Patrick [331], no. As Patrick May dmonstrates in the blog to which kairosfocus objects, a person using Dawkins’s text as a guide to coding would arrive at a version without.

Did I not say just that?

“Or if the program is 100% recreated and then analyzed with various runtime parameters.”

Learn to read carefully before you respond.

Also, as I have pointed out for some time, the examples of iterations in the text are nonrandom: they are heavily biased, being selected from among the progeny.

That is the source of the problem. Dawkin’s unwitting mistake has led others into error. An error that has been noticed and dealt with, but people like you seem to have trouble realizing that.

In any case, this thread is degenerating into a mud-slinging contest so I’m ending it.

Kairos, be a gem and focus.

Re 344 on:

There is a successor thread, which answers to new objections.

In particular the idea that the observed latching on the o/p of Weasel circa 1986 is not real, has been long since addressed in terms not only of the fact that we have a more than adequate sample and direct statements by Mr Dawkins on the matter, bit also that we provided two possible mechanisms, with sufficiently detailed explanations. Onlookers, simply scroll up to the original post above and count: of 300+ places where letters could change, 200+ — well beyond where the law of large numbers weighs in on the likely representativeness of a sample — show letters that once they go correct remain so. A dominant feature of the Weasel o/p circa 1986, and which Mr Dawkins made clear reference to, lwayering over emanations of penumbras of the text notwithstanding.

With zero exceptions.

On preponderance of evidence, Weasel circa 1986 latches implicitly off per letter mutation rates interacting with per generation population size and most importantly a selection filter that rewards mere proximity in the teeth of non-functionality. Circa 1987, Weasel was evidently detuned so that we see a different pattern of behaviour: multiple reversions that occur fairly frequently.

This and other successive variations and versions of Weasel and neo-Weasels should not be confused with the issue that was raised in an agenda-serving, originally threadjacking attempt to discredit those who pointed out the obvious fact of o/p latching of Weasel circa 1986. (That was brought up in a thread that was discussing the pervasive problem of Cliffordian evidentialist form selective hyperskepticism, which continues to be a central intellectual challenge that the evolutionary materialists seem to have. Complete with shoals of red herrings led out to ad hominem- soaked strawmen, ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere for discussion that might lead to inconvenient truth.)

Going all the way back to December last, it is that proximity – without- functionality filter that has been highlighted as utterly gutting Weasel of any proper didactic or illustrative credibility. Weasel always has been, a rhetorical exercise in question-begging and misdirection. That is why it has always been controversial, bland declarations to the contrary notwithstanding.

This can be seen both from what GLF cited adn twisted yet again from 111 in the December thread, and from what he did not cite from 107, e.g.:

[107:] the problem with the fitness landscape is that it is flooded by a vast sea of non-function, and the islands of function are far separated one from the other. So far in fact — as I discuss in the linked in enough details to show why I say that — that searches on the order of the quantum state capacity of our observed universe are hopelessly inadequate. Once you get to the shores of an island, you can climb away all you want using RV + NS as a hill climber or whatever model suits your fancy.

But you have to get TO the shores first. THAT is the real, and too often utterly unaddressed or brushed aside, challenge.

[111, excerpted paragraph used by GLF in his threadjack:] Weasel sets a target sentence [check] then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials [just look at the o/p above in the original post to see that; the issue is not what but how] until the full target is met [cf Dawkins, 1986, Ch 3 TBW: “The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the ‘progeny’ of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.”]. That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.

As to GLF’s infamous $100k offer, it was plainly never a serious offer, and was clearly only intended to serve as a gambit on which he hoped to boast that no-one could take him up. In that, he has been sadly exposed for the hollowness of the rhetoric involved. As can be abundantly seen here and in the previous thread.

As to the recycling of long since adequately answered objections [apparently an evolutionary materialist advocacy strategy on the ID movement; probably on the idea that an often repeated claim, even if unwarranted, may often be perceived as true], you can simply scroll up and see how the cycle of selective hyperskepticism has played out over and over again.

In short, more than enough has been said, many times over, for any reasonable person to see that Weasel is not legitimate, and has never been, regardless of the issue of “latching.” On this secondary issue, it is plain that Weasel 1986 latches and that we have a reasonable mechanism — or two — to account for that.

On either explanation [explicit or implicit], the latching points straight back to the core problem: Weasel is targetted, foresighted, designed, active information based search, not a reasonable analogue of any BLIND watchmaker, especially the much vaunted natural selection.

GEM of TKI

PS: Onlookers will also observe that to date, there has been no responsible accountability over violation of my privacy, or over gleefully citing an abusive dismissal of me in the Jamaican media that the newspaper in question had to publish a corrective over. Note as well, that dismissal was in service tot he blood slander of plastering Evangelical Christians with the terrorism of IslamIST radicals, and to thereby enable public lewdness for profit (with amateur night also horrendously in play, including corruption of minors).

The program gives a simple demonstration of the process which Darwin termed “Descent with modification” and with which all animal breeders are familiar.

It’s a simple filter with two components. Firstly variation is generated: Dawkins chooses a copying algorithm that randomly introduces “mutations”–imperfections–into the copy. Secondly a selection is made: Dawkins uses a predefined target and a simple distance metric suited to the search domain to select the “most fit” copy from which to make the next generation. Anyone who has bred pigeons, dogs or other animals for show where published breed standards apply will recognise the technique.

Not surprisingly, the simple filter converges quickly on the target, just as competitive breeding of animals produce examples of an animal that match the parameters of the breed remarkably faithfully.

Notice that I haven’t referred to natural selection anywhere here. The point is that variation exists in nature and can be selected. This was already well established–had been known by breeders for centuries–before Darwin was born.

The example doesn’t demonstrate natural selection because it isn’t intended to do so. It is as applicable to demonstrating the mechanism by which domesticated animals are bred as to anything else.

I don’t know why intelligent design advocates would have any problem with this. The Weasel Program demonstrates nothing remotely controversial and does so in a simple and straightforward way that is difficult to misunderstand.

And, onlookers, note how there has been a silence on the point that there is such a thing as the law of large numbers, which makes the o/p’s of 1986 credibly good sampling data on the latching of the 1986 o/ps as published.

Wesley Elsberry has made argued that the law of large numbers works against you. You have not responded to mathematical argument on its merits.

You will search above in vain for a retraction on the former loudly announced claims that the published samples in question were too small to be likely to be truly representative of the o/p.

I have pointed out that the data are highly non-representative because they are the products of a large selection bias (the best sampple from each generation provided). This was obvious from the text of TBW.

Likewise, you will search in vain for the apology or correction of violation of my privacy.

The only person who keeps talking about your name at UD is you. I have mentioned that spam does not go to a proper name but to an email, so your claim of more spam from your proper name being put on another board is spurious. As far as AtBC, that’s not my board. I’m not going to ask them to change a policy that has nothing to do with me.

Not to mention, for the explanation of why a denunciation and rhetorical dismissal of me by name by someone indulging in blood slander against Christians

The person in question was responding to something that you signed and published. There was no “blood slander.” There was a claim about the evangelical community that is subject to dispute.

and associated enabling behaviour for lewdness in public in the Jamaican media [and for which the newspaper in question was forced to publish a corrective; though they damage controlled even that . . . ], was latched on to and trumpeted, here and at Anti Evo.

That’s a non-issue for me.

David

Hazel, do you see why I HAVE to treat this as a rhetorically loaded context, not a quiet collegial afternoon exchange over sipped cups of tea in a Departmental Seminar Room?

KF, I used to think you were one of the most decent, gentlemanly participants here, but your behavior has gone beyond the ridiculous on this topic.

The only reason you won’t answer Hazel’s simple, non-loaded question is because you are constitutionally incapable of admitting even the slightest error. It is painfully clear that your claims of explicit latching are unfounded. Rather than admit this rather minor mistake, you spew copious amounts of unrelated verbiage in an attempt to distract from that core, essential, point and treat polite correspondents like Hazel rudely.

I expected better of you.

JJ

I take it you aren’t going to answer my question.

You seem a little slow, Hazel. Over how many weeks, across multiple threads, has KF circumlocuted questions regarding latching? Sure, he inserts a few “quasis” and “implicits”, but at this point it is safe to assume he isn’t going to be painted into a corner over the issue of Weasel’s latching. When it become obvious even to a relatively uneducated onlooker like myself, I think the point has been made. Persisting further is only gilding the lily. Or perhaps gilding the shadow of the lily on the wall of Plato’s Cave.

You said

Weasel sets a target sentence then once a letter is guessed it preserves it for future iterations of trials until the full target is met. That means it rewards partial but non-functional success, and is foresighted. Targetted search, not a proper RV + NS model.

Concentrate on the first sentence. I include the second as your usual response here is to accuse me of quotemining. The second sentence is irrelevent at the moment.
Now you say:

Recall, onlookers: all of this back-forth over latching etc is in light of a rhetorically very loaded context, GLF’s attempt to discredit the undersigned by raising a distractive point on a thread on the self-referentially absurd implications of selective hyperskepticism.

No, it is you who have attempted to distract with your “hoylian challenge, islands of functionality etc” strawmen.

The issue is quite clear.

I offered $100,000 if you could provide a quote from Richard Dawkins that backed up your original position.

You have not been able to do so.

You will search above in vain for a retraction on the former loudly announced claims that the published samples in question were too small to be likely to be truly representative of the o/p.

You did not response to my question at the time. You claim that 200 out of 300 sample points that show no reverting proves your point.

I asked you at the time – what was the total population of letters? It was not 300 was it?

You ignore relevant questions and then claim victory? You ignore the fact that people are talking about this exact issue in mathmatical terms and yet proclaim you are right, and it’s been proven?

Here
http://tinyurl.com/cytao2
The probablity of candidate changing a parent’s correct base to an incorrect base is discussed.

If you are so sure you are right, why not prove it with maths? Who could argue with that?

the explicitly latched version of the program is directly and strongly supported by the statements and o/p excerpts published in 1986.

This is simply untrue, as has been documented in detail. Simply ignoring when people point it out does not advance your case.

Why have you ignored so many questions addressed to you?

This is therefore what is relevant: is there evidence that explicit latching is a reasonable interpretation of Mr Dawkins’ description and published o/p at that time?

Quite right. And Richard Dawkins has said that he did not use latching, that latching would have been against the point he was trying to make and he did not even consider using latching.

Therefore your interpretation is incorrect.

Accept it. And then tell me how you intend to pay me my $100,000 for winning our bet.