Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>On re-reading, I see that Dembski's description of the weasel
RW>model is less clear than I first thought. But it can just
RW>about be reconciled with Dawkins' original.
I doubt it.
RW>Correctly described, each randomization of the remaining
RW>unmatched characters is considered one step, and proceeds
RW>whether or not any new match was achieved at the last
RW>step. Dembski has the algorithm randomizing the remaining
RW>unmatched characters when, and only when, a new match is made.
RW>This creates following potential problems: (a) One has to
RW>assume that each randomization (of all remaining unmatched
RW>characters) is completed before proceeding to check whether
RW>any new matches have occurred, but this is not clear from
RW>Dembski's account. (b) Dembski's account implies that if, at
RW>any stage, randomizing the remaining unmatched characters
RW>fails to produce another match, then the algorithm ceases;
RW>this is clearly wrong, but one can assume it's not what
RW>Dembski intended. (c) It's not clear from Dembski's account
RW>what constitutes a "step".
Richard, you are "missing the elephant". Dembski says that
"correct" letters are immune from mutation; where does Dawkins
say that? Hint: It is not said anywhere in TBW that "correct"
letters are immune from mutation, AFAICT.
RW>I think the issue is one of poor writing on Dembski's part
RW>rather than a difference in interpretation of Dawkins'
RW>model. If one knows what Dawkins' really wrote and interprets
RW>Dembski generously, then there should be no problem.
There is rather a large conceptual difference between treating
"correct" letters as immune to mutation and treating all
letters as equally likely to mutate. I continue to see this
as a problem.
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 11:49:08 EDT