Talk:Weasel program

message: Richard Dawkins isn't an etiologist. You should think before you start to write.
H. W. Boger
:That was a typo; I copied the link from elsewhere, sorry! And BTW, you might try to be helpful (e.g. by fixing the error) instead of being an ass. MFNickster 18:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Dembski edited 'Mere Creation', but is not the author of the line
For Dawkins, once the computer gets a particular character right, it never allows mutation to work on that character again.
Newman, R.C. (1998) 'Artificial Life & Cellular Automata'  in: Dembski, W.; (ed.) 'Mere Creation. Science, Faith & Intelligent Design' Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press S. 427-445
Thomas Waschke (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dembski didn't write a cited line 

message: An extensive discussion was done here https://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ba64eda71df143af about how the word "random" can be used to imply intention or non intention. Also see http://scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/TauTology  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.15.48.71 (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random selection or selection at random ? 

message: I added a external link which shows what a sham Dawkin's weasel program is.  Here it is: Dawkins’ weasel revisited ken 12:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I moved it to the bottom of the list and identified the link to show what a sham it is. :-) Cheers, Vsmith 13:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I added a external link which shows what a sham Dawkin's weasel program is 

message: The new Criticism of the Critics section is, in my eyes, misplaced.  It doesn't really seem to be about the Weasel Program at all.  It refutes criticisms that aren't mentioned in the rest of the article, and the general tone is unencyclopediac.  I propose that the section be removed.  I will do so in a couple days if there are no objections. Alex Dodge 01:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticism of the Critics" 

message: It looks as though the fourth character of the first line of sample output is missing. I could of course replace it with any random letter (except H), but I’m not sure whether the sample is quoted from the book or generated for this page. -Ahruman 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a comment in that section which says "Note: first generation is 27 characters, but it is verbatim as Dawkins gave it in the book. Perhaps the first or last character is a space." I dug out the book and verified that the examples match Dawkins's text. MFNickster 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription error? 

message: I was tinkering with the weasel program a bit and had a few insights, which I offer here
on the basis that they might provide useful angles to this article.  I figured out
that it could be made into a more realistic representation of Darwinian evolution by 
natural selection if, instead of hunting for a given phrase, it used the rules of 
language to simply come up with any possible phrase that made sense.
This being difficult to do, to say the least, a workable compromise would be to
give the program a text file, specify a string of a particular length, and then 
allow the program to go off on its own and duplicate some unspecified string in the
file.  This would not be very hard to do and it might be kind of fun ...
... but the really interesting thing is that it would be a waste of time, since from the
point of view of the user it is hard to believe that it would take any longer to converge
on a solution (in terms of generations, ignoring the greater computing overhead for 
each generation).  In fact, it would probably be faster, since having more
strings as possible targets gives more chances for a random letter selection to come
up with a match.
All the weasel program was ever supposed to do, as anyone who understands
it knows, was show that the "monkeys & typewriters" notion of Darwinian evolution was 
unrealistic -- a "monkeys" or "saltationist" program would just try to pick strings at random 
until it got a match, which would take a *very* long time, while the weasel program quickly 
and relentlessly converges to a solution.
That provides the "light bulb going on in the head" revelation to show a person who's 
hung up on (but not clinging to) the "monkeys & typewriters" scenario what the real story
is:  "My weasel takes out your monkey." 
Incidentally, there is also the notion -- the "Gish fallacy", after its best-known advocate,
Duane Gish -- that since the weasel program (or other evolutionary computer simulations in 
general) is a program built by a designer, it demonstrates that organisms in the real world 
must have been made by a designer as well.  I realize that nobody with sense fails to laugh 
at this, it being a confusion of a model with the thing it's modeling, but I offer as a 
comparison that it's like claiming that since a toy robot panda is built in a factory in 
China, then a real panda must be made at the same factory -- or like the logic used in 
cartoons in which a tunnel is painted into the side of a mountain and a train roars out.
(By the same logic a computer model of a tornado would demonstrate that tornados were
designed.)
One comment:  if I am an admirer of Dawkins for his knowledge of evolutionary science, that 
does not correspondend to *any* endorsement of his views on, uh, other subjects.  MrG 4.225.211.216 20:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Realistic Weasel Program? 

message: A portion of a 1987 BBC program on Dawkins and his book, "The Blind Watchmaker", is now available on YouTube. If you go to about 6:15 in that video, you will see display of Dawkins' "weasel" program in operation. It shows that there was no "locking" of correct characters. That should put paid to any lingering doubts that Dawkins accurately described his program in "The Blind Watchmaker". Also of interest is the antievolutionist reaction, where William Dembski speculates that Dawkins must have used a different program rather than admit that the simplest explanation is that he has persisted in being wrong on the point for over eight years. The relevant probabilities for "weasel" are laid out here. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Dembski is assuming that the "runs" Dawkins transcribes in the book are a verbatim record of every string ever printed on the screen while the program is running. It's quite possible that the program itself flashes every generated mutation to the screen (including "bad" mutations which aren't kept to the next generation; the quoted description describes the program "examining the mutant nonsense phrases" before choosing the closest match), while the book just chooses to list the "winning" strings from each generation. --McGeddon (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't have TBW with me, but I don't recall any statement to the effect that the reader is being treated to any transcript of on-screen displays. Dembski is choosing to stick to his incorrect description, and is forced to take increasingly uncharitable stances toward Dawkins because the evidence keeps piling up that Dembski has just been flat-out wrong on this. --Wesley R. Elsberry (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do have a copy of TBW (the 1996 Edition) in front of me and he uses the word "reporting" and always says that he is showing every 10th generation. "Reporting" indicates to me that it is not a transcript. Of course, it doesn't really matter because as you and everyone else with a passing interest and some competence in programming has shown, a program without locking can easily generate results consistent with those reported in TBW. My informal experimentation has shown similar convergence times for a non-locking version with a population size from 200-250 and a mutation rate of about 2%.Craig Pennington (talk) 12:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent events 

message: I've started what I hope are some improvements, and encourage Patrick to pursue his comment from the end of the last section. I felt a little unclean making this edit, and am happy with MFNickster's prompt reversion, although it is unfortunate that the text is clearly incorrect. The typo in the original book is trivial, but it may confuse a reader who was trying to make sense of the results because it's unlikely that generation 2 would arise from generation 1. If a reliable source could be found, it might be worth addressing the typo in the article. Also, while the article must remain encyclopedic, in view of the "locked letters" controversy, it seems fair to include a section on that topic. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, that's a logical conclusion regarding the change from generation 1 to 2.  If I recall, there was some mention early on about the first string being one character too short, and the obvious place for it is where you inserted the space. Nevertheless, I think it's best to stick with the text unless we find another source to clarify it. The book does not show 2 spaces between the first and second 'words', so we should probably keep it consistent. MFNickster (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving article

message: Is there a source for this section? The Blind Watchmaker doesn't include such a detailed description. If it's original research, it should go. MFNickster (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters [my step 1], just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying [my step 2]. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases [my step 3], the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL [my step 5].
Step 4 is implied. Evercat (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: My concern is that if it's limited to what Dawkins described, we can't assume any variables he used. To include that information uncited is original research and leaves the section vague as to whether this is Dawkins's Weasel algorithm, or just "an example Weasel algorithm." Also, if it's already implied by Dawkins's description, it's redundant to the article. MFNickster (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I do not know the policy basis, but I have observed a lot of mathematical articles where unsourced proofs are given. I find those proofs, with their brief comments, to be particularly helpful. In the same way, the algorithm section here is about the only clear statement in the article that helps the reader understand what it's all about. I believe that the argument is that the mathematical proofs (and the algorithm section here) are obviously true and so don't require a source, although I confess to feeling uncomfortable after putting it so plainly. There are many implementations of the weasel program, and a tremendous amount of non-Dawkins discussion, so I think it is reasonable that the article contain a small amount of non-Dawkins material (that is, we are not limited by exactly what Dawkins has written on the matter). Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed this specific example: Allele frequency (and there are plenty more very helpful articles like that) has a bunch of original research, yet, for those who understand it, the information is a simple statement of fact. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Weasel algorithm' section

message: 'Weasel program' is not the 'biomorphs' program (which was a 3x3 graphical fractal-based 'creature' program). Both programs were
written by Dawkins and discussed in the same book 'The Blind Watchmaker', but I don't think its correct for 'biomorphs' to redirect here ?
217.34.183.65 (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The biomorph page is a disambiguation page now, I don't think it needs to redirect here. MFNickster (talk) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biomorphs

message: Why the change to the lead where "The weasel program is..." became "Dawkins' weasel, the Dawkins weasel, or the weasel program is..."? (btw the nowiki stuff is not necessary.) If some people refer to it as "Dawkins weasel" that can be mentioned in a by-the-way fashion somewhere, but is there (excluding creationist's websites) reason to think that the alternate names are required in the opening sentence? If the current lead is kept, the article needs to be renamed (please don't). I favor the original wording. Johnuniq (talk) 02:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dawkins weasel 

message: This discussion is somewhat amusing in that it betrays the ignorance of both parties, and the ignorance is amusing in that both parties are quite self-conscious of their intellectual superiority.
(These programs have precious little to do with biology, and many here at least understand that, unless one were to posit that evolution had targets.)
- First, it's the author's fault that he didn't give a low-level specification of what the program does, so he shouldn't really complain about other people's assumptions.
- Second, in high level terms, what it does is: 1. Generate a random sequence, 2. Compare it to the target, 3. Pick the sequence that most resembles the target, 4. Modify it in a random way, 5. Return to (2). Now, the relevant step is step (3). It doesn't matter one iota whether (4) is allowed to introduce changes to parts of the seuqnece that already matched the target; step (3) will assure quick convergence as long as the changes in (4) aren't brutal, because, if you stop to think for a moment, what it does is pick a sequence that is closer to the target than the one before it - again, provided the changes in (4) aren't brutal. It doesn't matter whether position IX is allowed to change once it matches the target, because what's being evaluated is the whole's resemblance - so, even if IX changes, the fcat that the sequence is selected means that XII and VIII turned from wrong to right.
This program doesn't do anyhting at all that sheds any light on anything other than he program itself . any computer scientist will tell you that. Using it as an 'argument' in a discussion of anythign but itself is fallacious.
2.80.222.59 (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, but doesn't really help us improve the article. That's what these discussion pages are really for. Do you have any suggestions? MFNickster (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The "no lock" argument is crucial in drawing analogies between the weasel program and the biological mutation process - as was demonstrated by both proponents and opponents of Dawkins' book. The program is just an illustration, not an argument. The argument itself (that the cumulative selection works much faster than one step selection) should be obvious to anyone with basic math knowledge, not necessarily a computer scientist. Roponor (talk) 20:13, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lock, no lock, it's indifferent 

message: This article is inconsistent with regard to the number of letters said to be on the hypothetical keyboard. 86.135.115.218 (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where exactly? There are 27 characters (all letters + space) on the keyboard, and they generate a string that is 28 characters long. Evercat (talk) 23:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're right. I misread part of it. 86.135.115.218 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  26 letters? 28 letters? 

message: Its funny how anti-creationist experiment says it would take more than lifetime of universe to get 28 character-long variation right from set of 26 characters when trying randomly. Yet forgets to explain how self-evolving, self-replicating cell can somehow come to existence at random. Nobody else found this hillarious ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentospech (talk • contribs) 10:29, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the whole article. If you have any specific suggestions for improving it, post them here. MFNickster (talk) 01:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

text: The article doesn't forget anything. The weasel program is not meant to explain abiogenesis, only compare cumulative selection to random selection. Where cells came from is not mentioned because it is not relevant to this specific argument. To answer your question, though, life, as you rightly assume, did not begin as a complete single-cell organism. The cell itself evolved as a result of natural selection from a process that began with a much simpler self-replicating molecule. Perhaps you think such a molecule appearing is itself vastly improbable. Perhaps you're right. But consider there are at least 100 billion stars in the galaxy, and at least 170 galaxies. If we assume that the other galaxies are, on average, like ours, then that's 1022 stars in the universe, any one of which might support life. Thus, if there is, say, a one in quadrillion chance that any given star may eventually give rise to life by pure chance, then that it should happen somewhere, sometime, is a statistical certainty. See Law of large numbers. - furrykef (Talk at me) 23:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what Dawkins is talking about when he refers to the Argument from Personal Incredulity. You can do all the probability calculations you want, but it doesn't disprove anything. Unless you can show your calculations accurately model abiogenesis - which would be difficult since the process is purely hypothetical at this point and hasn't been modeled in detail from start to finish. What science has shown is that certain steps in the development of life (e.g. random formation of amino acids) are possible through random processes, and such steps are necessary but not sufficient for the formation of life. Whether one finds this incredible or not has nothing to do with what actually occurred. MFNickster (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: The program defines an end target (the quote from Hamlet) and assigns a score the randomized string based on how similar to the target it is. Then the program keeps the desired part.
"Compare each new string with the target string "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL", and give each a score (the number of letters in the string that are correct and in the correct position).
If any of the new strings has a perfect score (28), halt. Otherwise, take the highest scoring string, and go to step 2."''
And this was brought up as further evidence for evolution? It searches for predefined data! It actively selects pre-defined data, and stops mutation once parts of the pattern are found. Nothing about is truly random. it actually sounds like theistic evolution, i.e. evolution started by an intelligence, with an already defined goal.
How is that Darwinian? Darwinian evolution has no pre-defined "goal", and it doesn't select according to the parameters of that goal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.64.215.242 (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You should read the article, specifically the "Implications for Biology" section. Dawkins says the same thing, and explains why that's not the point. MFNickster (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Or if the article is too much, read "random variation combined with non-random cumulative selection is different from pure chance" in the introduction. Johnuniq (talk) 05:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This makes no sense whatsoever 

message: I see a few potential problems with the new material.  The tone may need some work (i.e. in an encyclopedia we don't directly address the person as "you" (second person)).  It also appears to be original research (WP:OR) when Wikipedia articles should only summarize reliable sources (WP:RS).  There does appear to be a suggested book, if that is the reference it remains unclear what sentences summarize from the book exactly (i.e. usually after a sentence or two there would be a source including the page number).  Lastly, this book appears to be self published?  I also see a relation between your nickname and a web page advertizing the book, suggesting a possible conflict of interest (WP:COI).  Because of all those issues I'm reverting the changes for now.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 10:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The text was not suitable; thanks for removing it. Apart from anything else, the article is about a particular idea by Dawkins and his algorithm convincingly shows his point, namely that random changes can lead to a useful outcome if directed by natural or unnatural selection. Commentary that is not directed at the simple weasel program is not useful here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treanco's addition 

message: The passage from Hamlet (scene three, act two) is as follows:
Hamlet:  Do you see yonder cloud that’s almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius:  By the mass, and ‘tis like a camel, indeed. 
Hamlet:  Methinks it is like a weasel.
Polonius:  It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet:  Or like a whale?
Polonius:  Very like a whale. 
I got a laugh when I consulted Hamlet to get the full context. It reminded me of Darwin's fantasy about a black bear evolving into a whale (or some enormous aquatic creature with the mouth the size of a whale).  
"In North America the black bear was seen by Hearne swimming for hours with widely open mouth, thus catching, like a whale, insects in the water. Even in so extreme a case as this, if the supply of insects were constant, and if better adapted competitors did not already exist in the country, I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale" (On the Origin of Species, 1859 edition, Chapter VI).
If anyone knows the reason Dawkins chose that line from Hamlet it would make an interesting addition to the article.
2600:8801:B011:300:A15D:DD06:EA71:2279 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does Dawkins explain why he chose the "Weasel" line from Hamlet as his target phrase?