According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
"weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
educational community if he published the original code, and those who
disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.

On 2023-12-18 08:58:18 +0000, Félix An said:

> According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> natural selection. Why wasn't it published?

That's a question you need to address to Richard Dawkins. Why would
anyone else know? I don't think he follows this news group.

> Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and many
> people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific of him to
> mention a calculation using code in an educational setting without
> providing the code itself, so readers could know the specifics of the
> algorithm. Even when I studied Data Structures and Algorithms in
> Zhejiang University, each lab report required pasting the code itself
> directly into the appendix of the lab report in addition to attaching
> the C file. It would help the educational community if he published the
> original code, and those who disagree with it could also provide their
> objections to the original algorithm, directly citing the code to back
> up their objections.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

Félix An <fffelix.jan.yt@gmail.com> wrote:

> According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> natural selection. Why wasn't it published?

What would be the point? It is a thought experiment to begin with.

> Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and many
> people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific of him to
> mention a calculation using code in an educational setting without
> providing the code itself, so readers could know the specifics of the
> algorithm.

Why? Let them do it themselves.

> Even when I studied Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University,
> each lab report required pasting the code itself directly into the
> appendix of the lab report in addition to attaching the C file.

Perhaps, if they can't be trusted to do it right.

> It would help the educational community if he published the original code,
> and those who disagree with it could also provide their objections to the
> original algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.

This is what is wrong with much of higher education in many places,
and apparently it is particularly bad in China.
Students shouldn't pore over the works of the masters to reproduce
and criticise.
They should do something for themselves,

Jan

--
"Don't bother to tell me what is wrong with the works of Prof. X"
"Do something good yourself!" (A grumpy old professor from long ago)

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:58:18 +0800, Félix An
<fffelix.jan.yt@gmail.com> wrote:

>According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
>"weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
>natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
>be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
>already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
>code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
>readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
>Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
>required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
>report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
>educational community if he published the original code, and those who
>disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
>algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.

Dawkins explained his algorithm in "The Blind Watchmaker" well enough
that anybody who wanted to could write it themselves. The controversy
over it isn't whether it actually did what he claimed, but whether his
algorithm is an appropriate model of natural selection. So the actual
code isn't relevant, and those who criticize Dawkins about the weasel
program miss the point of it.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On 12/18/23 1:35 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-18 08:58:18 +0000, Félix An said:
>
>> According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for
>> his "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
>> natural selection. Why wasn't it published?
>
> That's a question you need to address to Richard Dawkins. Why would
> anyone else know? I don't think he follows this news group.
>
>> Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and many
>> people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific of him
>> to mention a calculation using code in an educational setting without
>> providing the code itself, so readers could know the specifics of the
>> algorithm. Even when I studied Data Structures and Algorithms in
>> Zhejiang University, each lab report required pasting the code itself
>> directly into the appendix of the lab report in addition to attaching
>> the C file. It would help the educational community if he published
>> the original code, and those who disagree with it could also provide
>> their objections to the original algorithm, directly citing the code
>> to back up their objections.
>
>
I had (I think) the whole weasel package, but it was on a previous
computer, and I can't find it any more.

On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12 PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
> be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
> already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
> code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
> readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
> Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
> report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> educational community if he published the original code, and those who
> disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
> algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.

Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/

On 2023-12-19 07:30, MarkE wrote:
>
> Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/
>

As I mentioned, such critical assessments of the program would be a lot
better if the original code could be directly cited. It's what is always
done in academia.

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 12:27:12 PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> On 2023-12-19 07:30, MarkE wrote:
> >
> > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/
> >
> As I mentioned, such critical assessments of the program would be a lot
> better if the original code could be directly cited. It's what is always
> done in academia.

Is this an adequate approximation for your purposes?

https://elaq.github.io/weasel/

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:30:59 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
>> According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
>> "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
>> natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
>> be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
>> already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
>> code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
>> readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
>> Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
>> required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
>> report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
>> educational community if he published the original code, and those who
>> disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
>> algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.
>
>Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/

And here's a critical assessment of your cited critical assessment:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_program>

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 09:26:21 +0800, Félix An
<fffelix.jan.yt@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2023-12-19 07:30, MarkE wrote:
>>
>> Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/
>>
>
>As I mentioned, such critical assessments of the program would be a lot
>better if the original code could be directly cited. It's what is always
>done in academia.

Not really. As I said previously, the algorithm is simple and
straighforward, and the criticisms of it presume Dawkins' code works
as he described it.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 1:02:13 PM UTC+11, MarkE wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 12:27:12 PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > On 2023-12-19 07:30, MarkE wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss_weasel/
> > >
> > As I mentioned, such critical assessments of the program would be a lot
> > better if the original code could be directly cited. It's what is always
> > done in academia.
> Is this an adequate approximation for your purposes?
>
> https://elaq.github.io/weasel/

Collect the set: https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> > "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> > natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
> > be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
> > already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
> > code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
> > readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
> > Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
> > report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > educational community if he published the original code, and those who
> > disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
> > algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.
>
> Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss
_weasel/

Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.

But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
is dear to the creationist heart,
so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
must be criticised, no matter what,

Jan

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> > > "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> > > natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
> > > be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
> > > already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
> > > code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
> > > readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
> > > Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
> > > report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > > educational community if he published the original code, and those who
> > > disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
> > > algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.
> >
> > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss
> _weasel/
> Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
> In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
> fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
> His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
> that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
> in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
>
> But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
> aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
> is dear to the creationist heart,
> so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
> must be criticised, no matter what,
>
> Jan

More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel program?

It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:42:13 AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13 PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> > > > "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> > > > natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
> > > > be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
> > > > already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
> > > > code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
> > > > readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
> > > > Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
> > > > report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > > > educational community if he published the original code, and those who
> > > > disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
> > > > algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.
> > >
> > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss
> > _weasel/
> > Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
> > In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
> > fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
> > His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
> > that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
> > in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
> >
> > But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
> > aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
> > is dear to the creationist heart,
> > so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
> > must be criticised, no matter what,
> >
> > Jan
> More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel program?
>
> It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.

Right, that program is a critique of a simplistic anti-evolution argument, not a serious model of any particular evolutionary process. And that should be obvious, since the program, unlike evolution, starts out with a specific target identified in advance.

MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13?PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
> > > > "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
> > > > natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
> > > > be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
> > > > already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
> > > > code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
> > > > readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
> > > > Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
> > > > report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > > > educational community if he published the original code, and those who
> > > > disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
> > > > algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.
> > >
> > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawk
inss
> > _weasel/
> > Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
> > In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
> > fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
> > His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
> > that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
> > in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
> >
> > But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
> > aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
> > is dear to the creationist heart,
> > so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
> > must be criticised, no matter what,
> >
> > Jan
>
> More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel program?

Creationists never stop arguing the same points over and over.
For the saner ones among us there is little reason to.
Dawkins made his point, and rubbed Hoyle's nose in his dirt. [1]
Why go on belabouring the obvious?

> It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as an
> (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.

Illuminating evolution never was the point.
The point was demolishing a crackpot objection,

Jan

[1] FYI, Hoyle was what we would call a troll, in usenet term.
He just loved taking impossible positions, cleverly defending them,
just to draw fire from the yelping indignants.
Put more politely, Hoyle was a controversialist.

broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:42:13?AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13?PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > > > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code
> > > > > for his "weasel program", which is a simplified computer
> > > > > demonstration of natural selection. Why wasn't it published?
> > > > > Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and
> > > > > many people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific
> > > > > of him to mention a calculation using code in an educational
> > > > > setting without providing the code itself, so readers could know
> > > > > the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied Data
> > > > > Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > > > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the
> > > > > lab report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > > > > educational community if he published the original code, and those
> > > > > who disagree with it could also provide their objections to the
> > > > > original algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their
> > > > > objections.
> > > >
> > > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/da
wkinss
> > > _weasel/
> > > Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
> > > In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
> > > fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
> > > His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
> > > that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
> > > in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
> > >
> > > But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
> > > aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
> > > is dear to the creationist heart,
> > > so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
> > > must be criticised, no matter what,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel
> > program?
> >
> > It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as
> > an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.
>
> Right, that program is a critique of a simplistic anti-evolution argument,
> not a serious model of any particular evolutionary process. And that
> should be obvious, since the program, unlike evolution, starts out with a
> specific target identified in advance.

Yes, and that objection is entirely beside the point.
You could easily make the program evolve towards -a- line
from the corpus of Shakespeare,
without specifing in advance which one.
(given the whole corpus as the reference)
The final result will be impossible to predict.

For a more difficult example,
consider the AI programs that play chess, or go, starting ab initio.
They learned from their mistakes, while playing against themselves, [1]
and evolved after having played millions of games into a program
that is stronger than any grand master.
Their only selection criterion was: becoming a stronger player.

Jan

[1] Against themselves for education is not a valid objection.
Billions of (very bored) human chess players would have done as well.

On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 7:52:13 AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:42:13?AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13?PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > > > > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code
> > > > > > for his "weasel program", which is a simplified computer
> > > > > > demonstration of natural selection. Why wasn't it published?
> > > > > > Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and
> > > > > > many people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific
> > > > > > of him to mention a calculation using code in an educational
> > > > > > setting without providing the code itself, so readers could know
> > > > > > the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied Data
> > > > > > Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > > > > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the
> > > > > > lab report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > > > > > educational community if he published the original code, and those
> > > > > > who disagree with it could also provide their objections to the
> > > > > > original algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their
> > > > > > objections.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/da
> wkinss
> > > > _weasel/
> > > > Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
> > > > In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
> > > > fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
> > > > His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
> > > > that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
> > > > in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
> > > >
> > > > But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
> > > > aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
> > > > is dear to the creationist heart,
> > > > so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
> > > > must be criticised, no matter what,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > > More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel
> > > program?
> > >
> > > It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as
> > > an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.
> >
> > Right, that program is a critique of a simplistic anti-evolution argument,
> > not a serious model of any particular evolutionary process. And that
> > should be obvious, since the program, unlike evolution, starts out with a
> > specific target identified in advance.
> Yes, and that objection is entirely beside the point.
> You could easily make the program evolve towards -a- line
> from the corpus of Shakespeare,
> without specifing in advance which one.
> (given the whole corpus as the reference)
> The final result will be impossible to predict.
>
> For a more difficult example,
> consider the AI programs that play chess, or go, starting ab initio.
> They learned from their mistakes, while playing against themselves, [1]
> and evolved after having played millions of games into a program
> that is stronger than any grand master.
> Their only selection criterion was: becoming a stronger player.

I don't disagree with anything you say here. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The object of Dawkins program is not really to model evolution in a serious way, but to use a simple program to critique the 747 in a junkyard argument. Of course it is possible to make serious models of evolutionary processes, or to use evolutionary algorithms.
>
> Jan
>
> [1] Against themselves for education is not a valid objection.
> Billions of (very bored) human chess players would have done as well.

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 05:07:31 -0800 (PST), "broger...@gmail.com"
<brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 7:52:13?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:42:13?AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
>> > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13?PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> > > > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
>> > > > > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code
>> > > > > > for his "weasel program", which is a simplified computer
>> > > > > > demonstration of natural selection. Why wasn't it published?
>> > > > > > Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and
>> > > > > > many people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific
>> > > > > > of him to mention a calculation using code in an educational
>> > > > > > setting without providing the code itself, so readers could know
>> > > > > > the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied Data
>> > > > > > Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
>> > > > > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the
>> > > > > > lab report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
>> > > > > > educational community if he published the original code, and those
>> > > > > > who disagree with it could also provide their objections to the
>> > > > > > original algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their
>> > > > > > objections.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/da
>> wkinss
>> > > > _weasel/
>> > > > Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
>> > > > In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
>> > > > fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
>> > > > His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
>> > > > that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
>> > > > in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
>> > > >
>> > > > But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
>> > > > aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
>> > > > is dear to the creationist heart,
>> > > > so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
>> > > > must be criticised, no matter what,
>> > > >
>> > > > Jan
>> > > More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel
>> > > program?
>> > >
>> > > It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as
>> > > an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.
>> >
>> > Right, that program is a critique of a simplistic anti-evolution argument,
>> > not a serious model of any particular evolutionary process. And that
>> > should be obvious, since the program, unlike evolution, starts out with a
>> > specific target identified in advance.
>> Yes, and that objection is entirely beside the point.
>> You could easily make the program evolve towards -a- line
>> from the corpus of Shakespeare,
>> without specifing in advance which one.
>> (given the whole corpus as the reference)
>> The final result will be impossible to predict.
>>
>> For a more difficult example,
>> consider the AI programs that play chess, or go, starting ab initio.
>> They learned from their mistakes, while playing against themselves, [1]
>> and evolved after having played millions of games into a program
>> that is stronger than any grand master.
>> Their only selection criterion was: becoming a stronger player.
>
>I don't disagree with anything you say here. Perhaps you misunderstood my point. The object of Dawkins program is not really to model evolution in a serious way, but to use a simple program to critique the 747 in a junkyard argument. Of course it is possible to make serious models of evolutionary processes, or to use evolutionary algorithms.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> [1] Against themselves for education is not a valid objection.
>> Billions of (very bored) human chess players would have done as well.

ISTM both you and Lodder are in violent agreement. It's MarkE who
doesn't get it, or at least he pretending to be witless.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

broger...@gmail.com <brogers31751@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 7:52:13?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > broger...@gmail.com <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 6:42:13?AM UTC-5, MarkE wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13?PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > > MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
> > > > > > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code
> > > > > > > for his "weasel program", which is a simplified computer
> > > > > > > demonstration of natural selection. Why wasn't it published?
> > > > > > > Although the algorithm would be fairly simple to implement, and
> > > > > > > many people have implemented it already, it is not very scientific
> > > > > > > of him to mention a calculation using code in an educational
> > > > > > > setting without providing the code itself, so readers could know
> > > > > > > the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied Data
> > > > > > > Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
> > > > > > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the
> > > > > > > lab report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
> > > > > > > educational community if he published the original code, and those
> > > > > > > who disagree with it could also provide their objections to the
> > > > > > > original algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their
> > > > > > > objections.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/0
9/da
> > wkinss
> > > > > _weasel/
> > > > > Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
> > > > > In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
> > > > > fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
> > > > > His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
> > > > > that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
> > > > > in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
> > > > >
> > > > > But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
> > > > > aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
> > > > > is dear to the creationist heart,
> > > > > so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
> > > > > must be criticised, no matter what,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > > More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel
> > > > program?
> > > >
> > > > It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as
> > > > an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.
> > >
> > > Right, that program is a critique of a simplistic anti-evolution argument,
> > > not a serious model of any particular evolutionary process. And that
> > > should be obvious, since the program, unlike evolution, starts out with a
> > > specific target identified in advance.
> > Yes, and that objection is entirely beside the point.
> > You could easily make the program evolve towards -a- line
> > from the corpus of Shakespeare,
> > without specifing in advance which one.
> > (given the whole corpus as the reference)
> > The final result will be impossible to predict.
> >
> > For a more difficult example,
> > consider the AI programs that play chess, or go, starting ab initio.
> > They learned from their mistakes, while playing against themselves, [1]
> > and evolved after having played millions of games into a program
> > that is stronger than any grand master.
> > Their only selection criterion was: becoming a stronger player.
>
> I don't disagree with anything you say here. Perhaps you misunderstood my
> point.

Not at all.

> The object of Dawkins program is not really to model evolution in a
> serious way, but to use a simple program to critique the 747 in a junkyard
> argument.

I think it really was Fred Hoyle, with his steady state universe
and his panspernia. To push his panspermia theory
he had to argue that abiogenesis is almost certainly impossible,
given a mere billion years or so. Hence Hoyle's fallacy.
His steady state universe solves the origin of life problem
in the simplest possible way. Life has always existed.
In an infinitely old universe everything will happen,
no matter how improbable. (with probability one of course)

Hoyle didn't try to apply probability theory to that, afaik.
For his theory to work the speed of panspernia
(also an extremely improbable process)
must be greater than the speed of expansion of the universe.
The mind boggles.

> Of course it is possible to make serious models of evolutionary
> processes, or to use evolutionary algorithms.

Sorry about talking past you to others,
to show them that their objections are gratuitous.

Jan

On Tue, 19 Dec 2023 03:41:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, December 19, 2023 at 10:12:13?PM UTC+11, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Monday, December 18, 2023 at 8:02:12?PM UTC+11, Félix An wrote:
>> > > According to Wikipedia, Dawkins never published the source code for his
>> > > "weasel program", which is a simplified computer demonstration of
>> > > natural selection. Why wasn't it published? Although the algorithm would
>> > > be fairly simple to implement, and many people have implemented it
>> > > already, it is not very scientific of him to mention a calculation using
>> > > code in an educational setting without providing the code itself, so
>> > > readers could know the specifics of the algorithm. Even when I studied
>> > > Data Structures and Algorithms in Zhejiang University, each lab report
>> > > required pasting the code itself directly into the appendix of the lab
>> > > report in addition to attaching the C file. It would help the
>> > > educational community if he published the original code, and those who
>> > > disagree with it could also provide their objections to the original
>> > > algorithm, directly citing the code to back up their objections.
>> >
>> > Here's a critical assessment of it: https://evolutionnews.org/2016/09/dawkinss
>> _weasel/
>> Nothing but deliberate misunderstandings for propaganda purposes.
>> In the phase space of the Dawkins' thought experiment
>> fitness -is defined- as distance from the target string.
>> His 'critique' is mostly a rephrasing of things
>> that Dawkins himself said already in more detail
>> in 'The Blind Watchmaker'.
>>
>> But what do you expect? Hoyle's Fallacy,
>> aka the 'Tornado in a Junkyard' argument
>> is dear to the creationist heart,
>> so its effective demolition by Dawkins's thought experiment
>> must be criticised, no matter what,
>>
>> Jan
>
>More to the point, why is anyone still talking about Dawkin's weasel program?
>
>It's of no value in illuminating evolution. More evidence of Dawkins as an (eloquent) talker rather than a doer of science.

One more time; it wasn't supposed to illuminate evolution. Get a
clue.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge