[asa] Peer review of ID 'paper' reveals orders of magnitude errors

From: PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com>
Date: Tue Oct 09 2007 - 12:13:57 EDT

Wesley Elsberry has published a posting on PT describing how various
people discovered orders of magnitude errors in a recent paper by
Marks and Dembski, supposedly showing that Ev (Schneider's program)
performed worse than random search.

What is fascinating that as early as august, Schneider had already
found the errors

<quote>2007 Aug 03. In An Interview with Dr. William A. Dembski
Dembski complains:

    Perhaps the most striking instance of silence is that of Thomas
Schneider, whose article on the evolution of biological information in
Nucleic Acids Research (2000) claims to refute my colleague Michael
Behe. When Robert Marks and I recently showed that his evolutionary
program was equivalent to a neural network and that it works worse
than pure chance (http://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/marks/T/ev2.pdf),
he too fell silent though in the past he would reply in a day's time
on his own website to any challenge from me. I have found that
Darwinists make a habit of staying quiet about problems with their
theory and ignore the best criticisms of it.

Several people told me about that paper soon after it came out in
early June 2007. The paper has no date, no authors and is on a
personal web site. It was presented initially as a draft of a paper.
As such it is a moving target so I decided to wait for it to be
properly published in a peer reviewed journal. As for not responding,
I had other much more important things to work on, rebutting Dembski's
obviously incorrect arguments is low priority and I will respond in
time. As of August 4, 2007, the original page, with link
is gone. So how can Dembsky complain about me not responding? (NOTE:
please do NOT send me this or any other document - I have my own
copies!) On the other hand, Dembski has had 6 years to deal with

    * Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"
    * Effect of Ties on the Evolution of Information by the Ev program

but as far as I can tell, he ignored them.

Clearly Dembski has not run the Evj program or he would have seen that
it does not work "worse than pure chance". Here's what you do. Run the
Evj program with 'Pause on Rseq >= Rfreq' turned on, max out the speed
and let it evolve until Rs >= Rf. This standard run completes in 675
generations on any computer and takes under 8 seconds on a 3 GhZ Mac
Pro. That evolutionary run is supposedly, according to Dembski, "worse
than chance". </quote>


When finally on september 26, another poster sent an email, the paper
was taken down without any notice. Another paper which references the
findings was left undisturbed.

The question is will Marks and Dembski acknowledge the errors and
those who discovered them? Will a future paper correct the perception
that Marks et al disproved Ev? Given that ID proponents were quick to
herald the paper and findings, what does this mean for their ability
to do 'peer review' ?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 9 12:25:42 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 09 2007 - 12:25:42 EDT