Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
RW>It's been a while since I read TBW, but I'm almost certain
RW>you're wrong here, Wesley. Dembski's description above of
RW>Dawkins' weasel algorithm seems OK to me (except that I
RW>wouldn't call the weasel model an "evolutionary algorithm",
RW>because it has a built-in target, and I don't think Dawkins
RW>calls it one.)
Steps (2) and (3) in Dembski's description say that "correct"
letters are treated differently than "incorrect" letters. I
am unable to find anything in TBW that would justify that
description. Since that would also be a major point of
disanalogy with the way Darwinian change works, I have some
problems accepting this as an accurate representation of
Dawkins' stance without an explicit and convincing
justification.
Also, I see no problem with my pointing out that "tries" is
used by Dembski in two different ways, but then these two
different meanings are used in a comparative fashion. Did
you mean to call that criticism of mine into question?
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 10 2000 - 10:38:20 EDT