Whether materialism (whatever that is, do we include energy?) is false is undecidable scientifically (currently) or philosophically.
Keiths is a sometimes prolific poster at TSZ. His declared self-interest in winning arguments at all costs is bizarre, I grant you, but as he’s banned here, it"s hardly fair to discuss him.
I usually look at the world. I poke things, kick the odd stone, listen for voices in my head. From my point of view, reality seems quite solid and indifferent. What you think is entirely up to you, so long as it does not involve oppression.
With a small amount of editing, this can be turned into something far more credible:
… how people will defend false ideologies like [Intelligent Design]. … What you perceive as “beaten up” are really logical fallacies that make you feel more secure in you worldview. If you start to spot the logical fallacies the arguments will start to look very different to you.
I would point out that, whilst @colewd has demonstrated no logical fallacies underlying materialism, the fallacies underlying ID are blatant and frequently pointed out. Those that immediately come to mind are:
the Texas sharpshooter fallacy and
Chipping in from the Peanut Gallery …
Since Bill posted a link to ENV’s probably faulty implementation of Dawkin’s WEASEL algorithm, I want to note that a properly implemented genetic search algorithm (GA) is highly efficient for appropriate applications. By “highly efficient” I mean \mathcal{O}[N\log{N}] for an application like the Sherrington Kirkpatrick Spin Glasses problem. That’s really good.
For the WEASEL problem with 28 letter, how quickly is converges to the answer depends on the mutation rate, population size and the selection scheme used, but it will be MUCH quicker than 26^{28} steps (~=4.2e+39).
I don’t know where you got this number but if you look at figure 3d of Sanford’s book regarding the distribution of mutational effect on fitness, you will see that it is probably no more that 4 of 5 mutations that are invisible to selection. Not really something close to 999999 of 1 million.
Not at all. Clearly, you have some homework to do regarding GE. See my answer to Rum above.
What empirical data is the diagram based on?
“Mutation effect” is shown as a numerical value. How is it measured and in what units?
How are the boundaries of the “no selection zone” arrived at?
I see Creation Ministries are on the case:
Fair and balanced?
Your answer to Rum was ‘purifying selection doesn’t work’. So I think you’re the one with some homework to do.
Well, that and repeating Sanford’s obviously made up nonsense distribution.
You write as if you don’t have the book. Did you forget the whole part of it devoted to declaring why the “zone of no selection” covers almost all mutations?
Sanford has another figure like that one, but where he has drawn the “zone of no selection” to be much much larger than implied by that figure.
So he thinks the vast majority of mutations are unselectable.
Sanford has also said that the most accurate measurement of the ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutations he could find in the literature (~1 in 1 million mutations) is from one of Lenski’s papers. Coincidentally also the lowest ratio found in the entire literature.
Didn’t you read his book? Don’t you remember his posts on the skeptical zone? The numerous threads we’ve had here over the years?
I gave you four assumptions that the are assumed true. If you agree to these 4 then your assumptions about the combinatorial ratio we have been discussing is incorrect. If you disagree with one of them we can break it down to a proof.
I have worked through this and believe we can break down each of these assumptions to the basic statistics of calculating a series of independent events where there is more than one solution.
Again:
Do you agree with the assumptions below?
Assumptions
Sequence space size is the number of ways to arrange a sequence.
Functional sequence space is the number of functional sequences as a subset of total sequence space
The average length of time of a search is proportional to the number of elements in a search. Every additional element adds time to the search.
The number of elements in a search is equal to the the total sequence space divided by the functional sequence space.
When I look at that figure, I see that it was not derived from any data. It’s just a fantasy.
Do you not realize that graphing a claim does not make it more credible?
I’ve seen another passage of the book where it is said that ~ 90% of the mutations land in the non selection zone, meaning that 9 of 10 are in this zone. Again, quite far from your 999999 of 1 million. I think it is you who write as if you don’t have the book.
So what? Are there any data that show that? You’re acting as though presenting a graph that includes zero data makes something true. Are you really that gullible, Gil?
We don’t need the book to see the problem with what you’ve presented.
I did not say they do. My comment was directed at @colewd. Unless it was Bill you were accusing of strawmanning.
The discussion was about whether or not GE proponents assume that purifying selection occurs. Sanford in his book says that about 10% of deleterious mutations may land in the selection zone where purifying selection can work. IOW, Sanford, of course, acknowledge that purifying selection occurs. That’s all. Can you at least granted Sanford this obvious point?
He acknowledges that it works 10% of the time.
He claims (or rather, you claim he claims) it does not work 90% of the time.
The entire argument for GE is that purifying selection can’t protect genomes from accumulating sufficient deleterious alleles that the organism loses fitness. Which is complete nonsense.
And you were citing a graph with no data as though it contained data.
Maybe, if YOU can grant the 100x more obvious points that:
Sanford’s paper about influenza did not include the vast majority of known H1N1 sequences. There are literally thousands.
Sanford’s assumption that he is looking at a lineage is absurd, because:
a) H1N1 is a subtype, not a strain (lineage);
b) influenza virus has a segmented genome, meaning that each segment represents a separate lineage; and
c) H and N in the subtype name refer to only two of the EIGHT segments. IOW, two H1N1 isolates can carry different lineages in 6 of the 8 segments. Thus, treating H1N1 as an evolutionary lineage is ridiculous.
d) This is not esoteric. It is literally Wikipedia-level knowledge.
Influenza A virus - Wikipedia
Sanford is pretty clear that it’s way, way more than 9 out of 10. In these two pages he makes it clear it’s at least 99.9%.
Now if we look at his figure there we need to consider the height of the curve near neutrality. The vast, vast, vast, vast, majority of mutations are in the nearly neutral part, with most others being deleterious but still, according to Sanford’s delusional reality, invisible to selection.
I think you need to re-read your book. Sanford basically argues as if purifying selection is ineffective in practice. That it might as well not occur, as it makes no difference.
As a narrow statement I would actually not disagree, as that number is not far removed from the percentage of DNA that does squat. But there non selection is probably completely neutral.
For GE to lead to catastrophe, the mutations must be neither neutral nor selectable, and the culmulative deleterious effect not differentiate between individuals in whatever sized population. It has never been clear to me what these proposed non-selectable mutations supposedly do, that have zero impact on competitive outcome but are eventually lethal.
