Reflectorites
Sorry for this `bombing run' of late messages but I had a brief window in
between assigmnents to catch up on the more interesting ones.
On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 21:47:44 -0500 (CDT), Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
WE>My acquaintance with the works of Marcel Schutzenberger
>(apologies for not bothering with the umlaut) is pretty
>limited. I've read various items available in English on the
>WWW, and his contributions to the mid-60's Wistar conference.
>I can readily accept that Schutzenberger is well-regarded in
>his specialty.
Schutzenberger died a few years ago. He was AFAIK a medical doctor and
a mathematician. He appears to have made a lifelong study of the Neo-
Darwinian theory of evolution:
"Throughout his life Marco was interested in (and therefore passionately
interested in) the many flaws in the Darwinian theory of evolution as it is
commonly presented. In 1967 he participated in a remarkable conference at
the Wistar Institute of the University of Pennsylvania, which brought
together a collection of renowned physical scientists and mathematicians,
on the one hand, and life scientists, on the other. At that meeting Marco
became one of the first distinguished scientists in the world to point out
that a theory of evolution that depends on uniformly randomly occurring
mutations cannot be the truth because the number of mutations needed to
create the speciation that we observe, and the time that would be needed
for those mutations to have happened by chance, exceed by thousands of
orders of magnitude the time that has been available." (Richard Askey,
"Marcel-Paul Schtzenberger (1920-1996)" October 12, 1996.
http://www.cwi.nl/%7Ewouter/foto/elpu/Schut.html)
Schutzenberger was not a creationist and in fact was an agnostic. His
scepticism of Neo-Darwinism was thus not religiously based.
WE>However, this does not necessarily translate
>into good critiques of biology.
It doesn't necessarily *not* either. It is interesting how often evolutionists
have to start their arguments impugning the competence (and often the
motives and morality) of the critic. Their proposition seems to be that
evolution is so simple school kids in Kansas should be taught it, and anyone
who doesn't believe it is "ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked" but it is also
so hard that mathematicians and philosophers like Schutzenberger and
Dembski are not able to understand it in order to criticise it!
WE>In taking apart Wilder-Smith's use of Schutzenberger's
>statements at the Wistar conference, I ended up critiquing
>Schutzenberger as well. See
><http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/ntse_wre100.html>.
I have read Wesley's paper, and while it does critique Wilder-Smith's
arguments based in part on Schutzenberger's address to the Wistar
Conference, I could not see where it was much of a critique of
Schutzenberger himself. In the references to this paper Wesley doesn't even
list Schutzenberger's address!
WE>His claim that simulations of natural selection necessarily
>"jam" computers was addressed and disposed of in the
>discussion period, though Marcel declined to credit that
>another researcher might have succeeded where he had failed.
I have not read these proceedings yet (not for lack of trying) so if Wesley
has then he has the advantage of me. But I know enough about Wesley's
bluffing style (as if what Schutzenberger had actually found by experiment
*could* be addressed and disposed of in the discussion period"), that I
doubt this is the case. I note that Wesley vaguely says in another webbed
paper, "Criticisms of Evolutionary Computation":
"Even when Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger assured the attendees of the mid-
1960's Wistar conference on mathematical challenges to the Neo-
Darwinian synthesis that all efforts to model natural selection on computers
just "jam" the machines, another attendee spoke out saying that he had
successfully run such simulations, and was, in fact, impressed with how
quickly they worked."
http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/antiec.html
Perhaps Wesley will give us the details of: 1) who was this "attendee"? 2)
what exactly were his "simulations"? 3) what was Schutzenberger's and/or
Eden's response? 5) why if successful simulations similar to
Schutzenberger's were available in 1966 does Wesley make a big deal
about "the further work of Holland and others in evolutionary
computation" a decade later?
However, having said that, I would not regard Schutzenberger's claim that
when he tried to program random mutation and natural selection on a
computer of his day, as necessarily a decisive argument against Neo-
Darwinism, and I would be surprised if Schutzenberger thought it was. It
could simply mean that the computers of that day weren't powerful enough
(actually Wilder-Smith says that in the Wesley's paper) and/or it was too
difficult to program (more about that later).
Nevertheless, being unable to program Darwinian evolution on a computer
is not as good for the Darwinists as being able to program it and it working
fine! I am sure if that had actually been done, we would have heard all
about and it would be in every Biology textbook.
WE>Certainly the further work of Holland and others in
>evolutionary computation
I am interested in how biologically realistic and therefore relevant these so-
called genetic algorithms of "Holland and others" were.
A basic sexually reproducing eukaryote system has the following (grossly
*simplified*) components that all play a part in reproduction and
inheritance and therefore any mutation and selection. Do "Hollland and
others" computer simulations have the silicon equivalent of:
1. bodies?
2. reproductive systems?
3. cells?
4. membranes?
5. cytoplasm?
6. cytoskeleton?
7. organelles?
8. nucleus?
9. ribosomes?
10. enzymes?
11. DNA?
12. genes?
13. gene expression?
14. pleitropy?
15. chromosomes?
16. RNA?
17. proteins?
18. genetic codes (there are now known to several)
19. DNA transcription?
20. RNA translation?
21. Error checking?
22. mitosis?
23. meiosis?
24. crossover?
25. Mendel's rules?
26. fertilisation?
27. zygotes?
28. embryo?
29. development?
30. adulthood?
31. populations?
32. environment?
33. catastrophes
34. competition?
35. sex?
36. death?
37. adaptation?
38. stasis?
39. extinction?
40. random mutation-genetic?
41. randon mutation-chromosomal?
42. genetic drift?
43. natural selection-stabilising?
44. natural selection-disruptive?
45. natural selection-directional?
46. macroevolution?
47. possibility of failure?
It is interesting that computer guru Kelly admits they may not be:
"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge
in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have s
een no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That
includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of
generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures
have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce
speciation. And in computer life, where the term "species" does not
yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new
kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and
in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the
absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of
variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within
species. ... No one has yet witnessed, in the fossil record, in real
life, or in computer life, the exact transitional moments when
natural selection pumps its complexity up to the next level. There is
a suspicious barrier in the vicinity of species that either holds back
this critical change or removes it from our sight. (Kelly K., "Out of
Control: The New Biology of Machines", 1995, p475)
WE>showed that Schutzenberger's
>pronouncement of failure for such computational endeavors was
>misguided.
Even if this were true, why would it be "misguided"? Schutzenberger
honestly reported what he had found on the computers of his day and he
was not to know what "Holland and others in evolutionary computation"
would find later (assuming that they did do what Schutzenberger was
trying to do, namely faithfully simululate Neo-Darwinian evolution in
nature).
Interestingly the mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski was a
personal friend of Schutzenbeger and he still though in 1996 (and
presumably therefore so Schutzenberger) that Schutzenberger's criticism
was still valid because he cited it in that year in his well-known
Commentary article, "The Deniable Darwin";
"We do not understand, we cannot re-create, a system of this sort.
However it may operate in life, randomness in language is the enemy of
order, a way of annihilating meaning. And not only in language, but in any
language-like system--computer programs, for example. The alien influence
of randomness in such systems was first noted by the distinguished French
mathematician M.P. Schutzenberger, who also marked the significance of
this circumstance for evolutionary theory. "If we try to simulate such a
situation," he wrote, "by making changes randomly... on computer
programs, we find that we have no chance... even to see what the modified
program would compute; it just jams."[3]
[...]
[3] Schtzenberger's comments were made at a symposium held in 1966.
The proceedings were edited by Paul S. Moorhead and Martin Kaplan and
published as Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation
of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press, 1967). Schtzenberger's remarks,
together with those of the physicist Murray Eden at the same symposium,
constituted the first significant criticism of evolutionary doctrine in recent
decades." (Berlinski D., "The Deniable Darwin,"COMMENTARY", VOL.
101, June 1996, No. 6.
http://www.id.ucsb.edu/FSCF/LIBRARY/berlinski/deniable.html)
Wesley seems to be affronted that anyone would have the temerity to even
suggest that could be anything wrong with Neo-Darwinism? But Wesley is
august company. What is more interesting about the Wistar Conference is
not whether or not Schutzenberger was right in claiming that he had
showed that Neo-Darwinian evolution in nature was unable to be faithfully
simulated on computers, but the reaction to criticism of the leading
Darwinists present. Even Wesley's paper contains a glimpse of this:
----------------------------------------------------------------
'Dr. Schutzenberger: I want to know how I can build on computers,
programs which....'
The chairman, Dr. Waddington: 'We are not interested in your
computers!'" (Wilder-Smith 1970, p.130.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Run that by me again? They are at a conference called specifically to
discuss mathematical problems with the Neo-Darwinian theory of evolution
and the Chairman tries to rule out discussion of problems simulating it on
computers?
WE>It is interesting, though, just how often
>Schutzenberger's claim from the Wistar conference discounting
>evolutionary computation shows up in anti-evolutionary
>literature as if it still had some validity.
If "Schutzenberger's claim" has not been truly answered then it still *does*
have "validity". Darwinists have a habit of declaring criticisms of their
theory as "out of date" as though there is a `use-by' date on truth.
Sometimes they cite the nearest evidence to it as decisive refutation of the
criticism. I would like to see where it has been reported in the scientfic
literature where "Holland and others in evolutionary computation" actually
set out to reproduce *Schutzenberger failed simulation* and *claimed to
have succeeded*.
WE>I'll note that there is not complete agreement on this issue.
>Murray Eden, another Wistar participant,
"Murray Eden" was actually a Professor of Electrical Engineering at MIT
who I understand made a special study using computers of Neo-
Darwinism's claim about mutations being random..
WE>held that genetic
>algorithms did not set aside Schutzenberger's critiques when I
>corresponded with him on the topic.
I appreciate Wesley's frankness here. But it actually vitiates all that he has
just said. If Eden, who was AFAIK not a theist, and presumably no slouch
in the use of genetic algorithm's was uncovinced by what was said in
rebuttal to Schutzenberger's paper, and moreover was unconvinced by
what "Holland and others in evolutionary computation" had done since,
what exactly is Wesley's point?
Also was Wesley aware of Murray Eden's reply to him at the "1997 UT
Austin conference on Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise"
and if so, why didn't he mention that in his paper?
WE>We did not pursue the
>discussion beyond that, so I'm still unsure of what part of
>Schutzenberger's critique might be held to be valid despite
>the advances in evolutionary computation that have ensued.
So what exactly is Wesley point then?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of
having been designed for a purpose." (Dawkins R., "The Blind
Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p1)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 05 2000 - 20:11:10 EDT