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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)