Darwin Day

Just a quick post to note the occasion. Wish I had time to do more of an observance. Click the title to see what is going on for Darwin Day. Perhaps on President's Day or this weekend? Cheers!
Click to enlarge

Teach the Revolution!

The state of dialog between evolutionists (Darwinists in the view of creationists) and creationists (IDiots in the view of evolutionists) is truly terrible, but perhaps that's the way it should be. Perhaps the entire ID schtick is as vapid as claimed, and they should be given no quarter whatsoever. They come on so reasonably with plausible sounding critiques of Darwinian natural selection, one is tempted to take them seriously, or at least I have been for about four years now. But my recent explorations have pretty much cleared up any doubts I may have had about whether ID critiques of natural selection need to be taken seriously. They don't. These are the quibbles of people with ulterior motives, and don't stand up to scrutiny at all. Even if they did, their source pretty much disqualifies them, since these folks have no serious interest in improving our understanding of life, only in tearing it down.

So it is fair to conclude that science and education simply cannot afford the indulgence of "teaching the controversy." But I would carry it a step farther than simply ejecting creationism and ID from our schools. In my view, we should be teaching the revolution in human thought that took us from creationism to natural selection. Our best physics curricula teach the revolution in astronomy that wrenched us from the geocentric Ptolemaic universe to the heliocentric Copernican revolution, forever changing our understanding of our own place in the universe. Similarly we should teach the revolution in biology that took us from creationism to the Darwinian revolution. The change has been even more transformative and religiously-disturbing in this case, and clearly we are still struggling with it, but the time has come to stop treading lightly and respectfully toward religion on this and to make a point of stating the case for science. So yes, by all means let us teach both creationism and natural selection in our schools, but let us put them in their proper perspective and say clearly and emphatically that creationism has been superseded in modern thought, with repercussions that religious believers must confront and reconcile with their dogmas.

There should no claim here that Darwinian evolution is the final story, but neither should there be a mistaken impression given that there is any possible return to the idea that a supernatural intelligence might help us explain our world and how we came to it. We can marvel at the incredible grandeur and exquisitely detailed complexity of the universe and life within it, and at the universal laws that so clearly regulate it throughout. But we will gain no useful wisdom for this world from the idea that we must eventually face a designer-creator in another.

So let's teach the revolution as the revolution that it truly is and not as a controversy. Still it is well to keep in mind Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit, which includes: "Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view." Click the title or graphic of this post and then click: "Ideas"

More Fun and Games with Evolution

Finally I found a simulation of the ID/creationist model of random variation and selection. It's extremely simple, but if you're patient, you can select and revert your way to some positive changes in the "genome". The key in my view is to start with random character strings so you aren't distracted by the initial state. Basically, one selects (saves) any positive change, and then continues mutating. If nothing better comes along, you revert to your selected case, and then continue mutating again. The effect is to simulate a larger population with only the single individual character string. This is being discussed at Pharyngula.

Also being discussed there is a rebuttal simulation that is pretty interesting, and much more sophisticated. It actually shows how irreducible complexity can evolve. If you follow the discussion of it, you'll learn that most cases of irreducible complexity result from a decrease in the fitness of the individual. One commentator gives a useful analogy with an arch that becomes irreducibly complex only when the scafolding used to build it is removed. There is a net reduction in robustness at that point, and then the arch has many parts that can no longer be removed without its falling. Pretty cool!

It's a bit disappointing watching the evolutionists and creationists chewing on each other, usually on separate blogs. The level of discussion has sunken to a new low since the Dover decision, I suppose. Still, the evolvers are not the least bit gracious in victory, nor do the creators give any quarter. Perhaps I'm just being wishy washy, but I would really like to see them compare the above simulations and the standard weasel program and argue the points to a polite agreement to disagree, rather than engaging in endless hurling of sophomoric epithets and insults.

Human Weapons of Mass Destruction

I have yet to come upon any popular discussion of nuclear proliferation that seems at once lucid, rational and realistic. Everyone seems to regard it is beyond question that acquisition of nuclear weapons by developing countries is an intolerable evil. Most especially, this is true of the NRA set, those staunch defenders the right of American citizens to possess lethal force for self defense, regardless of any demonstrated fitness to manage and responsibly use such weapons. The irony of that position is (in the words of Mike Dunford on Panda's Thumb) is "so dense that four mining firms have put in bids on it". But even if one thinks that warfare has served an evolutionary purpose in human history, enhancing our technological skills, nuclear weapons represent a new and significant opportunity for us all to collectively win a cosmic "Darwin Award." So, I hereby take it upon myself to supply said discussion of nuclear proliferation.

My beef with the NRA position on personal weapons lies in the unwillingness to treat this analogously to the licensing of automobile drivers. Cars are arguably as lethal as guns, and every bit as important to the rights of an individual. The right to autonomous transportation is something I personally find to be far more important than self-defense, because I've been fortunate enough to live in benign environments where there are essentially no threats to a healthy male. So, I would argue that it is every bit as important to train, test, and license the possession and use of guns as the uses of automobiles. This is self-evident truth to me. No one could credibly sloganize to the effect that "now that cars are outlawed, only outlaws own cars."

It also seems self-evident to me that the representative, democratic rule of law that we practice in the industrial world should also be practiced on the international level among nations. The principal problem there is the lack of a credible and legitimate International respresntative government, which seems to have eluded our efforts with the League of Nations and then the United Nations. All war among nations is civil war in my view, and occurs only through a deficit of will on the part of the nations to organize the adjudication of disputes through a representative legal process.

Nation states have a self-evident right to defend themselves when faced with aggression, just as individuals do in a democratic state. The argument that individuals should be empowered with the strongest forms of lethal force carry directly over to an argument that nations should also be empowered with the strongest forms of lethal force, for self defensive purposes. However, they should also be required to demonstrate the capability to manage and deploy that force in a responsible manner, just as we require individuals to do so when operating vehicles, and as we should do for individuals seeking to possess guns.

Currently, there exists a process for nation states to control the acquisition of nuclear weapons, known as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968, proposed by Ireland and signed by 188 nations. According to Wikipedia, two confirmed nuclear powers (Pakistan and India) and one unconfirmed nuclear power (Israel) would not sign the treaty. And one nation that signed has withdrawn and become a nuclear power (North Korea). The treaty prohibits additional proliferation beyond the five current nuclear states (USA, France, Russia, UK, and China), promotes disarmament, and legitimizes the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. However, the treaty provides no legitimate way of acquiring nuclear weapons except for leaving the treaty agreement. It does provide for an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to monitor nuclear materials in nonnuclear states and to alert the treaty parties to any violations of the treaty. The IAEA estimates that 40 states could develop nuclear weapons if they so chose and withdrew from the treaty.

When the NPT is reviewed every five years, it is routine for the US and other powers to assert NATO agreements to share nuclear weapons, while complaining about proliferation among other nations and opposing Iran's rights to develop a civilian nuclear power capability. The NATO powers also assert that the treaty will be voided if a state of "general war" should arise, effectively releasing them from the terms of the treaty in that case. More recently, the Bush administration has asserted the right to share civilian nuclear technology with India, in violation of treaty terms, while continuing to accuse Iran of developing weapons in violation of its treaty agreement.

Nations with adversarial postures relative to the western industrial nations, and especially those with alleged ties to terrorist organizations, are naturally regarded with suspicion as potential threats, especially if empowered with nuclear weapons. However, taking military action to interdict the acquisition of nuclear weapons would clearly violate the rule of law dictum mandating that violence be used in only in self defense. But rule of law can be practiced successfully only when an authority exists that can monitor and deal with perceived threats.

We clearly need a treaty that puts the UN or other international body in place as the adjudicator of nuclear disputes. Ideally, the treaty rules would allow for "licensing" the acquisition of civilian nuclear technologies by any nation seeking to do so, provided that specified criteria were met, as judged by an organization like the IAEA. Among those criteria might be the demonstration of freedom from terrorist links. In addition, licensing of nuclear weaponry should also be explicitly provided, with more stringent criteria to be met, such that it would be exceedingly difficult to meet them. Qualifications might include the demonstration of a credible nuclear threat from a non-participant nation.

With this sort of rule of law in place, the US could quite properly insist that nations like Iran must meet basic requirements for use of even civilian nuclear technologies. A representative agency could regulate the acquisition and use of nuclear arms by nations, including the USA, regardless of their agreement, by monopolizing the legitimate use of force to take military action against those nations that violate the law as set by the participating nations.

A treaty, after all, is just an agreement to a common good that is shared by the signatories and infringes on the acknowledged rights of none. The problem is that a treaty cannot be imposed on non-signatories as well, even if they are a minority.

Modern Cathedrals

Comments by Michael Griffin, NASA administrator, at the Quasar Award Dinner, Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership on 19 Jan 2007:

"To me, the irony is that when we do hard things for the right reasons – for the Real Reasons – we end up actually satisfying all the goals of the Acceptable Reasons. And we can see that, too, in the cathedrals, if we look for it.
...
"[The cathedral builders] gained societal advantages that were probably even more important than learning how to build walls and roofs. They learned to embrace deferred gratification, not just on an individual level where it is a crucial element of maturity, but on a societal level where it is equally vital. The people who started the cathedrals didn't live to finish them; such projects required decades. The society as a whole had to be dedicated to the completion of those projects. To be able to do that for cathedrals was to be able to do it in other areas as well. We owe Western civilization as we know it today to that kind of thinking – the ability to have a constancy of purpose across years and decades [and generations]."

It's worth a read of the entire text...

“A truly intelligent species will outlive its home star.” - Todd Brennan

Even Intelligent Design Evolves

Here's a fanciful depiction of the situation in 2020 on Mars, that most difficult of planets on which to land a probe. This may not prove anything, but it certainly is a reminder that even intelligent design has a way of evolving.

Revisiting the Weasel Experiment

Richard Dawkins' interesting computer simulation of natural selection with random variation demonstrates a startling ability that, "at first exposure, is every bit as counterintuitive as quantum mechanics." [Scott Maxwell]. It has been criticized by intelligent design folks on grounds that: 1. the answer is known ahead of time so of course it gets the right answer, and 2. unrealistic mutation probabilities are used in the demonstration, and 3. random variation will cause more damage than improvement, resulting in catastrophic results. Objection 1. is that of someone who simply will not trust the experimenter, but can be addressed by defining a "fitness function" that turns the goal into an objective optimization problem. Objection 2 can easily be adjusted. Objection 3. reflects some subtleties that are too often glossed over by evolutionists, including Dawkins. This post is to show that the Dawkins demo has been put online, and that updates have been made to the demo that allow it to be much more closely analogous to real natural selection. In addition I'll point to some other software that gets even more realistic, evolving 2D graphics in a method that observes a distinction between genotype (algorithmic data) and phenotype (translation to graphical products).

First, here is the original Dawkins weasel experiment, except that you can substitute whatever string of data you would like as the target and then watch the process converge on the answer, typically in less than 100 "generations." It's too bad one could not continuously update the target string and watch the selection process demonstrate adaptation, as it dynamically tracks the changing conditions. Ah well, that will come in time.

But here is a better version of the weasel program, especially in the sense that you can download the source code and play with it yourself, or just read it to see what is going on. This one reveals a subtle point that is the source of creationist misunderstandings of this program. The figure shows that quite a large population of "critters" is generated in the process of selecting for the target output string. This is essential because many "bad" mutations occur that are deselected. This isn't stated clearly in Dawkins' original description or the instance described above. It is something that the ID folks believe to make a solution impossible, but clearly it does not do that, though it does require more deselection than is obvious from reading Dawkins or the previous online program.

Next is the much more realistic case where we have a specified population of random strings that are being randomly altered at a specified rate. Moreover, pairs of the strings are sexually mated to produce offspring strings in each generation, as random mutation proceeds. Several selection options can be exercised, as well as several options for the sexual merger. The mutation rate and population rate can be varied as much as one likes, slowing the process to a crawl if desired. So much for objection 2. Again, it would be nice if the target string could be varied as the process proceeds, so we could watch adaptation to new guidance being reflected in the results.

Finally, we have a more complex but visually appealing piece of software that implements a more realistic simulation in which a genotype is set up consisting of parameters controlling diverse graphics primitives and techniques. Each genotype translates to a phenotype as a 2D graphic panel. The user can then exert intelligent selection by either asexually or sexually breeding new generations of graphics, manipulating the graphical products toward whatever s/he may choose. Warning: this gets considerably more involved, though this program insulates one from the details so that everything is accomplished by point and click selection and no actual graphical engineering is required.

So there we have it in gradually more complex forms; a compelling demonstration of the power of selection with random variation, as a way of exploring multi-parameter design spaces and searching for optimal solutions of whatever problem is chosen, whether it be the matching of a particular string of characters, or the creation of a desired graphical image. So much for objection 3.

Does anyone know of simulation programs like these designed to illustrate the criticisms of natural selection that have been made by the intelligent design community? I would like to see what kinds of demonstration can be made of the failure of natural selection to function as advertised. If so, please point to them in the comments and I will compare them with the above cases.

Further Reading:
More than you ever wanted to know can be found in the Creationism Asserted and Creationism Rebutted links in the sidebar. However for a really definitive look at the matters discussed here, TalkOrigins can't be beat.

Intent, Intelligence, and Purpose in Design?

In response to an invitation to discuss that status of Intelligent Design in the UK, a Christian theist neuroscientist from Canada (Elizabeth Liddle) created a stir at uncommondescent.com (Bill Dembski's blog site, click title) by using Dembski's own arguments to show that natural selection is a form of intelligent design. Dembski had written that "by intelligence I mean the power and facility to choose between options--this coincides with the Latin etymology of “intelligence,” namely, “to choose between”. Liddle pointed out that, by that definition, natural selection must be credited as an intelligent process, and therefore, natural selection is a clear example of "intelligent design". Needless to say, this did not go over well and a lengthy debate ensued with the so-called "moderator" of uncommondescent, DaveScot, during which Liddle at one point pointed to a story she wrote her son. Liddle was polite, good natured about the sparring, and indefatigable. After some long rebuttals of his standard arguments, for which he did not appear to have an answer, DaveScot summarily banned her from the site. "[Febble] doesn’t understand how natural selection works to conserve (or not) genomic information yet insists on writing long winded anti-ID comments filled with errors due to lack of understanding of the basics [and ] is just not a constructive member.", after the following exchange:

DaveScot suggested that intelligence must also include planning for the future. Liddle conceded that natural selection does not plan for the future in the sense of running model scenarios and choosing the one that seems best, as in a chess game, for example. But she asserts that by remembering past mistakes and successes, natural selection is in some sense planning by using the strategies that worked best in the past. Her final statement before banning was:

"It may be described as “trial and error” learning, but that is a bit of a misnomer, as “trial-and-error” could just as easily describe random search. Trial-and-error learning involves, well, learning. It’s much more efficient than random search because you learn from your successes and your mistakes. Natural selection + replication with modification also learns from both its successes and its mistakes, which makes it moderately intelligent.

So the scale of intelligence begins with Dembski's simply "making choices", extends to "making informed choices" (based on a record of prior experience, kept in the DNA), and then culminates in "making choices based on models of future developments" which is where humans come in. This seems eminently reasonable, but does leave open the question of intent or purpose. I would have named things differently here. Choices reflect clear intent or purpose, in my opinion, but not much intelligence. So natural selection certainly expresses intent, as well as minimal intelligence per Dembski's definition. But natural selection with genotype replication brings note taking and documentation to bear, adding more intelligence to intent. And human theory and model making adds still more power to intent, allowing for the attribution of "purpose," and implying a longer view of things rather than just a preference for certain immediate results.

Comments on these definitions?