evolution.
> >
> > So if we are just as random as all the other animals in the world, why are
> > we not living more like they do--As apes and monkeys truly live in the
> > wild?
>
> Look up niche (or I will I guess):
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_niche
>
> It wasn't that long ago that we did live "in the wild" of course (and
> some people still do). Scare quotes are there because "in the wild" is
> simply a matter of perspective, but I get what you mean. Why aren't we
> running around naked, throwing feces at each other (aside from
> politics)? Gotta run, more later maybe.

Yeah, that's about it. Essentially we still are apes. Some have just
become shrewd enough to get into positions of political power so they can
order others into the battlefield act like gorillas on their behalf, while
the ones who sent them there get to sit comfortably and think like
gorillas.

Damaeus

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 1:40:33 AM4/22/09
to

Which are synonymous. Dummy.

backspace

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 5:24:33 AM4/22/09
to
On Apr 21, 9:34 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are ten bags of marbles. A non-probability sample or non-random
> sample as defined on Wikipedia would be a human deciding which of the
> bags he will use. One could also program a computer to make that
> decision because the *intent* came from the programmer to en-act a non-
> random or non-probability sample. Placing your hand inside the
> specific bags say 2, 5 and nr.7 mixing them and extract a marble would
> be a *probability sample* or a *selection at random* but not a *random
> selection*.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
"...Dawkins broached several of these issues himself in "The Blind
Watchmaker," and has also responded to these criticisms by pointing
out that the program was never intended to model biological evolution
accurately, and that he very specifically described it as an
artificial selection process from the outset, as the citation above
shows. It was only meant to demonstrate the power of cumulative
selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete
unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys
pounding on typewriters"...."

"......meant to demonstrate cumulative selection as compared to random
selection........"

I place my hand into a bag of marbles and do a random selection by
taking one out. We get the intent with the sentence, but in the highly
technical world of math it is incorrect, to be exact we must use exact
and not colloquial language. The correct usage is " a selection at
random was done". "random selection" as used in the Weasel program
discussion actually means "purposeless no intent , no consciousness
selection" which is a contradiction because a "selection" as we use it
in discussing the Weasel program is always a conscious decision. Now
some would say that *selection" doesn't always mean consciousness ,
which is correct but in 99% of cases it does mean consciousness. If
your intent isn't consciousness with "selection" in the Weasel program
then don't use the word.

We could use selection as follows:
After the storm there was a selection of rocks left on the mountain.
- no intent. --- (Example A)
After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks they made a
fire - intent. -- (Example B)

The confusion over the weasel program is because it isn't clear what
the intent is with the words random and selection as used by all
participants in the debate and the oxymoron that is formed with
"random selection" - there is no such as a random selection if we use
the word *selection* in the context of (Example B).


backspace

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 8:58:51 AM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 11:24 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The confusion over the weasel program is because it isn't clear what
> the intent is with the words random and selection as used by all
> participants in the debate and the oxymoron that is formed with
> "random selection" - there is no such as a random selection if we use
> the word *selection* in the context of (Example B).

The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
"purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
themselves and society mentally ill in the process.

prig...@aol.com

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 10:36:11 AM4/22/09
to
Mike L wrote:

> Cecil Adams is pretty good on this one. If interested, see:
> <http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1008/did-medieval-scholars-
> argue-over-how-many-angels-could-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin>
>
> But it does become a rather less idle question if one thinks of it in
> terms of infinitely small objects in an infinitely small space.
> (Taking it as an idealized needle point rather than a pin's head.)

There's the rub. If there are no well-defined parameters and direct
observation of action and results is not possible, any late-comer can
throw in another clever twist and derail the whole thing.

.... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Doug Chandler
Doug Chandler

Martin Andersen

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 11:43:55 AM4/22/09
to
The "target" isn't important, since the point of the algorithm isn't to
model the evolution of a specific sentence, but show that change under a
selection criteria occurs. ANY selection criteria.

The criteria could have been sentence length, ratio of consonants vs
vowels or any number of different things.

> To discard "Mary had a little lamb", because it does not, exactly, fit the
> target set by the experimenter, is fraudulent.
>

No.

Since the experiment doesn't define fitness as "any proper English
sentence". By the same logic it shouldn't discard sentences that are
proper German, reverse French, binary xor'ed Swahili or palindroms.

They simply aren't in the set of "whatever works" in the abstract world
of the weasel programs. Here, "whatever works" just happens to be one
sentence.

Martin Andersen

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 11:50:44 AM4/22/09
to
Because we are equipped with a greater capacity for cultural inheritance
brought about by natural selection and chance, enabling us to expand on
the knowledge of past generations.

Next.

wf3h

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 12:20:34 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 8:58 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> themselves and society mentally ill in the process.

natural selection does not have a 'purpose'. to creationists, who see
teleology literally under every rock, such an idea is
incomprehensible. their whole worldview is built on teleology. god's
purpose lives in every atom, every ant, every star he 'created'. thus
no natural laws are needed at all. and that's why creationism made NO
progress in explaining nature for 2000 years. it's why no scientists
use creationism.

natural selection is testable. that's why it's scientific. it can be
evaluted in the lab.

creationism, because it's inevitably wed to teleology, can not reason
its way out of a wet paper bag. it comes to the table trying to prove
what it takes as a premise. that's why it fails. that's why it's
useless. its major premise is wrong. all the rest is commentary.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 1:14:45 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 8:58 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
'purposeless' or 'purpose.' As you've been shown 'random selection' s
used all of the time. Go take a statistics course.

Damaeus

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 12:19:17 PM4/22/09
to
Reading from news:talk.origins,
Martin Andersen <d...@ikke.nu> posted:

Yes, the obvious, of course. And as that knowledge and culture built up
around us, it resulted in our ability to absorb the knowledge and wisdom
recorded by past generations instead of having to figure it out ourselves.

If immortality is in our future, I think the evidence clearly shows that
humans will attain this state before gorillas and chimps do.

Damaeus

backspace

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 2:32:00 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.

> natural selection is testable. that's why it's scientific. it can be
> evaluted in the lab.

Prof. Fodor who wrote the article "Why pigs don't have wings" asked
the following:
"....What then is the intended meaning of a natural selection? The
question is wide open as of this writing...."
What was wrong with the article is that he assumed DArwin used natural
selection as an effect, while darwin invoked it as a cause. Bob if
Fodor doesn't know what a natural selection is how do you?

backspace

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 2:33:31 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 7:14 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.

> Nether the word 'random' nor 'selection' are even close the the words
> 'purposeless' or 'purpose.' As you've been shown 'random selection' s
> used all of the time. Go take a statistics course.

What does random mean?

Occidental

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 2:58:35 PM4/22/09
to

"Statistical randomness, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A numeric sequence is said to be statistically random when it contains
no recognizable patterns or regularities; sequences such as the
results of an ideal die roll, or the digits of π exhibit statistical
randomness."

At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
simulates biological descent. Do you understand how this process
works, ie could you implement it yourself in an easy-to-use
programming language? Or explain to a programmer how he should do it?

wf3h

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 4:03:16 PM4/22/09
to

i don't care what he does or doesn't know. it's irrelevant.

i know what natural selection is because evolutionary biologists have
been very competent in explaining to this chemist:

1. what the mechanism of natural selection is
2. how it is tested
3. what the results are

scientists do that. it's how we work

now, then, when you can do the same for CREATIONISM, by all means, do
so. so far in 2000 years you guys have failed.


backspace

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 4:32:46 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 10:03 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:32 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 6:20 pm, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
>
> > > natural selection is testable. that's why it's scientific. it can be
> > > evaluted in the lab.
>
> > Prof. Fodor who wrote the article "Why pigs don't have wings" asked
> > the following:
> > "....What then is the intended meaning of a natural selection? The
> > question is wide open as of this writing...."
> > What was wrong with the article is that he assumed DArwin used natural
> > selection as an effect, while darwin invoked it as a cause. Bob if
> > Fodor  doesn't know what a natural selection is how do you?
>
> i don't care what he does or doesn't know. it's irrelevant.
>
> i know what natural selection is because evolutionary biologists have
> been very competent in explaining to this chemist:
>
> 1. what the mechanism of natural selection is
What is the mechanism for what process?

> 2. how it is tested
What is tested?

> 3. what the results are
What are the results ?

backspace

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 4:59:06 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 11:24 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We could use selection as follows:
> After the storm there was a selection of rocks left on the mountain.
> -  no intent.  --- (Example A)
> After the mountain climbers arranged a selection of rocks they made a
> fire  -  intent.  -- (Example B)

> The confusion over the weasel program is because it isn't clear what
> the intent is with the words random and selection as used by all
> participants in the debate and the oxymoron that is formed with
> "random selection" - there is no such as a random selection if we use
> the word *selection* in the context of (Example B).

But if "selection" is used in the context of Example A then "random
selection" is a tautology because a tautology is also defined as
*double speak* , it would be "random non-intent", random implies non-
intent. Thus I motivate why we in technical formal discussions must
always use "selection" to imply motive, volition and intent.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 6:03:37 PM4/22/09
to

No, its not a tautology because *selection* is not *synonymous* with
"non-intent."

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 6:58:26 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 2:33 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/random

Notice that it uses 'random selection' as an example.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 7:00:53 PM4/22/09
to

Remember? I already posted an example outlining this and you still
haven't addressed the genetics:

Example: I predict that if a given environment changes to a
significant degree (I would have to operationalize that bit as well as
some others) that genes within a given population of organisms that
give them an advantage in reproduction will spread throughout the
population (e.g. a gene for smaller beak size to deal better with
smaller seeds as seen with the finch example below). This can easily
be refuted if the observations do not match the hypothesis (i.e. if
the population remains in a state of genetic stasis despite
environmental change and if it has no affect on reproduction).

It has though been observed in real time in populations of bacteria
(e.g. antibiotic resistance, and citrase production in E. coli) as
well as in larger creatures such as Darwin's Finches. You can view
examples such as these and see that the hypothesis is correct:
https://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/
http://www.livescience.com/animals/060713_darwin_finch.html

What you need to do is conduct your own experiments and come up with
results that refute this or refute the observations of others. Your
word games (or really your inability to understand words) are not
enough. That is how we do science, bitch.

wf3h

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 7:11:33 PM4/22/09
to

differential reproduction through natural selection

> 2. how it is tested
> What is tested?

differential reproduction through natural selection


> > 3. what the results are
>

> What are the results ?-

the results show environmental factors can cause changes in
populations with time

now, then...after 2000 years...where's the similar results from
creationism

BUT...i KNOW this is the LAST i will hear from YOU.....creationists
NEVER answer questions..

bye bye!!

wf3h

unread,
Apr 22, 2009, 7:12:28 PM4/22/09
to
On Apr 22, 4:59 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

doublespeak is something like 'god did it is science'... AKA
creationism...

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 2:04:55 AM4/23/09
to

Pragmatics overrides semantics.

richar...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 2:28:52 AM4/23/09
to
On Apr 21, 2:15 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program
>
> ".....The example is staged to produce a string of gibberish letters,
> assuming that the selection of each letter in a sequence of 28
> characters will be random....."
>
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that a selection at random was
> done, in the same way that if a person scrambling marbles in a bag and
> taking one does a selection at random?

Ah, more word games.

RS

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 3:33:55 AM4/23/09
to
On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> themselves and society mentally ill in the process.

"....It was only meant to demonstrate the power of cumulative


selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete
unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys
pounding on typewriters".........."

In what context is Dawkins using "cumulative" - A or B?
A) There was an accumulation of sand over time on the mountain
B) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen.

If A then "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
light can be green and red at the same time.
If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
proposition ,hence a fallacy.

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 4:47:56 AM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 1:11 am, wf3h <w...@vsswireless.net> wrote:
> > > 3. what the results are

> > What are the results ?-

> the results show environmental factors can cause changes in
> populations with time

The environment doesn't cause anything, organisms respond to the
environment, you are confusing the cause with the effect.

wf3h

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 6:32:41 AM4/23/09
to
> Pragmatics overrides semantics.-

and science overrides creationism. that's why creationism is believed
only by preachers and lawyers

wf3h

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 6:32:03 AM4/23/09
to

a response is called an 'effect'.

you're confused because you're a creationist and it's finally dawning
on you how useless your ideas really are.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 9:40:22 AM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 4:47 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

The environment causes all sorts of things.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 9:39:53 AM4/23/09
to

Even if that were true, it does not apply in this case as those words
are never synonymous. Ever. You can't make up private definitions of
words. Get a dictionary.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 9:58:07 AM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 3:33 am, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 22, 2:58 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The way 'random selection' is used in the weasel article it amounts to
> > "purposeless purpose" which are two terms which means the antonym of
> > the other forming an oxymoron. You are thus trying to believe two
> > contradictory concepts at the same time like somebody who stops at a
> > traffic light believes that the robot can be both red and green at the
> > same time. Darwinists, YEC and ID fail to understand this making
> > themselves and society mentally ill in the process.
>
> "....It was only meant to demonstrate the power of cumulative
> selection as compared to random selection, and show the complete
> unrealism of the popular notion of natural selection as "monkeys
> pounding on typewriters".........."
>
> In what context is Dawkins using "cumulative" - A or B?
> A) There was an accumulation of sand over time on the mountain
> B) There was an accumulation of fish by the fishermen.

Either one will do as they're the same word which basically means
"growth by addition."

> If A then  "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
> light can be green and red at the same time.

No one one said anything about purpose.

> If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
> proposition ,hence a fallacy.

Again, no one said anything about purpose. You have to address the
actual evidence, not the words used to describe the evidence. In this
case you should describe the actual program and what it does and then
explain why you seem to think its wrong. This should be done without
reverting to sophomoric word games.

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 1:16:22 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 3:58 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If A then  "purposeless purpose" which is like believing a traffic
> > light can be green and red at the same time.
>
> No one one said anything about purpose.
>
> > If B then "purposive purpose" which is double speak and a tautological
> > proposition ,hence a fallacy.

> Again, no one said anything about purpose. You have to address the
> actual evidence, not the words used to describe the evidence. In this
> case you should describe the actual program and what it does and then
> explain why you seem to think its wrong. This should be done without
> reverting to sophomoric word games.

The weasel program is being addressed by these thought experiments. I
am asking you to reverse the whole thing instead of simulating with a
computer "me thinks ....." rather take the computer program as written
in C and simulate it with a number or bags each marked M , E, T, H
etc... in physical space and not computer space. Inside the bag are
ten marbles with only one marked M, E, T respectively for each bag.
Then do a "selection at random" or probability selection by placing
your hand inside and scrambling the marbles. This whole thought
experiment is being confused because people are insisting on using a
computer to do it. Things are much more clarified if done in real life
by rather simulating what the C , Pascal or Python program is doing.

You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
colloquial expressions.

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 1:20:30 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 3:39 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > No, its not a tautology because *selection* is not *synonymous* with
> > > "non-intent."
>
> > Pragmatics overrides semantics.
>
> Even if that were true, it does not apply in this case as those words
> are never synonymous. Ever. You can't make up private definitions of
> words. Get a dictionary.

I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never ever means
AGape, in English what does Love mean?

Occidental

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 2:10:44 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 1:16 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The weasel program is being addressed by these thought experiments.  I
> am asking you to reverse the whole thing instead of simulating with a
> computer "me thinks ....." rather take the computer program as written
> in C and simulate it with  a number or bags each marked M , E, T, H
> etc... in physical space and not computer space.  Inside the bag are
> ten marbles with only one marked M, E, T respectively for each bag.
> Then do a "selection at random" or probability selection by placing
> your hand  inside and scrambling the marbles. This whole thought
> experiment is being confused because people are insisting on using a
> computer to do it. Things are much more clarified if done in real life
> by rather simulating what the C , Pascal or Python program is doing.

If this is a clarification I dread to think what an obfuscation would
look like.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 2:40:59 PM4/23/09
to

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love

Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics. All languages have
these "loophole" that you speak of, that is, we all use metaphor.
Especially when we are unaware of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_metaphor
http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/deadmetterm.htm

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 2:47:47 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 1:16 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I have no idea why you think this would be helpful. If we did it by
hand we would similar results. Thats obvious.

> You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
> random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
> colloquial expressions.

All three of those things are synonymous (or more accurately a
"selection at random" and "random selection" are subsets of
"probability selection"). Changing the word order has absolutely no
affect on the intended meaning. They both mean that 1) there is no
pattern in regards to the outcome of the selection and 2) we cannot
predict the next selection in the sequence. "Random selection" is not
a colloquial expression. If it were I don't think it would be the most
often used term when discussing statistics, do you? I've never heard
anyone say 'selection at random' when discussing it in a technical
sense. It is you who seems to prefer the more colloquial "selection at
random."

Garamond Lethe

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 3:47:31 PM4/23/09
to
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:47:56 -0700, backspace wrote:

<snip>

> The environment doesn't cause anything, organisms respond to the
> environment, you are confusing the cause with the effect.

That's as close to perfect as I can reasonably expect to see here.

Clause 1: Nonsensical statement.
Clause 2: Inadvertent refutation of nonsensical statement.
Clause 3: Source of confusion correctly identified but misattributed.

At their best, most creationists here can rarely sustain one error per
sentence. You're not breaking a sweat while managing one error per
clause. You truly are a testament to what years of dedication to not-
reading and not-thinking can accomplish.

Well done, sir.

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 3:57:01 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 8:10 pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
> If this is a clarification I dread to think what an obfuscation would
> look like.

Here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/6b0e8115f3403f97/55b9a0f851b124f4?rnum=81&_done=%2Fgroup%2Ftalk.origins%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F6b0e8115f3403f97%2Fd42fd3b46a76b800%3Flnk%3Dst%26q%3D%26#doc_f397ce6afa888075


Harshman and I had a discussion about the same issue:

backspace wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift
> "...It contrasts with the evolutionary mechanism, natural selection, a
> non-random selection process in which the tendency of alleles to
> become more or less widespread in a population over time is due to the
> alleles' effects on adaptive and reproductive success..."

> What would a random selection process look like?

Harshman replies:
Put a bunch of marbles in a bag. Pick one out without looking at it.
That's a random selection. Or watch them pick the lotto numbers on TV
some time. Same thing.

Now put a bunch of marbles in a bag, some black, some white. Take one
out at random. If it's white, crush it with a hammer. If it's black,
put
it back and add another black marble to the bag too. How long before
all
the marbles are black?

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 4:03:02 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 8:47 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > You can't call the "probability selection" or "selection at random" a
> > random selection, because we are dealing with exact terms not
> > colloquial expressions.

> All three of those things are synonymous (or more accurately a
> "selection at random" and "random selection" are subsets of
> "probability selection"). Changing the word order has absolutely no
> affect on the intended meaning.

> 1) there is no pattern in regards to the outcome of the selection
There is no pattern in regards to the conscious act of making a
probability sample.

backspace

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 4:10:07 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 8:40 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
> > as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
> > because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
> > overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never  ever means
> > AGape, in English what does Love mean?
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
>
> Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics.
Nope, in order:
1) Alphabet - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
2) Grammar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
3) Semantics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
4) Pragmatics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics
5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
YEC agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.


# DNA Language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons - letters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome - words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon - sentences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon - paragraphs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome - chapters

Occidental

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 4:42:01 PM4/23/09
to
> On Apr 23, 8:10 pm, Occidental <Occiden...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > If this is a clarification I dread to think what an obfuscation would
> > look like.

On Apr 23, 3:57 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Herehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/tree/browse_frm/thread/6b...


>
> Harshman and I had a discussion about the same issue:

At a certain point in the execution of the Weasel algorithm, the more
successful strings "give birth" to offspring strings by a process that
simulates biological descent - each offspring is similar to the parent
but differs at one or more positions.

Suppose, at a certain point in the process, a given parent string is
(borrowing from wikipedia)

MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL

This string will get a score of 20 out of 28 because it differs from
the target (METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL) at 8 places. How would you
form an offspring string from this string? Clue - you don't use 28 or
whatever bags of balls.

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 5:28:20 PM4/23/09
to

Pardon?

Dr. Acula

unread,
Apr 23, 2009, 5:27:14 PM4/23/09
to
On Apr 23, 3:10 pm, backspace <Stephan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 8:40 pm, "Dr. Acula" <jerryd...@gmail.com> wrote:> > I think we are having our lines crossed : For the record "selection"
> > > as used in 99% of cases means "intent" at the semantic level. But
> > > because of the loopholes in English , we insist that pragmatics always
> > > overrides semantics, this isn't Greek. In Greek Eros never  ever means
> > > AGape, in English what does Love mean?
>
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love
>
> > Pragmatics is actually a subunit of semantics.
>
> Nope, in order:
> 1) Alphabet -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabet
> 2) Grammar -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar
> 3) Semantics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
> 4) Pragmatics -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

> 5) World view, agenda, belief system. I am YEC with a fundamentalist
> YEC  agenda. From this perspective I view the world. Other are Atheist
> believing their mind consists of illusions, inventing their own
> realities and thus we can't believe a word they say.
>
> # DNA Languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide, characters.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codons- lettershttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome- wordshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operon- sentenceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulon- paragraphshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome- chapters

Just pretend I marked everything you said down as wrong. I don't have
time to deal with each aspect of your insanity.