|
Author
|
Topic: The Characterization of Intelligent Causation
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. June 2007 07:16
GENETICS
LifeEngineer wrote:
quote:
Genetics is a based on the continued use of a set of assumptions…
Now I don’t know if the assumptions are demonstrably false but they are, as LifeEngineer points out, based on only a superficial glance at the process of information transfer. It is similar to the conclusion that frogs come from mud because the tadpoles are first seen as they emerge from that substance. Intelligent causation is a far more reasonable assumption at this point.
The models of population genetics are mathematically sound and useful for predictions; but, they do not cause the distributions that occur anymore than the probability calculus causes auto accidents.
The idea that mapping from genotype to phenotype by the use of probability distributions is useful. It is useful in the same way all probability distributions are useful. They are useful in all cases where we do not understand the complex process that is being played out. We use them to temporarily circumvent the need for a full understanding while dealing with the problems at hand [example: genetic disorders].
To attribute the determination of phenotypes to these models is as LifeEngineer wrote:
quote:
… the most impressive modern illustration of the ‘Emperor’s new clothes’ phenomenon.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 15. June 2007 07:24
Mel,
How would you like to see the word phenotype defined?
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 15. June 2007 08:14
Mel,
Quote: The models of population genetics are mathematically sound and useful for predictions; but, they do not cause the distributions that occur anymore than the probability calculus causes auto accidents.
Most people appear to be aware that mathematical models can and often are used to produce misleading results. It is, however, interesting to note how few people actually understand the tricks used to manipulate models and how few people have the knowledge and ability to recognize the difference between valid models and analysis and fake or rigged models and analysis. [Even among people with extensive formal training in mathematics and statistical analysis, only a tiny percentage appear to have the ability to actually spot manipulation in models.]
As most people have probably heard, if you wish to rig a mathematical model, you generally don’t rig or change the mathematical operations. Instead, you rig the assumptions used. Sometimes the rigged assumptions are explicitly stated and relatively easy to spot. Other times, the rigged assumptions are buried in the programming and may be a bit more difficult to spot. I don’t recall ever seeing a population genetics model that was not rigged.
Probably the two most common techniques used in biology to rig models are 1)the use of unrealistically simplistic environments and 2)the use of intelligent non-random searches.
Everyone is probably familiar with models or simulations that purport to show how genetic drift and/or population bottlenecks can produce evolutionary change. Such models are always blatantly fraudulent. The trick or gimmick used is to use an unrealistically small number of mutations or variations (usually two possible forms). If such models are run using realistic assumptions regarding new mutations and realistic assumptions regarding number of mutations, the results obtained are very different and clearly not compatible with existing theories.
The other common type of manipulated assumption and fraudulent model used in evolutionary biology is the so called genetic algorithm. These models purport to show that random genetic searches can quickly and efficiently find very improbable solutions to complex design problems (thus we are supposed to conclude that random searches can or could explain complex evolutionary changes). The intentionally misleading trick in such simulations is to use intelligent non-random search algorithm. Most people, apparently, have a difficult time recognizing when a search algorithm has been non-randomly selected to fit a particular search problem.
Although few people seem to have the ability to recognize manipulated models and simulations, there are standard established procedures for testing for and demonstrating the manipulation of assumptions. It is somewhat surprising that the opponents of Darwinism aren’t more interesting in demonstrations that genetic models have been intentionally manipulated to support misleading conclusions.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 15. June 2007 08:20
Quote: How would you like to see the word phenotype defined?
For formal analysis, phenotype can be defined in terms of engineering specifications, or in terms of assembly and operating instructions. Either approach can be used to readily show that the geno-type/phenotype mappings required by neo-Darwinism and genetic determinism are logically impossible/silly.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 15. June 2007 08:31
LE,
quote:
It is a mistake to confuse literature and entertainment with formal science. Entertaining and articulate presentations of complex concepts serve a useful role in educating people and in exposing people to new ideas and new terminology. But such entertaining presentations should not be confused with real science.
You are absolutely correct, however, if the important concepts of which you have such a wonderful grasp but are obviously having a difficult time explaining are presented in his very popular book in a more understandable way then don't you think an honest critique from you would be beneficial especially because the subject of intelligent causation is still so vague and abstruse to, apparently, most of us?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 15. June 2007 08:42
LE,
quote:
For formal analysis, phenotype can be defined in terms of engineering specifications, or in terms of assembly and operating instructions. Either approach can be used to readily show that the geno-type/phenotype mappings required by neo-Darwinism and genetic determinism are logically impossible/silly.
From: Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
phe·no·type nəˌtaɪp/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fee-nuh-tahyp] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Genetics.
1. the observable constitution of an organism.
2. the appearance of an organism resulting from the interaction of the genotype and the environment.
3. {your definition here}.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 15. June 2007 08:55
LE,
quote:
Most people appear to be aware that mathematical models can and often are used to produce misleading results. It is, however, interesting to note how few people actually understand the tricks used to manipulate models and how few people have the knowledge and ability to recognize the difference between valid models and analysis and fake or rigged models and analysis. [Even among people with extensive formal training in mathematics and statistical analysis, only a tiny percentage appear to have the ability to actually spot manipulation in models.]
Is this another failing of the peer review process? If so, then maybe something like a Congressional Minority Response Committee should be created with the task of presenting a formal Report in which the errors in the findings of the peer review process are officially and very publicly presented.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. June 2007 18:57
LifeEngineer and IdeaForager,
LE wrote:
quote:
I don’t recall ever seeing a population genetics model that was not rigged.
I agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say all mathematical models are “rigged” by the assumptions made going in to their construction. I also agree that non-random search algorithms are passed off as random. I suspect that, by definition, it is not even possible to construct a truly random search algorithm.
IF wrote:
quote:
How would you like to see the word phenotype defined?
As I understand it, the phenotype is the physical expression of the allele combination present in the organism. The problem is that the process by which that combination is created in an individual is complex and only superficially understood. The distribution of phenotypes over the population can be predicted using probability models from the allele frequencies of the population [genotypes]; all the while having very little to do with the physical constitutes of the process.
I hope it is clear that the distribution model should never be the end-game of understanding but rather a temporary substitute used for solving problems in the interim.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 15. June 2007 19:52
Mel,
quote:
As I understand it, the phenotype is the physical expression of the allele combination present in the organism. The problem is that the process by which that combination is created in an individual is complex and only superficially understood. The distribution of phenotypes over the population can be predicted using probability models from the allele frequencies of the population [genotypes]; all the while having very little to do with the physical constitutes of the process.
So, the number 2 definition from the dictionary.com reference is correct and nothing more needs to be added?
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 15. June 2007 22:35
IF,
My understanding is consistent with definition (2).
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 16. June 2007 10:05
Mel and IF,
Quote: As I understand it, the phenotype is the physical expression of the allele combination present in the organism. The problem is that the process by which that combination is created in an individual is complex and only superficially understood. The distribution of phenotypes over the population can be predicted using probability models from the allele frequencies of the population [genotypes]; all the while having very little to do with the physical constitutes of the process.
The definition of phenotype provides a pretty good illustration of the difference between informal, dictionary, and soft science definitions, and the much more precise and rigorous definitions required for hard science analysis. Consistent with Mel’s definition above, there clearly exists a vague statistical correlation between alleles and physical phenotypes. Associated with some allele differences are measurable differences in physical traits (phenotypes). Similarly, if we look at major physical differences (between man and ape for example) we will find they are correlated with differences in alleles.
But neo-Darwinism and genetic determinism theories suggest a far different and far more precise mapping or relationship between genotype and phenotype. Specifically, genetic determinism theory asserts that the relationship or mapping between phenotype and genotype is sufficiently precise so that natural selection operating on phenotypes can produce evolutionary changes in genotypes. Similarly, genetic determinism asserts that changes in genotype can be sufficiently precise to produce and explain the phenotype variations that eventually result in evolutionary change.
In order to test the neo-Darwin and genetic determinism theories, you need a definition of phenotype that is far more precise than the vague correlation concept described by Mel.
If you use scientifically valid definitions of phenotype, such as the assembly instruction or engineering specs type of definition, it is quickly obvious that the genetic determinism theories are complete silly garbage.
Almost everyone accepts the general concept or principle that scientific definitions are more precise that common sense or dictionary definitions. But when you begin to discuss specific issues like the definition of intelligence or the definition of phenotype, even people with a serious scientific interest in the subject being discussed, appear to have a hard time accepting the differences scientific and non-scientific definitions.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 16. June 2007 10:45
LE,
quote:
In order to test the neo-Darwin and genetic determinism theories, you need a definition of phenotype that is far more precise than the vague correlation concept described by Mel.
What is your more precise definition, exactly? Don't we all need it in order to agree with your next statement. i.e. quote:
If you use scientifically valid definitions of phenotype, such as the assembly instruction or engineering specs type of definition
So then that statement in combination with, quote:
Almost everyone accepts the general concept or principle that scientific definitions are more precise that common sense or dictionary definitions. But when you begin to discuss specific issues like the definition of intelligence or the definition of phenotype, even people with a serious scientific interest in the subject being discussed, appear to have a hard time accepting the differences scientific and non-scientific definitions.
means to me that without your or someone's more precise definitions of both of those controversial words (and several others as you well know) the reason for the confusion is obvious, isn't it? Therefore, the solution is?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 16. June 2007 11:58
MEl,
quote:
quote:
I don’t recall ever seeing a population genetics model that was not rigged.
I agree. In fact, I would go so far as to say all mathematical models are “rigged” by the assumptions made going in to their construction. I also agree that non-random search algorithms are passed off as random. I suspect that, by definition, it is not even possible to construct a truly random search algorithm.
Could the reason for this disbelief be that both of you refuse or can't accept a perspective of reality that does not include human "intelligence"/conciousness? As, for example, is subconciously "assumed" when my wife says "everything happens for a "reason"!
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. June 2007 11:33
IF,
Quote: Could the reason for this disbelief be that both of you refuse or can't accept a perspective of reality that does not include human "intelligence"/conciousness?
First, goal directed intelligence does not appear to have anything significant to do with consciousness. Second, human intelligence appears to be only one of many types of goal directed intelligence.
But the acceptance of perspectives of reality, is a relevant issue. There are actually quite a number of choices in how we view the ‘reality’ of behavior. We can view the world as involving no goal directed intelligence. We can view the world as containing a causal relationships influenced by goal directed intelligence. In we are attempting to engage in the formal human behavior of scientific analysis, then the best or appropriate perspective is the one that produces the best predictive theories.
I am not asking that anyone blindly accept the goal directed intelligence perspective for the scientific analysis of behaviors associated with living systems. I am asking that the ‘goal directed intelligence’ perspective be evaluated as a potentially legitimate perspective and that the validity and usefulness of the perspective be determined using established hard science hypothesis testing procedures. The goal directed intelligence perspective, I propose, is a valid and useful perspective because it produces non-trivial hard science theories and none of the proposed alternative perspectives are capable of producing such predictive theories.
Not only are the academic life sciences unwilling to subject their theories and beliefs to hard science testing, but the evidence suggests that if you go to major academic institutions like a Harvard, a Duke or the Santa Fe Institute you are likely to find very few, if any, individuals with the technical skills and knowledge to perform or evaluate hard science hypothesis testing.
At least at this time, the experts from academic sciences do not appear either willing or able to address the hard science challenge posed by the goal directed intelligence perspective and teleological theories.
IP: Logged
|
|
LifeEngineer
Member
Member # 3446
|
posted 17. June 2007 11:38
Quote: What is your more precise definition, exactly?
Do you know what assembly instructions are? Do you know what engineering specifications are? Don't you recognize that phenotypes can be more precisely defined using either approach.
A phenotype class would be a specific set of assembly instructions. A phenotype class would be a specific class of engineering specifications.
A big part of the problem here is that people simply do not understand the basics of scientific definitions. Phenotypes and genotypes are classification systems. Complex classifications systems are based on sets of measurements and observations. You can measure engineering specification and you can measure assembly instructions. Based on observations/measurements and classification rules, you define the categories in the classification system and you determine which individuals belong to which phenotype category.
[ 17. June 2007, 11:45: Message edited by: LifeEngineer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
