Unfortunately, in my opinion you are mistaken. Perhaps you could try explaining briefly what the substance of this compatibility is. What does God add to evolutionary biology that evolutionary biology needs?
That’s not the important question, which is rather whether the quote is being used to say something that Carroll, in context, didn’t mean. I and others would say that it is.
I’m afraid not. You have focused on peripheral issues without getting into the substance. I for one still don’t understand what you mean by the compatibility of evolution and design and whether it means anything beyond the ideas of Behe and Denton. Where, again, does God fit into evolution? Beyond that, how would we tell?
I hope you don’t mind a couple of quick comments while I digest the rest:
I don’t think anyone has ever rejected the idea that design and evolution are compatible, not least because they can be shown to be compatible by looking (as you do) at implementation of genetic algorithms.
Thanks for the link.
Perhaps it’s my background in implementing evolutionary algorithms, but that paper seemed rather shallow.
Some specific issues I found with it are:
It doesn’t mention one of the most vexing issues when implementing evolutionary algorithms - their tendency to take advantage of loopholes in either the fitness function or the environment and reach ‘solutions’ that are nothing like the implementer’s goal[1];
It refers frequently to Dawkins’ ‘weasel’ program, but not to any more recent or more sophisticated evolutionary algorithms, which generally don’t share 'weasel’s simplifications;
It seems to assume that selection takes place by looking at the fitness values of the entire simulated population, but there are many evolutionary algorithms that implement selection by directly comparing two (or sometimes three) individual ‘organisms’, without ever calculating a fitness value.
P.S.: I’ve found that people who use English words and phrases to model evolution inevitably underestimate the flexibility of the language (and neglect recombination, passable misspellings and the differences to macromolecules), and this is no exception.
YONDER CLOUD ALMOST IN CAMEL
PONDER CLOUD ALMOST IN CAMEL
PONDER CLOUD ALMOST IN TAMEL (a place in Portugal)
PONDER ALOUD ALMOST IN TAMEL
PONDER ALOUD ALMOST IN TAMIL
PONDER ALOUD A POST IN TAMIL
PONDER ABOUT A POST IN TAMIL
PONDER ABOUT A POST IN TAMIL
WONDER ABOUT A POST IN TAMIL
WONDER ABOUT A POST IN TAMEL
WANDER ABOUT A POST IN TAMEL
WANDER ABOUT A PORT IN TAMEL
WANDER ABOUT A PORT ON CAMEL
WANDER ABOUT A PORT ON A CAMEL
…
Such as the one intended to produce a signal generator, which produced an aerial and amplifier instead. ↩︎
It’s called saving my sanity by having you guys do the work for me. Also, I am allowed time to reconsider - instant responses are off the table today. Rather than arguing, offer me better options.
I am tapping you to handle this line of discussion(evolutionary algorithms). Anyone else with relevant comments should filter them through you, them you can post them.
I have left myself room to change my mind - I stated that right up front. I am more than happy to consider constructive suggestions and this is the place to make them. Comments currently here can be moved back, or adjusted and reposted - that has already happened. I’m simply setting the bar on letting good comments in, rather than moving bad comments out.
Now, I have several hours of work to do. I look forward to the constructive efforts to add to the discussion.
I know that my doctoral hood qualifies me, apparently (despite its being equally relevant to biology with a doctorate in theology), only to be regarded as a hooded thug on this lofty subject which only the gods and their close companions may openly discuss. But I do think that @John_Harshman’s post was extremely germane and that it was stated in terms which were, if anything, excessively soft and gentle given the mind-roasting quality of the material about which he was inquiring. I am accustomed to being regarded as a thug. But if @John_Harshman is a thug, too, then I shall revel all the more in my status of thuggery.
OK, and that’s exactly the sort of thing I thought we might discuss. I am fully prepared to move @John_Harshman’s comment back, but I need time to consider, and input from everyone.
@John_Harshman making you wait is not abuse. I could simply not approve any comments at all until I’d thought about them for a day or two. I’m trying to give you, and everyone else, the opportunity to participate in the moderation process, and so reduce my own workload.
I MIGHT have been a little testy this morning when this moderation bombshell dropped in my lap, which isn’t anyone else’s fault. I created a plan to try to deal with the situation without burdening myself with all the extra work. I really don’t think that is terribly unreasonable.
So far, @roy and @Tim have made helpful contributions that took part of the burden off of me - thank you.
