Avida in Discover Magazine

How delicious:  creationism, slain by an example of evolution which can be demonstrated convincingly by anyone who can play the Sims.  It won't be long (in generational terms) before there is nothing left of it.

The real problem for the supporters of creationism is that they need the origin tale as one of the supports of their traditions and morality.  Problem for them and us is that the morality may be justifiable even if the creation myth is bogus.  It would be a pity to lose that baby with the bathwater.

Perhaps it's time to work on evolutionary models of morality.

I had a Thumb posting on the Avida simulations here last year. It ain't a bad introduction, if I do say it meself.

RBH

The Avida team makes their software freely available on the Internet, and creationists have downloaded it over and over again in hopes of finding a fatal flaw. While they've uncovered a few minor glitches, Ofria says they have yet to find anything serious. "We literally have an army of thousands of unpaid bug testers," he says. "What more could you want?"

— Carl Zimmer

First came the astronomers observing the motions of the heavenly bodies and collecting data. Secondly came the mathematicians inventing mathematical notation to describe the motions and fit the data. Thirdly came the technicians making mechanical models to simulate those mathematical constructions. Fourthly came generations of students who learned their astronomy from these machines. Fifthly came scientists whose imagination had been so blinkered by generations of such learning that they actually believed that this was how the heavens worked. Sixthly came the authorities who insisted upon the, received dogma. And so the human race was fooled into accepting the Ptolemaic System for a thousand years.

— Christopher Zeeman quoted by Ian Stewart in

Charlie, Charlie, Charlie. Has it ever occurred to you that your 'argument' could benefit from some... uh ... logic or supporting evidence. In fact Avida contains many of the essential aspects of evolution such as limited resources, fitness, variation.
Until you familiarize yourself with evolutionary theory, please try to refrain from sounding a bit silly.
Most creationists who oppose Avida, try to reject it on far better 'reasons' that Charlie. Come on Charlie, provide at least a challenging review of the article and Avida beyond your usual rejection without much reasoning?

'it stands to reason', 'it seems self evident', 'it just seems so incredibly simple to me' do not bode well in any discussion.

Sigh... If your next posting does not clean up its act, it will be removed to a more fitting place on the bathroom wall of PT.

Charlie,

"It seems self-evident to me, and it should to all other observers that living organisms are far more technologically advanced and organized than any machine that humans can build. It stands to reason that an intelligence greater than human intelligence was required to construct them."

You seem like a scratched record stuck in a time warp. Over and over, you offer the same unsupported opinion and demand that others bow to your incredulity - or is it arrogance.

What seems self-evident to you obviously doesn't seem self-evident to most of the rest of us. It does not stand to reason that "an intelligence greater than human intelligence was required to construct them."

I tried to explain to you at least once before that Nelson's Law proves that humans designed biological organisms. You still haven't accepted that.

Pulling the plug on Avida certainly places this evolutionary simulation in a thermodynamically unfavorable position.

The most well-known intersection of evolutionary biology with computer science is the genetic algorithm or its many variants (genetic programming, evolutionary strategies, and so on). All these variants boil down to the same basic recipe: (1) create random potential solutions, (2) evaluate each solution assigning it a fitness value to represent its quality, (3) select a subset of solutions using fitness as a key criterion, (4) vary these solutions by making random changes or recombining portions of them, (5) repeat from step 2 until you find a solution that is sufficiently good.

Jeff: First learn what evolution is, then learn how Avida works. That should answer your question.

Pim: Sysiphus is an old legend. Over time it has been distorted and altered. For instance, in the version we have, it says he was condemned to push a boulder up a hill for eternity. But in the original, it said he was condemned to explain evolution to Charlie Wagner. Basically the same thing.

It seems self-evident to me, and it should to all other observers that living organisms are far more technologically advanced and organized than any machine that humans can build. It stands to reason that an intelligence greater than human intelligence was required to construct them.

It seems self-evident to me, and it should to all other observers that living organisms are far more technologically advanced and organized than any machine that humans can build.

— Charlie Wagner

Charlie said:

"It seems self-evident to me, and it should to all other observers that living organisms are far more technologically advanced and organized than any machine that humans can build."

Please elaborate on exactly what these "technologically advanced" structures within organisms are. I mean, how are you defining "technology" here? Don't you need to prove they *are* technologically advanced, or a form of technology, in order to point out where they're advanced?

Also, "It seems self-evident to me, and it should to all other observers"

- ah, the mating cry of the wandering martyrbird. "I can see it, why can't anyone else?"

Please elaborate on exactly what these "technologically advanced" structures within organisms are. I mean, how are you defining "technology" here? Don't you need to prove they *are* technologically advanced, or a form of technology, in order to point out where they're advanced?

— Marcus Good

- ah, the mating cry of the wandering martyrbird. "I can see it, why can't anyone else?"

...so, why not refute some of the mountain of evidence? "I think..." doesn't cut it.

. . . so, why not refute some of the mountain of evidence? "I think . . . " doesn't cut it.

— ThisisPainful

Are you saying that picture shows explicit evidence that grass was specially created? Go to talkorigins.org, pick something, and lets discuss your misunderstandings about life.

Are you saying that picture shows explicit evidence that grass was specially created?

— ThisisPainful

Go to talkorigins.org, pick something, and lets discuss your misunderstandings about life.

We make random mutations and then intelligently select those that fit what we're looking for.

— Jeff

The program is intelligently selecting those progams that are more fit according to its fitness value. So, of course, we end up with programs that fulfill exactly what we were looking for. This is like generating programs that produce a random colors and then selecting those programs that generate only blue, and then we turn around and are amazed that we have programs that produce only blue. How exactly does this support evolution?

— Jeff

Charlie. other than mumbling 'it appears to me that', 'it seems self evident that' has failed to address the issues here. In the thousands of postings on TO, Charlie has not fared much better either.

— Pim

Computer simulation models of evolution are not valid because there is no way to demonstrate that they model what actually happens in nature. They only model your belief about what happens in nature. So trying to find 'flaws' is useless because the simulation is not being judged against what actually is happening, it's being judged against your belief in what's happening, which can always be 'adjusted' to compensate for any problems.

The evolutionary mechanism of mutation and natural selection has not been established as the mechanism of evolution.

FIrst of all we know that mutations happen and that natural selection happen so the next step is to figure out if these mechanisms are of any importance/relevance.

— Pim

Mutations and natural selection do occur and the goal of evolutionary science is to prove that these effects can result in the emergence of highly organized structures, like the eye and processes like the biochemical pathways in vision, and integrate these into functional, living systems without the help of intelligent input. Therefore, I'm not opposed to using these simulations because I think they can prove that this is not what happens in nature.

— Charlie

1) is Avida capable of demonstrating that unguided processes of mutation and natural selection can result in greater organization? and 2) has this been accomplished?

Mutations and natural selection do occur and the goal of evolutionary science is to prove that these effects can result in the emergence of highly organized structures, like the eye and processes like the biochemical pathways in vision, and integrate these into functional, living systems without the help of intelligent input.

— Charlie

When evolution skeptics want to attack Darwin's theory, they often point to the human eye. How could something so complex, they argue, have developed through random mutations and natural selection, even over millions of years? read more Here

We describe and investigate the learning capabilities displayed by a population of self-replicating segments of computer code subject to random mutation: the tierra environment. We find that learning is achieved through phase transitions that adapt the population to the environment it encounters, with a learning rate characterized by external parameters such as mutation rate and population size. Our results suggest that most effective learning is achieved close to the transition to disorder, and that learning curves of evolutionary systems are fractal.

So you can cope with increased complexity and increased information, but not increased organisation? How do you deal with snowflakes then?

Charlie, even if you don't accept that it's a valid simulation of nature, Avida shows that an entirely algorithmic process of mutation, reproduction and selection can evolve "irreducibly complex" operations from simple commands. Given that the central, indeed only, substantial claim of ID is that irreducibly complex things can't evolve, but must be created fully formed, do you not think that is relevant? And bringing the discussion back to nature simulation, if a system based solely on mutation and selection can create such remarkably "lifelike" products as diversity, complexity, punctuated equilibrium

As I was saying:

... (in Dennett's synthesis-compatible sense), does this not provide at least circumstantial evidence that a similar process might cause such features in nature?

Charlie,

Isn't a logical conclusion of ID that something must have created the intelligence that created us? And so on?

Further, you stated:

> and they can never be a representation of the real world because there may be factors at work of which we are unaware.

This may be true but surely the same argument can be applied to so-called irreducible complexity. As the demolishing of the mousetrap example has shown, just because you cannot conceive something doesn't mean that it cannot be conceived or implemented. The factors of which "we are unaware" might, quite literally, be factors of which the ID people are unaware because they are seeking evidence for what is, to them, a foregone conclusion.

Put differently, if we are here because invisible pink unicorns that live on Pluto created us then no simulation can ever capture that. However, to the extent that Avida has predictive power than to that extent it is a valid simulation. It is no different than using a computer to predict weather, orbits of planets or through the use of genetic algorithms to design things (circuits, antennas etc) which are not the direct result of traditional "logical" design.

Essentially ID has zero predictive power whereas evolution has - e.g., it predicts that diseases will become resistant to anti-biotics etc. Evolution is not here because it exists to make the point that God does not exist or that God did not craete us. It is here and important because it is actually a useful concept as opposed to ID.

Charlie - do you actually want medical research to proceed based on the notion that we were created and that evolution is wrong?

Fred

How does the program supports evolution? Because it is an instance of evolution with variation, selection and competition for resources and helps us understand many issues confronting us when it comes to evolution. Such as: Can evolution increase the information/complexity of the genome? The answer is yes (see Adami or Schneider). Can evolution explain irreducibly complex systems? And the answer once again is yes.

Pardon me, but I do believe these digital organisms were created by an intelligent agent called a "computer software engineer".

I'd also remind you that the universe hosting these digital organisms was also created by an intellegent agent called a "computer hardware engineer".

Let me know when you boys get some organisms going that do not require an intelligent agent to get the ball rolling in the first place.

Thanks in advance.

"Let me know when you boys get some organisms going that do not require an intelligent agent to get the ball rolling in the first place."

Spot the logical error in this sentence.

You're missing the point here, DaveScot. Although the program and computer were created by humans, the individual organisms weren't. Moreover, genetic algorithms frequently lead to solutions that are extremely hard to grasp with human understanding, as they don't follow rules we usually use when designing something (like having a hiearchy of units and tasks). This would translate into "impotent God", one who doesn't understand his creation in full, who can't predict what effects his miracles would have, and who therefore prefers to sit watching the world in wonder of its marvels.

In other words, the part of "creator" in Avida is limited to creating the universe and its rules and letting it run its course. But this is NOT contrary to evolution! An evolutionist can accept such view of his own universe (and indeed, many Christian evolutionists did), since evolution is not an universal theory - it doesn't deal with origin of life, it deals with its diversity.

Avida contradicts special creation and ID in that it shows that evolution mechanisms WORK and CAN produce complexity those theories claim it can't. It won't contradict theistic evolution or Christianity or most of reasonable religious systems.

I wonder if the little digital organisms are arguing amongst themselves whether they were created or are the result of mutation + natural selection.

Should we tell them truth?

ROFLMAO

I find it difficult to take this seriously.

Ok Marek, seriously now.

You're saying that if I offer a hypothesis that the original cell which was ancestor to all contained all the genetic information required to build all the major body plans and that, like ontogeny, phylogeny unfolded by the gradual expression (derepression) of genetic information that was already there, you wouldn't have a problem with it?

I'm sorry Marek, but neo-Darwinists DO take issue with the origin of life. The scenario I gave you above easily fits all the observed evidence of evolution much better than mutation/selection. But it begs the question of how the information was preformed in that first cell. Neo-Darwinists won't tolerate that because if the information was preformed that means anticipation and anticipation is the hallmark of intelligence.

Richard Dawkins was absolutely correct when he said that Darwin made it possible for atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. This is all about ideology, not science. Science is about the truth. Science is about following the evidence wherever it leads.

Here's just such an evolutionary hypothesis given by a guy that's had a PhD in biology for 50 years and is emeritus professor of biology at University of Vermont.

No, I'm not saying anything like that. What you propose, in essence, is a primordial organism that is more complex than anything we see in nature today. But that still won't give us the answer to question where did complexity come from.

On an aside, the scenario you propose certainly doesn't fit the evidence. The evidence point to the fact that mutation exist. Parts of genome "destined" to not become expressed until millions of years in the future would mutate beyond recognition very quickly, as nothing would keep the mutations in check.

But there is something more deeply wrong with the argument. And that is the very simple question: can simple things become more complex?
All religious explanations I've heard involve a creator with high degree of complexity. He then creates a world with lower complexity. Everything in there is neccessarily (since this the basic reason it's done) of lower complexity than creator himself.

Does this say anything about origin of complexity? No, it doesn't. If we ask about origin of the creator of designer - of course that's usually forbidden - we get three possible answers:

1. Creator rised from something with lower complexity.
In that case, why could he and not us, who are simpler?
2. Creator was created by something else, with even higher complexity.
If this goes ad infinitum, we don't know anything again.
3. Creator requires no further explanation, he simply is.
In that case, we might say the very same thing about ourselves and get a simpler explanation.

You are right in that science is about the truth. And the truth is that organisms in artifical life environments develop new information and complexity that was not given to them in any form originally. Although the designers of the programs are, in a sense of word, omniscient and omnipotent (as they can get complete information about their world, and they can control it completely), they don't have intelectual capacity to predict the behaviour of their creation - and indeed, this is one of the best reasons to try out those programs.

DaveScot,

sorry to break it to you, but you are either involutarily or intentionally misrepresenting Marek's point. He never assumed that phylogeny (either in AVIDA or in real life) comes with all the 'information' for new developments already in place. This would be a problematic assumption on several counts not related to the question of who put the information there. To name just two:
- It would make phylogeny a deterministic, easily predictable process (like, as you said, ontogeny), down to every small variation. As nobody so far can predict the exact outcome of AVIDA or real phylogeny, this would clearly be overstating the relevance of original 'input' tremendously.
- It would set a clear upper limit on the total amount of new developments possible - far below the total of possible expressions allowed by the syntax of the system in question; another feat nobody could find evidence for so far.

What Marek actually seems to have posited is, that even in an environment custom built for phylogeny to take place in, phylogeny based on generation and selection of genetic information can run in directions not planned for by anybody, thus making evolutionary theory independent of the origins of live or the universe. This is actually something Darwin himself did mention - he was just talking about development, diversification and adaptaion, not about who laid down the ground rules and how.

The knee-jerk reaction you are accusing scientists favouring neo-darwinist theories of, actually stems from the foundational axioms of science. Those people have to accept, as nobody so far has found a way to do meaningful research without them. In my own words they are:
- There is an objective reality shared by everybody.
- This reality can be explained by theories based on observation and measurement.
- Theories based on simpler concepts or already established ones are preferable to those which are not, given a similar expanatory value.
- Factors not observable or testable should not figure prominently in any theory.

The kind of information front-loading (at least in reality) you are proposing at the very least goes against the third axiom at the moment. Why on earth introduce a hypothetical super-ancestor nobody knows anything about with an unknown information payload and an unknown teleological program, as long as pretty well established and testable mechanisms like gene duplication and subsequent mutation seem to be perfectly able to generate new genes for selection to work upon? When it comes to the 'intelligence' behind this ur-being, it is even more clear cut: Nobody has a hypothesis on its nature, what defines its intelligence, the when and how of its working, and nobody seems to have a plan who to test and deduce these details - so why put it into a theory at all, as long as the critiques on better established theories have not gone beyond claims how information can only come from intelligence without backing it up with any positive experimental data or a consitent theory how these two are dependent on each other.
Even worse, if the intelligence in question is attributed features, that would make it per se un-testable, it falls under the even more rigid rejection by the fourth axiom.
To mistake this reluctance of introducing non-observable factors into science for rejection of any philosophical, metaphysical or ethical world-view means misrepresenting the nature of science in a dangerously dogmatic way. That some prominent scientists have commited this fallacy repeatedly and publicly, does not make you doing so any more correct or helpful.

Your words are wise, jonas :-) And yes, that's what I was saying - scientific theories still didn't say their last word about the origin of life, but evolution works on life no matter where it came from. It's the same principle as why a geologist doesn't need a theory of origin of Earth in order to explain many of its features. There are (no doubts) questions in theory of evolution that will require us to know more about the origin of life before they can be answered - but not all questions, not at least.

Ontogeny is predictable? HAR HAR HAR

Only after you watch it happen is it predictable.

What part of the genome codes for instinctual behavior like a newborn baby's rooting response or its ability to coordinate God only knows how many muscles to nurse and swallow or the autonomic work done by the rest of the digestive tract to get mommy's milk where it needs to go? How would you go about predicting that without first seeing it? Nobody has a clue.

Point mutation exists, sure. That it accumulates to cause the emergence of new phyla is pure unadulterated speculation without a shred of real evidence. It's extrapolation most extreme. It boggles the mind how many people accept that fairy tale with blind faith. You can't even demonstrate to me that evolution of new higher taxa is even happening anymore today. I know, I know, it's too slow to observe in real time. Maybe little green men from Mars that control tectonic plate movement are too slow to observe in real time too. Gimme a break. Or rather, gimme the facts and keep the guesswork for Discover Magazine subscribers.

Ontogeny is predictable exactly as you say it - after you watch it once, ontogeny of all members of the same species is the same. Phylogeny, on the contrary, never repeats.

As for the rest...

You are absolutely right in the account that evolution of new higher taxa can't be demonstrated to you, I believe. But it says more about yourself than about the evidence. New species were SEEN to arise, for example. Saying that "emergence of new phyla is pure unadulterated speculation" just shows how desperate you are. Why such strong words? Besides, you are wrong - there is plenty of evidence for those who don't close their eyes to the reality.

You're clearly misinterpreting people for the hell of it. Ontogeny is predictable. What else are we supposed to do but observe it? If you give me a baby human I can tell you it will become an adult human. I can tell you roughly when it will reach various stages of its development, and roughly what it will look like at each stage.

Phylogeny on the other hand, such as in Avida, is not. Even if you observe a particular organism's historical evolution, there's no way of predicting what its future evolution will be. Even if you know every single parameter of the environment and all the rules of mutation and selection, there's no way of predicting how a given organism will evolve. That's what he means

There has been no empirical support for the notion that changes in gene frequency can result in the emergence of highly organized structures, processes and adaptations without the help of intelligent input...

Point mutation exists, sure. That it accumulates to cause the emergence of new phyla is pure unadulterated speculation without a shred of real evidence. It's extrapolation most extreme.

Genetic algorithms can pick stocks, design military battle plans, mine patterns from data, schedule airplane landings and assembly lines and identify transmembrane protein segments, all better than humans.

— Adam

But humans wrote the genetic algorithms. Your claim is no different than saying that computers perform mathematical operations faster and with fewer errors than human minds, so computers are superior to humans. You conveniently forget that humans built the computer. The claim that these genetic algorithms perform their magic without intelligent guidance is incorrect. Intelligent input is required at every step of the way, from writing the code to setting the parameters to evaluating the output. The intelligence is built into the GA by its human authors, just like the intelligence that creates new cells and organisms was built into the DNA by its authors.

In case you haven't noticed, Charlie, that is precisely what Avida and other genetic algorithms are intended to show.

— Adam

Now if genetic algorithms could be shown to create themselves, then you might be on to something.

The point about genetic algorithms is they prove, given the right starting conditions, that unpredictable, complex, highly efficient evolved algorithms will result. That is exactly what "neo-Darwinism" claims. Evolutionary theory explicitly lays down the necessary conditions for evolution: replication with variation and selection pressure. The whole point is that evolution is substrate neutral - if the conditions apply, in whatever context, you will have evolution. So you can equally apply a variety of evolutionary theory to memes, for example. Genetic algorithms and their evolution are dramatic empirical proof of the theory. It matters not a jot that intelligent beings set the conditions - their evolution demonstrates that the theory applies, given the conditions. Likewise for biology, it doesn't matter whether God created DNA or if it self-constructed - as long as you have a starting point of self-replicating proteins, with mutation, and selection pressure from the environment you will get evolution. It's as much a law of nature as gravity is. Now it's entirely possible that such evolutionary processes also got us from amino acids to DNA, but the point is it doesn't matter as far as explaining biodiversity goes. Given DNA, evolutionary theory explains biodiversity.

"Can any of your GA's acheive this kind of organization without any intelligent human input?"

Obviously I don't personally know if Avida has evolved a directly parallel algorithm. But it certainly has evolved highly complex functions. And I'd gladly bet you $100 that if you created a selection pressure to favour mortgage interest rate calculators, that's exactly what would evolve. Now you can call that "intelligent human input" if you want, but that's because you're asking to evolve something that does what an intelligent human wants it to do. Nature sets its own conditions, and evolution produces organisms that thrive in nature. That's the way it works.

Even Petri dishes represent intelligent "input", you know.

— RBH

Thanks Charlie. At least your comment shows that you are quick to reject experimental science as relevant. At what cost does Charlie have to reject the obvious findings by Avida... Shudder...

Avida is well designed system puproting to demonstrate design is not needed.

Thanks to RBH, one my suggested fixes is in the system source code (albeit only a comment fix). I would have suggested more, but then they'd have to ditch the entire system.

Avida presumes selection pressures to generate all these wonderful features are even available.

What may well be impossible (selection pressures to create irreducible complexity) are easy givens in Avida.

Royal Truman and I hammered away at Avida at:
Royal Truman and Salvador on Avida

a link at ARN has been renumbered pertaining to my discussion with RBH on Avida:

See :

http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/001832/p/3.html?

Salvador, a brief review of those threads indicates that you (and Royal) are seriously confused about how Avida works and about the consequences of parameter setting. RBH demonstrates that quite clearly.

Perhaps you meant these as an excerise in how solidly Avida demonstrates that the key ID objections: the impossiblity of evolving complexity are demolished?

How and especially why would one attempt to model a system that does not now and never did operate in the emergence of organic novelty (evolution)? It boggles my mind that such ventures would even be imagined, less attempted.

With respect to the entire Darwinian scheme, from its mystical beginning to its certain demise, I quote Bertrand Russell:

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."

"chance" is a mis-nomer. used in this way, it is a word to describe the fact that there are so many unknown variables at play that we can not, with our current abilities to observe, name them all and their specific impacts.

ALL science is based on "chance" -- science is the calculation of probabilities (even very precise and accurate ones) and testing to see that they fit within an acceptable margin of error.

Newton worked *most* of the time, certainly to anything that could be observed at his time and the next 300 years. but in the end he was wrong beyond a certain margin of error. Einstein is right except at a certain level of observation (the quantum level), where his calculations break down.

no scientists believes that gravity causes one to fall at precisely 32 ft/sec/sec. its certainly going to vary based on the mass of the person, their center of mass, the actual center of mass of the earth, wind resistence, the impact of falling through the magnetic field, etc.

the chances of anything falling at *precisely* 32 feet per second are almost inconceivably low, but its close enough to be *almost* unnoticeable.

and "almost" is the key. we can *almost* predict exactly how fast something should fall, but that's still an almost, a "chance". We have to choose which variables are negligable in their overall affect compared to which ones are the key. Mass of the earth is key; almost all other variables are negligable compared to that. thus, 32 works within that level of abstraction.

(to keep in this direction, try to come up with all the factors that go into throwing a proper curve ball in for a strike. its impossible. better to just look at the stats of how often a curve ball gets a strike and work in the probabilities. its less certain science than classroom exercises in pool balls demonstrating conservation of momentum, but its still science.)

So it is with biology. we can not predict or calculate or observe the affects of every single quantum-level radiation or electron impact on the DNA molecule or its predecessors. though philosophically possible, it is utterly unrealistic -- the computer/brain to manage keeping track of every free electron or neutrino in the universe would have to effectively be bigger than the universe...and itself would be affected by those very particles.

so we abstract out subsets of those variables and call them "chance".

and chances are, some of those chances won't be in the future, which is why the research continues. but we'll never be able to entirely abstract out chance, as its reflective of the underlying uncertainty that all of the sciences inherently face.

you want truth, or absolute fact, go to philosophy. I work with science...its close enough, yet infinitely more accurate.

for that matter, i still don't see how you assert that causal reactions are the underlying cause of evolution, and at the same time assert that evolution is finished (at least with regards to us) even though those same reactions that caused evolution up 'til now are still happening and will continue to happen until the end of the universe...

if i'm mis-reading, feel free to summarize and correct.

A good example of how ID proponents misunderstand Avida can be found in a recent thread at ISCID where RBH has uncovered some major problems with the arguments of Eric Anderson. Too bad the forums is all but dead and responses may be unlikely.

John, "gullible" is a term reserved for those on your side of the debate, not the "Darwinists". It's simple: put up some evidence or shut up.

the genome is 'exploring' sequence space

— PvM

So how big is this "sequence space" and how quickly can these explorers "decide" (anthropomorphism intended) decide if they've found a beneficial new sequence? I think one of the points made by Dembski??? was that this space is so incredibly large that undirected exploration of it is an exercise in futility.

1. More sequences than structures 2. Few common and many rare structures. 3. Common structures are found almost everywhere in sequence space. 4. Neutral networks of common structures extend over whole sequence space.

It's interesting that while denying intelligent design you can't help but compare the process to intelligent endeavours like exploration.

— DaveScott

The popular resurgence of the idea of intelligent design may be a side effect of the extremely productive metaphors used by science. Synopsis The discoveries of modern science have led some to reconsider whether the universe is a product of intelligent design. Hume's criticism of the design argument, directed at the machine metaphors of his time, still applies today. Although modern metaphors are more productive, they are, after all, only metaphors. Sources of the allure of intelligent design are explored. They include: (1) the nature of the scientific enterprise itself and the disparity between our ability to gain observational knowledge about phenomena and our ability to generate explanations, (2) the fact that intelligent design implies an ultimate purpose that is lacking in the materialistic explanations offered by science, and (3) the psychology of human understanding and the cognitively advantageous but epistemologically misleading tendency to engage in anthropomorphism.

PvM

I'm not at all confused when you use metaphors that anthropomorphize evolution and never hinted at confusion. I completely understand it. It's hard to describe a process driven by intelligence without anthropomorphizing. It's a dead giveaway - a Freudian slip - that reveals what you really think about evolution. I'm trying to find a way to get your conscious mind to acknowledge what your unconcious already knows to be true.

PvM

So how big is sequence space.

Your answer was about 200 words long and didn't contain a single numeric value.

When I was in Marine boot camp they taught us that if we didn't know an answer to a question the proper answer was "SIR, the private does not know the answer but the private will find the answer, SIR."

Get back to me when you get the answer and keep the dissembling for someone else.

PvM

I was skeptical of Dembski's numbers and double checked them. I question most of what I read, actually, which handily explains why I don't buy this all-powerful mutation/selection malarky that's being sold to 14 year-olds as fact when it's nothing but a large leap of faith. The bottom line remains that mutation/selection has not been observed to do anything more than make changes, mostly of scale, without producing any novel new forms. It requires faith to believe it has greater ability and that means mutation/selection is no longer a theory, it's a religion.

Common descent I don't question. Evolution I don't question. It's the all-powerful mechanism of mutation/selection I take issue with. Seems like everywhere I turn trying to match that up with the data it's questionable at best or just plain wrong. A poor fit here and there I can understand but the fit is poor everywhere except for making small scale changes in rapid fashion - fine tuning a body plan. It does that well but it doesn't do changes that add up to novel new body plans.

Copernican Principle of Mediocrity says it ain't bad for an enlightened thinker to assume that anything about the earth is special. I know genetic engineers exist on the earth. Some of them are named Steve. Therefore it is a valid assumption to think they are common elsewhere. From there it follows that design is valid option to consider. If one applies design to the first cell, and the first cell only, supposing that it contained the information required to diversify into myriad basic body plans, then all the data fits like a glove.

While this may not be true, it is certainly on equal ground with mutation/selection in every metric I can think of. Only a committed secular humanist who believes that in this vast universe mankind is the only designer. What hubris!

I was skeptical of Dembski's numbers and double checked them. I question most of what I read, actually, which handily explains why I don't buy this all-powerful mutation/selection malarky that's being sold to 14 year-olds as fact when it's nothing but a large leap of faith.

— DaveScott

The bottom line remains that mutation/selection has not been observed to do anything more than make changes, mostly of scale, without producing any novel new forms. It requires faith to believe it has greater ability and that means mutation/selection is no longer a theory, it's a religion.

Common descent I don't question. Evolution I don't question. It's the all-powerful mechanism of mutation/selection I take issue with. Seems like everywhere I turn trying to match that up with the data it's questionable at best or just plain wrong. A poor fit here and there I can understand but the fit is poor everywhere except for making small scale changes in rapid fashion - fine tuning a body plan. It does that well but it doesn't do changes that add up to novel new body plans.

On the contrary, I have addressed the validity of computer simulations many times. You want more? Here it is: Computer simulation models of evolution are not valid because there is no way to demonstrate that they model what actually happens in nature. They only model your belief about what happens in nature. So trying to find 'flaws' is useless because the simulation is not being judged against what actually is happening, it's being judged against your belief in what's happening, which can always be 'adjusted' to compensate for any problems.

— Charlie

I'm not at all confused when you use metaphors that anthropomorphize evolution and never hinted at confusion. I completely understand it. It's hard to describe a process driven by intelligence without anthropomorphizing. It's a dead giveaway - a Freudian slip - that reveals what you really think about evolution. I'm trying to find a way to get your conscious mind to acknowledge what your unconcious already knows to be true.

So how big is sequence space. Your answer was about 200 words long and didn't contain a single numeric value.

— DaveScott

Abstract. RNA secondary-structure folding algorithms predict the existence of connected networks of RNA sequences with identical secondary structures. Fitness landscapes that are based on the mapping between RNA sequence and RNA secondary structure hence have many neutral paths. A neutral walk on these fitness landscapes gives access to a virtually unlimited number of secondary structures that are a single point mutation from the neutral path. This shows that neutral evolution explores phenotype space and can play a role in adaptation

The Ether in Physics, Selection in biology and Phlogiston in chemistry constitute a beautiful demonstration of extrasensory perception since their initial letters spell out ESP. Phlogiston died in the 18th century, the Ether in the 19th and Selection, artificial or natural never existed at all except in the minds of a couple of Victorian naturalists and their thousands of devoted disciples who, for reasons I will never understand, are still with us in the 21st century.

Joe Shelby

Huxley was on the right track. Social/cultural factors are sorta right, definitely a part of the equation, but *technologic* evolution I think should be the most apt descriptor. You boys are able to move genes from plants to animals and vice versa fercrisakes by little more than point & click with a mouse on a workstation. Okay, more than that, but you get the idea, right?

Stuff that nature might do by accident in a hundred million years you can do in a good week at the office and it's directed. I keep tellin' y'all if evolution didn't have an intelligent agent mucking with it in the past it certainly has intelligent agents mucking with it now.

But just for the record, there's an overwhelming appearance that y'all weren't the first ones in the designer genes business, but if it's any consolation I believe you're the first ones in the last few billion years to intelligently interfere with the natural course of events.

In other words, yes sequence space is enormous but that is no argument against evolution. Let's for instance take a 'typical' gene of 200 aminoacids, there are 20 amino-acids thus there are 200**20 possible combinations. An enormous number.

— PvM

PvM

Let's also be clear that the IDer like Behe and myself have a problem with abiogenesis. Evolution happened, okay? Common descent gets two thumbs up, okay? The process occured over a 4.5 billion year span of time, okay? The evidence is pretty clear.

What's not at all clear is the mechanism of change. Especially problematic is the mechanism of change that "explored the sequence space" from a dead start. It's one thing to explore sequence space from a starting point of a working cell with thousands of interdependent proteins already assembled in good working order. It's a whole different problem to go to from no established working order (prebiotic soup) to the minimum set of 300 or so interdependent proteins estimated to be necessary for replication. Sequence space is being explored from scratch. Pot shots taken in the dark into an incredibly large number of possibilities. If you think that all came together by accident you are whistling in the dark.

Some neo-Darwinists then tell me "evolution doesn't speak to origins" and I say "good". Because I think the only way that evolution and common descent could have happened is if the first cell had a lot of preformed information in it. But then the lie that "evolution" doesn't speak to origins is exposed because as soon as I propose starting conditions that aren't accidental it's rejected out of hand which clearly means you boys ARE INDEED concerned with origins.

The long and the short of it is that in the shortest period of time available - the formation of the earth to the first evidence of life, is only 500 million years. So the thoughest job of mutation/selection, exploring "sequence space" from a cold start to get the 300 basic proteins required for replication, has to be accomplished in the shortest block of time.

Behe is right. I don't care for his irreducible mouse trap crap very much, that's far too simplistic and substitution of function is a good argument against such simple examples, but the biochemical evolution to get from soup to nuts is not simple and there's no substitution of function going on because at the start there are no preexisting structures to employ in novel new ways by chance.

So let us take a sentence with two hundred letters in it which because it is something with meaning out of a virtual infinity of meaninglessness is a good example of specified complexity.

I hope this helps you understand exploration of sequence space, get a better handle on how big sequence space is, what happens when you take a meaningful portion of sequence space and introduce random changes in it, and why Dembski is right.

From comment 15960, it looks like DaveScot might be the first theorist for my Intelligent Design Linguistic Theory. Give those atheist linguists hell, Dave!

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html

I hope this helps you understand exploration of sequence space, get a better handle on how big sequence space is, what happens when you take a meaningful portion of sequence space and introduce random changes in it, and why Dembski is right.

RBH

Structured sequence spaces are islands of meaning in an ocean of meaninglessness. You can explore an island with mutation/selection (I realize that selection makes the process non-random) but you can't reach a new island that way because you have to cross an ocean of meaninglessness. Selection doesn't select meaninglessness.

The greater problem isn't extant organisms exploring structured sequence spaces. The great problem is how those structured spaces were "discovered" (there's that unavoidable anthropomorphizing again) in the first place. Abiogenesis is the major sticking point. The first cell using DNA/ribosome for replication needed on the order of 300 interdependent proteins. Each protein is an island in sequence space. How were these islands found? And we're talking about finding not just 300 islands but 300 INTERDEPENDANT islands which makes the task impossibly difficult through casting randomly about and relying on selection to retain any serendiptously discovered meaning.

Steve

Feel free to provide me with an example of a human language that came about without intelligent input.

Maybe chemicals in a primordial soup accidently discovered how to talk to each other, eh?

Gradually the SENTENCE loses meaning. This is how exploring sequence space works when you start from something that already has specified complexity. Is there a chance that a random letter change in our SENTENCE will add/change meaning instead of just drifting away from any meaning at all? Sure. But I defy you to EVER randomly change a thousand letters in a row and have any semblance of a message left in our SENTENCE. All you'll get is gobbledygook after that many changes. And that's exactly what happens if you keep randomly changing bases in a protein. You end up with meaninglessness. That's because sequence space is indeed, as Dembski says in more or less works, islands of meaning in a ocean of meaninglessness.

— Davescott

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Crbmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteers be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe."

PvM

There is no evidence suggesting that these islands have bridges between them that enable mutation/selection to cross from one to the other without drowning in the sea of meaninglessness.

Even if such bridges exist, it doesn't explain how inanimate chemicals found these islands in the first place.

In any case, I think you need to first go back and relearn how to work with number bases and exponentials before further pointification about relationships between them. Your spectacularly wrong answer about the size of the sequence space when I pressed you for a number was evidence you really don't understand numbers very well.

Structured sequence spaces are islands of meaning in an ocean of meaninglessness. You can explore an island with mutation/selection (I realize that selection makes the process non-random) but you can't reach a new island that way because you have to cross an ocean of meaninglessness. Selection doesn't select meaninglessness.

Stuart Kauffman Peter Schuster, in Vienna, U vienna, has done wonderful work on this subject. He made models of RNA sequences that folded, categorized each RNA by the kind of fold it made and showed 1) a power law distribution of the number of sequences that fold into each shape, 2) that the common shapes each form a percolating connected web across sequence space all of whose members are neutral mutants of one another such that one can traverse the entire space stepping only on the same shape. Further he and his colleagues showed that all the common shapes formed such webs, and came very near one another.

There is no evidence suggesting that these islands have bridges between them that enable mutation/selection to cross from one to the other without drowning in the sea of meaninglessness.

— DaveScot

Even if such bridges exist, it doesn't explain how inanimate chemicals found these islands in the first place.

In any case, I think you need to first go back and relearn how to work with number bases and exponentials before further pointification about relationships between them. Your spectacularly wrong answer about the size of the sequence space when I pressed you for a number was evidence you really don't understand numbers very well.

Thanks RBH, Schuster indeed has done some very impressive work here but there are others. Walter Fontana, Peter Stadler, all have looked at RNA space and found what I described above and elsewhere namely a scale free network with few very common structures. These structures extend through sequence space and are close to other common structures in sequence space.
While islands and oceans of non-functionality make for nice metaphors, they also seem to be inapplicable here. Another ID paradigm bites the dust.

PvM

No, I understood the classification argument perfectly. It usually points out that the definition of "species" is arbitrary and controversial. That's a reasonable point.

You now take that reasonable point and extrapolate to kingdoms, phyla, etc. in addition to species which of course is quite ridiculous.

There's little arbitrariness in putting a mushroom and a hominid in different class buckets. As far as I know, no taxonomic controversy exists over whether they should or shouldn't be in the same bucket.

It is diversity of that magnitude for which there is no evidence that mutation/selection can produce it. You have to take it as a matter of faith that mutation/selection can work such fundamental change.

But once again, the biggest leap of faith made by those that embrace all-powerful mutation/selection isn't how a paramecium could have evolved into a pomeranian in the course of billions of years. The biggest leap, by far, is how inanimate chemicals managed to become a living cell in 500 million years. If someone could convince me that abiogenesis is plausible I'll concede by default that the rest of evolution could easily be the result of mutation/selection.

Until then when I see the overwhelming appearance of design I'm doing the rational thing and assuming it is indeed a design until proven otherwise.

PvM No, I understood the classification argument perfectly. It usually points out that the definition of "species" is arbitrary and controversial. That's a reasonable point.

PvM

Have you figured out why the number of possible sequences in a 200 base protein is 20^200 instead of 200^20 yet?

You remind me of the proverbial cat that runs headlong into a sliding glass door then picks itself and pretends that it never happened - "What me stupid?".

I guess marine biology doesn't require much math aptitude, huh?

In honor of DaveScot becoming the first Intelligent Design Linguistics Theorist, I hereby declare him "The Isaac Newton of Linguistic Theory".

Posted by Russell on February 12, 2005 02:39 PM In post #15984, DaveScot demonstrates why it is pointless to try to dialog with him. Try this thought experiment: imagine a future in which you've made a sincere effort to understand and respond to his contributions. Now imagine a future in which you've ignored him. How do those two futures differ?

Have you figured out why the number of possible sequences in a 200 base protein is 20^200 instead of 200^20 yet? You remind me of the proverbial cat that runs headlong into a sliding glass door then picks itself and pretends that it never happened - "What me stupid?". I guess marine biology doesn't require much math aptitude, huh?

Big Numbers for PvM

Assume:

1. the earth is covered by an ocean
2. there are 1 million single celled organisms in each cc of water in the top 20 meters
3. each organism divides once per 24 hours
4. there is one mutation per division

How many mutations will have occured in 1 billion years?

Answer: 1.01617268E+41

Now let's revisit PvM's assertion that both 20^200 and 200^20 are virtually infinite.

200^20 = 1.048576e+46

Oh my. Maybe that wasn't quite a virtually infinite number at all.

Now let's look at the correct number

20^200 = 1.606938e+260

See the difference, PvM? The number of possible proteins you mistakenly claimed is not infinite at all and could conceivably have been well explored by random point mutations in a few billion years.

A number 46 digits long is virtually nil compared to one 260 digits long.

I did the above exercise originally as a sanity check on Dembski's claims.

Oh heck... I did the above calc from scratch and forgot to factor in 365 days per year. The previous answer is how many divisions if each organism divided once per year instead of once per day.

The number of mutations per billion years should be:

3.709030282e+43

I thought it looked a little small... hahaha

PvM

It's interesting that I had no problem knowing what Davison meant with "no taxonomy in a Darwinian world".

Correct me if I'm wrong, JAD.

He meant if mutation/selection were working as purported we'd be swimming in a sea of extant transitionals. A smooth continuum with no demarcation whatsoever upon which to base taxonomy distinctions.

I agree with JAD about that too.

Davison read Darwin long before you were born, by the way. Possibly before your parents were born. Show a little respect for your superiors.

Oops... I meant to say "show a little respect for your elders". Must've been one of them Freudian slips.

Hey, Springer, since you're into numbers these days, how about that calculation I asked you for several times already: what is your estimate of how long it took the mysterious alien beings to create all the life forms that have ever lived on earth?

Please state your assumptions.

Thanks.

To the extent you fail to reply comprehensively and comprehensibly, you'll prove what we already know: you're a moron and a liar whose not mture enough to admit he's been caught lining, and not man enough to follow his own advice.

Weird typos!

Here's that last paragraph again:

To the extent you fail to reply comprehensively and comprehensibly, you'll prove what we already know: you're a moron and a liar whose not mature enough to admit he's been caught lying, and not man enough to follow his own advice.

Don't continue to be such a disapointment, Dave. The fact that you find a friend in a washed-up delusional former variety-show host does not impress any of us.

Btw Dave, glad to know you are not free from making mistakes either in your calculations... now back to our regular programming.

PvM

"the issue is moot given the nature of protein space now isn't it?"

No.

"my original argument was correct, namely that protein space is far too large to be ever explored"

Your original argument was that it was indeed being explored by promiscuous enzymes.

I said that those enzymes are bounded islands of meaning in an essentially infinite sea of meaninglessness. The island can be explored by promiscuity but it won't take you through a sea of meaninglessness to a different island.

I have done a major clean-up of the Avida thread. The original articles can still be found on the Bathroom wall. If someone believes that his/her contribution did address the topic of discussion, either copy it back to this thread or let me know and I will do it.

"the issue is moot given the nature of protein space now isn't it?"

No. "my original argument was correct, namely that protein space is far too large to be ever explored" Your original argument was that it was indeed being explored by promiscuous enzymes.

— PVM

Protein space is indeed being explored due to the nature of sequence space. In other words, that only a limited amount of sequence space is being explored has little impact on the argument. Common protein structures are found throughout sequence space. I said that those enzymes are bounded islands of meaning in an essentially infinite sea of meaninglessness. The island can be explored by promiscuity but it won't take you through a sea of meaninglessness to a different island.

The best thing about Avida is that in a few decades it will produce little programs which say "My granpappy weren't no '10010010101101!"

I cannot find certain posts made by myself and DaveScot. Have they been deleted and if so, why?

No, they have been moved to the off-topic section commonly known as the bathroom wall. You are free to continue your discussion there. This thread is for discussion of the topic "Avida".

What part of the Avida code do you object to John?

Wonder if anybody's investigated the apparent similarity between species' gene pools and neural networks?

If alleles are taken as nodes, and the connection strength between two "nodes" computed using the frequency of the alleles and their relative closeness on the chromosome (i.e., likelihood of staying together through a recombination), would that work?

If it does work then a gene pool would have the same "intelligence" as a neural network. That would mean that the "designer" of a species is simply the gene pools of its direct ancestors. Sure, it would lack foresight, but it would at least partly make up for that by being able to simultaneously run far more experiments than could be run by any human researcher. A gene pool certainly has at least two qualities we associate with intelligence - ability to experiment (trial and error) and ability to remember results. (And if it waddles and quacks...)

If that holds up, then we'd have intelligent design and evolution combined in one model - and so everybody's happy! :)

Henry

Wonder if anybody's investigated the apparent similarity between species' gene pools and neural networks?

RBH,
That's interesting, but from the parts that didn't go over my head, it's talking about gene activity within one organism. What I was wondering was if the evolution of a whole gene pool could be usefully compared to a neural network.

Henry

In post 16170 Pim van Meurs indicated that I was free to continue my discussion at the Bathroom Wall which I did for a limited time. Now I discover that not only can I not post there, I cannnot even review the site. Is this standard policy at Panda's Thumb with those who might not subscribe to a majority view?

John A. Davison, just seeking information.

John A. Davison, whenever the length of the bathroom wall reaches certain length - several hundred comments or so - a new one is started, to reduce its loading time (not everyone has broadband access, and so many comments do take a while to load). You are free to continue to post in the new one. There is a link to the new one in PT's main page. The previous one is also linked, and you can go there to review it, take arguments, etc.

In answer to your question, no, this isn't one of those creationist websites where comments are not allowed.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Praise the Lord and thank you very much

Grey Wolf, You simply must understand that, at 76, I am a computer moron. How, exactly can I return and review post# 16114 and the frantic responses it elicited? I can't seem to find those "links" to which you refer.

Let me put it this way. The current version of the Bathroom EWall terminates blindly at post# 16023. Where does it resume?

Currently Bathroom Wall terminates blindly at # 16203. where does it resume or does'nt it?

Pardon my error. That should be Post# 16023

[link]http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html[/link]

That stops at 16023. Where does it resume?

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000821.html

...where, by the way, you've already posted.

Yes I know. That begins with 16484. What I am asking is where are the 461 missing posts? I arrived at that figure by subtracting 16023 from 16484. Am I making myself clear yet?

You're making yourself clear, but the post numbering covers the whole site and all threads as posted, not just the one you're asking about.

Let me put it this way. Where is post# 16114 and how can I arrange to see it and the posts immediately following?

Charlie Wagner's post # 15031 is right on the money. Not only does Avida have nothing to do with evolution now, it had nothing ever to do with evolution in the past. Allelic mutations have played no role whatsoever in progressive evolution exactly as Grasse claimed and I quoted in the PEH. All the pontifications and condescending lecturing by Pim or anyone else will never alter that reality. Evolution, which is now largely finished, proceeded entirely as a result of endogenous forces in which chance played no role whatsoever. To continue to deny this in violation of everything we know from both the fossil record and centuries of experience with animal and plant husbandry, not to mention the experimental laboratory, is not only inexcusable but intellectually criminal. It is a myth propagated by atheist Darwinian ideologues and nothing more. It is a scandal.

Sheesh. I've got an agreement in place with my wife. If that happens to me when I get older, she agrees to shoot me.

Surely someone knows where all the missing posts went. Is anybody listening?

Dear Flint, I am sure your wife won't shoot you because Darwinians are incapable of change. The Darwinian malaise is genetic you know.

The Bathroom Wall now terminates blindly on February 12 with post 16023 by PvM and that post is not even complete. There is no longer a single additional post published there. That of course includes all those "recent comments" presented at the head of the Bathroom Wall thread. It seems to me this requires some form of clarification. First, what happened to all those posts that we all know followed post 16023? Second, is the Bathroom Wall a discontinued feature of Panda's Thumb? So it would seem, at least to me.

John A. Davison

Goodness, Prof. Salty,

I just scrolled merrily through the Bathroom Wall, from post#11589 to post#16749. I used to think I was computer illiterate, until you showed up.

Good for you Bob, I just scrolled through the Bathroom Wall and was stopped abruptly at Post number 16023 with no opportunity to post. I guess my computer is dumber than your computer. Let's see you add a post to the Bathroom Wall, one that I can see for a change. Incidentally I have freely admitted to being computer illiterate. This is not a problem of illiteracy. This is a problem of censorship. I am delighted to have elicited this shabby response. It reminds me of EvC and "brainstorms" over at ISCID.

The only thing that remains is the identification of the censor. wouldn't everyone like to know?

The only thing that remains is the identification of the censor. Wouldn't everyone like to know?

All that remains is the identification of the censor. I like to think that I am not the only one that would like to know.

John A. Davison, the posts in this site are numbered globally. That means that for a given number (like "16036"), there is one and only one post with that number, and not one per thread or article. This means that, whenever someone posts, he gets the next number in the sequence - regardless of where he happens to be posting. Note that the first answer to a thread is *not* number 1. Your "missing" posts are probably answers in other threads, not in the Bathroom wall. Of course, those won't have anything to do with the discussion you were having in the Bathroom Wall.

There is no censorship going on, John A. Davison, and the paranoia you're showing in this thread - repeated postings, incesant questions, etc is not doing you any good.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

... Where is post# 16114 ... ?

— John A. Davison

... I just scrolled through the Bathroom Wall and was stopped abruptly at Post number 16023 with no opportunity to post. ...

— He

Salty Dog,

Go here:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000821.html#comments

Note the blue link "here" in post #16484.

That will take you to posts 11589 - 16584 of The Bathroom Wall, including your first appearance in Post #15120, AND #15121, AND #15122. Once would have been more than sufficient - but then, you are inordinately full of yourself, aren't you?

Salty,

"Let's see you add a post to the Bathroom Wall, one that I can see for a change."

Just did.

Others have already shown the lack of merrit to Davison's claims. Let's not confuse computer illiteracy with censorship shall we?

OK PimsyWimsy,

Cite me a paper in which my heresies have even been addressed let alone critiqued. Here's a hint to help you along. There was just one that I know of and, when I got wind of it, I promptly dispensed with that moron in the same journal. You can't and you know it which I guess sort of summarizes your mindless generalization don't you think?

If there has been no censorship, please guide me to post #16114 and the posts following so I can review for myself the knee-jerk responses that it so perfectly provoked from just about everybody including you.

What kills me about this whole insane business is that everybody is all exercised about my stupidity, which I don't recall having denied anyway, when hardly any of it is even of my doing. The guys you should be exposing as idiots are brilliant names like Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, William Bateson, Otto Schindewolf, Robert Broom, Leo S. Berg and many others as well, too numerous to mention here. Instead, you all, to a man, have been thoroughly suckered by armchair, second rate lunatics like Ernst (The Prussian) Mayr, Stephen (Jerk) Gould and Richard (Snake Oil) Dawkins. Have you no pride? Have you no scholarship? Have you no discrimination?

Now do as you're told for a change. Produce those missing posts and restore them in their original order. Have you no respect for your intellectual and chronological superiors?

John A. Davison, unfair of course, unbalanced, largely from what is happening here at Panda's Thumb and totally unafraid of Pim van Meurs or any of his loyal followers.

If there has been no censorship, please guide me to post #16114 and the posts following so I can review for myself the knee-jerk responses that it so perfectly provoked from just about everybody including you.

— Davison

Not so PimsyWimsy. That thread ends abruptly at post 16023 in which you are responding to DaveScot. That leaves 91 posts undisclosed including the ones I have been asking about. To repeat myself I am interested in post 16114 and those that followed. Where are they and why? I hope some one else will verify my observations. If there has been no censorship they should be plain as day or so it seems to me.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html#c16114

I'm at a loss for how great white wonder gets banned, but John Davison gets to stick around. He has provided nothing of value to this blog since he first arrived, he is an admitted troll, and he's just here to get people mad enough to reply to him. If anyone "deserves" to be banned, it's him. Stop the insanity.

If you had spent just a second reading the Bathroom wall description you would know that it get's refreshed when it fills up and older comments are moved to a sublink.

Present bathroom wall

Which starts off with The previous wall got a little cluttered, so we've splashed a coat of paint on it.

The previous wall ends at Comment #16584 and contains your comment. You may want to let the page fully load...

Sigh

Since when have I ever admitted I am troll? I don't even know what a troll is. Isn't that some guy under a bridge somewhere? I know what a sockpuppet is and I sure am not one of those.

AS for Henry J and his link. It is the same old same old, ending at 16023.

I am sorry to hear that Scott Page has been banned again. How can you be certain?

What I bring to this forum, Enough, is the scholarship and insight and scientific acumen of some of the finest minds of the twentieth century. Sorry you can't appreciate that. Most Darwinians can't. You are sure not alone here at Panda's Thumb.

John seems to be mostly limiting his comments to the bathroom wall. GWW would interject them into new threads. That I believe is a major difference.
And when Davison figures out how to search the bathroom wall for his missing yet not-missing postings then perhaps the noise will be even more reduced.

PimsyWimsy

Who do you think you are kidding? The old thread ends at 16023, the new one begins at 16484. Would some objective observer, if there is one here, please verify my observations? If someone won't I sure won't be surprised.

Salty,

In post #16782 above, I gave you explicit instructions on how to find the thing. You didn't acknowledge my generosity and are in fact still demanding to be led by the hand to it.

Shall I assume that you were so offended by the "shabbiness" of another of my responses to your inexcusable behaviour that you decided to punish me by not following my precise directions to that which you are demanding to be shown? How pathetic, how truly and sadly pathetic.

Listen here Bob. If you aren't going to show me any respect either with that Salty crap, I say the hell with you too. If the bloody posts have to be hidden every where what the hell is the point of it all. They might as well not even exist. Who the hell is Bob Maurus anyway besides being a Darwimp? I never heard of him.

I revisited your post and still encountered the same failure to find what I want. Your link does NOT include what I am looking for. Sorry. Actually at this point it makes no difference any more anyway. Just as all white cats are stone deaf, so are all Darwimps unable to hear Einsteins's "music of the spheres." I hear it loud and clear and I grow tired of trying to communicate with deaf mutes.

Just an artist, Salty, and I'd never heard of you either till you showed up and started insulting everyone who didn't bow down to your self-proclaimed status as Exalted One, Ignored Shouter of The Truth, Persecuted Victim of Conspiring Darwimpist Cabals.

I afford respect to those whose knowledge, accomplishments, wisdom, purity, even faith, demonstrate their deserving that respect. I don't grant respect to offensive blowhards who demand it as homage to their self-proclaimed brilliance.

The only time on this board that you've exhibited common courtesy, civility, or a desire to have a meaningful dialogue or an adult exchange of views was in your wheedling demands to be shown the alleged Missing Messages, the path to which I provided you. I even left a message for you, as you demanded. Have you found it?

Have you had fun with us? At least some of us have had fun with you. Now maybe you'd best be a good little old boy and go find someone else to bother.

Whenever I see "page won't load" or "page incomplete" on a help forum, the first suggestion is usually click refresh. The second suggestion is usually clear your browser's cache and/or history. In Netscape that's under click Edit, click Preferences, doubleclick Advanced, click Cache, click clear cache. A different browser may put the option somewhere else. (On some systems it may be clear temporary internet files.)

Henry

I have no intention of going away. I am having more fun than all the rest of you put together. I am also not being persecuted and never said I was. I, like all my sources have been ignored because we are feared by the professional Darwimps. It is as simple as that. As a matter of fact I am the persecutor not the persecutee as you clowns keep claiming. Where do you get that crap from? It sound like something Scott Page came up with. I am just a hostile old fart. I love tilting the revolving windmill of Darwinian mysticism. It gives me something to do in my dotage. Besides my stuff is all published or will be soon. What anybody thinks about me or my personality has nothing to do with science anyway. I get the distinct impression that no one has even bothered to read my garbage. You know "Garbage in, Garbage out" ala Pim van Meurs who seems to be running this dog and pony show. Well my garbage will be around long after Panda's Thumb has expired. You see it is in hard copy in libraries world wide.

I have seen no signs about "page won't load" or anything like that. I have faithfully followed every suggestion and I can't find what I was looking for. I still believe it has been deleted. If I can't find it it might as well have been deleted anyway. If the proceedings of this forum are not archived it is not my fault. What do you do, erase everything every now and again? I would if I were in charge here.

John A. Davison

You're evidently beyond help, Salty.

Once more - in #16782 above I provided the following link: http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000821.html#comments . . .

which takes you to:

Comment #16484
Posted by Pastor Bentonit on February 16, 2005 07:47 AM

"JAD, your post 16114, full of over-the-top invective and plain assertions and so little else, is in fact discussed "HERE". Come on, there are even a couple of scientifically relevant questions there for you (and the rest of us!)."

Note that I've emphasized the next link ("HERE"), which takes you to the previous Bathroom Wall page containing posts #11589 - #16584, including every post you've made there. Click on it. It's there.

I appreciate your help Bob. However, when I follow your instructions I do indeed go to post # 11589 just as you indicate. However when I scroll down it stops at # 16023, well before the posts I am interested in. I really don't know what more to say. Is it within the power of someone to instruct just my computer not to go any further? That is the only explanation I am able to offer at present. And please don't call me Salty. It makes me irritable.

Bob, when you scroll down, where does it stop for you?

Seems JAD P.S. is showing through. It couldn't be that his computer is stuffed up Oh no it has to be some conspiracy agianst his superiority.

I asked Bob a question and I would appreciate an answer.

John A. Davison,

If you are using MicroSoft's Internet Explorer, there's no call to talk of special attention being made to cause you problems; you have voluntarily taken on problems. You can try using the "Refresh" button to get the page again, but your time is probably better spent downloading and installing the Firefox browser.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html

That "Bathroom Wall" contains comments from
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html#c11589
to
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html#c16584

The specific comment requested is at
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html#c16114

Loads fine for me. I'd suggest a change of browser, or better yet, load a Knoppix bootable CD and browse from that.