Why are most biologists adaptationists?

I enjoyed listening to Michael Lynch's talk on Friday. Much of what he said
has been covered in *Sandwalk* over the past few years. His main point was
th...
3 days ago
I hadn't looked beyond the abstract. You complain about notation. Draw a block diagram, I say. Is there an input by which the "search" could gain information about "where to look"? No! Socalled search is intrinsically uninformed. Dembski, Ewert, and Marks will evade the most simple of challenges, and continue to grow a denser and denser thicket of mythomatics.
ReplyDeleteInformation can be put in by the inspector and the nominator (or obfuscator ii and obfuscator iv). There are a couple of problems with this paper, the main one is IMO this sentence of page 37:
ReplyDelete"In this way, an arbitrary search S can be represented as a single probability distribution or measure μs on the original search space Ω."
If we have a search space of two elements and are allowed two guesses, we will find the target. How is this described by a measure on Ω? I assume that Dembski introduced the discriminator (obfuscator v) to make it one, but that's  as you say so aptly  mythomatics.
This amounts to shaving off the corners of a square peg, and sticking it into a round hole. In "The Search for a Search," Dembski and Marks faced insuperable problems with baselevel algorithms drawing samples of size greater than 1. So they've forced the algorithms to generate singleton samples (after a maximum of m queries). And they have the chutzpah to pretend that they've accommodated genetic algorithms, which are sometimes used to produce diverse populations.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about smokes and mirrors  so very apt for the 2011 Cornell Conference on Biological Information (perhaps better named the 2011 School of Hotel Administration Gathering on Creationism).
ReplyDelete