I can't help but conclude that Jib must have you on ignore because your excellent post effectively ended the thread. So I'm gonna copy/past it for Jib to see:

Berlinski's computer program analogy isn't useful at all except for obscuring the understanding of the effect of genetic variation in organisms (which is the intent). (Before the creationist ******s chime in, that doesn't mean all analogies between the genetic code and computer algorithms aren't useful.)

It's simply not true that most random mutations induce deleterious effects on an organism's fitness in an analogous way that random changes to computer code will likely induce catastrophic loss of program utility.

That was what I meant.

But human DNA evolved, correct? Berlinski is attacking the idea that random variation is the ENGINE of evolution, from the first simple, one-celled organism up through the most complex. So start with a one line program, make millions of copies and intentionally introduce random errors, and call Berlinski when you end up with Windows XP.

This is circular reasoning. You cannot say that darwinian mechanisms would work fine because they worked fine. The question is whether or not if darwinian mechanisms were the engine of evolution that we could have gotten to the this point in diversity.

If you put the right selective pressure, it's actually pretty obvious that you would. Windows XP is too grand scale for current computation power, but there is a bajillion smaller examples on the net if you simply look around.

Here's one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

This is an important point. Berlinski is not saying that dawinian mechanisms cannot produce diversity at this stage in the game. He specifically says that we can and have observed this. But that is could not be the engine for all of the diversity that we see.

By Dariwian mechanisms does he mean natural selection? If so then his statment is trivially true. genetic drift proves his case.

Also, I don't know if you realize this but it is a waste of time to listen to this Berlinski fellow on this particular topic.

The guy admits to being a crank.

Crank: "Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1] A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.

I think you're better off listening to what real scientists have to say on this issue.

He is saying that it is a fact that most mutations are not harmful. His expert opinion should be enough to satisfy you. If you value Berlinski's opinion over PZ Meyers on an issue where PZ Meyers is clearly an expert on and Berlinski is clearly not, then you are not being intellectually honest with yourself.

Berlinksi's statement: "Almost all mutations are deleterious" is dead wrong. This is sufficient to destroy Berlinksi's credibility on any statement with regards to evolution.

We're supposed to call Berlinski in 2001? Is this a trick question?

And you have no reason to protest, because in your example you have cleverly "forgotten" that a mutation may be random, but when there is selection pressure you also introduce an element of predictability.

When you make such a basic error I will assume your goal is to unjustly flatter your own foregone conclusion.

It's so basic that the theological equivalent is claiming the first commandment says "you shall have other gods before me".

This is a pretty astute observation, and I for one, don't have an answer at this time. Maybe if I didn't read so much twoplustwo I'd actually finish the damn Dawkins book. Anyone know if he deals with this more directly?

It is not like I am saying "this guy is why I don't believe in X". He posed a question and I passed that question on. You can learn a lot by the reaction of people.

I never said that I was taking his word over anyone's. Once again, I merely posed a question.

And you of all people should understand that if I do not find the evidence for something to be convincing there is nothing that I can do about, right?

You guys are just comical. When we say your position is all chance you wave the flag of "natural selection". When we say your position is deterministic you say "random mutation". You are a case in point of the fact that atheism is both rationalistic and irrationalistic at the same time and in the same way. The truth is all you're doing is saying that design exists without a designer, the universe obeys natural law that has no lawgiver, that all is order that somehow magically appeared from chaos. If God doesn't exist you can never avoid the genuinely self-contradictory.

The article from which the crank quote is taken ends thusly:

Unreal. If a creationist said this he would immediately be tarred and feathered for obscurantism. We aren't supposed to question scientists? Oh, yeah, forgot - with Pope Dickie I the new pontiff of the Church of Scientism, the next step is to burn believers at the stake.

I understand. Just giving you a heads up. This guy is much more dangerous than Ray Comfort because he puts on such a professional "I know what I'm talking about" act whereas Ray Comfort's gross ignorance is easy to detect. Berlinski is an intellectual wolf in sheep's clothing.

I never said you were. I was just pointing out the shaky ground you would be on if that were the case. One of the best indicators that somone has an agenda or is not being honest with himself or others is when he dismisses an expert opinion but latches onto a nonexpert opinion.

Yes there is. Go to the bookstore right now and buy this. My point being, you can learn more about this subject and thus be better at analyzing the evidence.

Also, just because the evidence is not convincing does not necessarily mean you have the intellectual right to formulate a skeptical position. You can't just say, I don't find the evidence convincing that evolution by natural selection + genetic drift and other factors is an adequate model to account for all the biodiversity we see. Therefore, I'm not buying it.

That would be like me saying I don't find the evidence for the general theory of relativity convincing as an adequate model of gravitation. Afterall this is true. I don't find the evidence convincing! Why? Because I lack the mathematical aptitude to even analyze the evidence. The rational course in this example is not to take a skeptical position towards the general theory of relativity. Instead, you should appeal to expert testimony.

The key here is to recognize that your ignorance doesn't necessarily give you the license to be skeptical on a subject if it can be established that experts on that subject exist.

I will tell you now that I put Berlinski ahead of Dawkins, but probably along a similar plane.

I continue to read what I can and watch what I can and ask as many questions as I can. This is one of the reasons that I have grown so fond of Madnak, no matter how dumb or misguided he may have thought my questions were he still took the time to work them out with me instead of scoffing. My beliefs today may or may not be my beliefs tomorrow. But my beliefs are formulated by the evidence put in front of me. That is the best that I can do.

But it does. This is what everyone in the world does unless they blindly follow someone else like Subfallen would like to see us do (of course he gets to pick who we follow)

I have to formulate my own beliefs, so this is all that I can do.

Then the questions become what experts to listen to. In the debate about darwinian mechanisms I have watched videos and read things from experts in Mathematics (or people drawing from such experts) that claim mathematically speaking darwinian mechanisms could not be the cause of the full stretch of biodiversity. Am I supposed to believe a biology expert over a mathematics expert on subjects of mathematics?

Wait what? Are you saying that you think Berlinski is smarter than Richard Dawkins on the subject of evolution?

Madnak is one of the most articulate posters I've ever seen. Whenever I scoff, which is mostly off screen, it is usually because I struggle to put into words what I'm thinking. This may be due to ignorance in part, but lackluster articulation skills is also a culprit. I shouldn't say lackluster. It's mostly about not being an all-star articulator which Madnak is. He's also very compassionate which is why he's willing to take the time to elucidate for others.

I understand. I just question whether you've given the modern evolutionary synthesis a fair shot. AFAIK, you have not read even one popular science book on the subject.

Subfallen was right on that issue. When you are hopelessly ignorant on a subject, as I know you are on evolution using Madnak's standard. (According to Madnak, everyone is unless they have a PHd in biology) then the correct strategy is to appeal to expert testimony or as you say it, to blindly follow an expert.

But you don't. You don't have to formulate your own beliefs when you are hopelessly ignorant on a subject. This will lead you astray almost every time. It's better to shelve an issue for later.

For starters, listen to the people with PHds in the field of inquiry.

When it comes to a debate about evolutionary mechanisms, listen to biologists over mathematicians.

Yeah, why should a theory that has been verified by seemingly independent tests millions of times be given precedent over one that's passed zero tests?

You don't think the solar system could have formed with nothing but gravity and the standard model subject to some initial conditions? The solar system seems to be a highly ordered state that appeared from something much more chaotic.

I just find it revealing that science, which is supposed to be about asking questions, tells us to not ask THEM any questions. Very like an absolutist priesthood or fascist state. I think this attitude is beginning to erode popular confidence in science. For most people Darwinism is unconvincing on its face. When the reaction to questioning its validity is "Just shut up and believe what I say" it becomes even less convincing.

I'm talking about the nature of reality itself, not just the solar system. If one claims that chance is the ultimate principle of reality the kind of question Berlinski raises is relevant. To keep it simple, it's reasonable to believe that the appearance of design means there is a designer. And its reasonable to question how chance (or some impersonal principle of law) can produce that design.

It's more about when 999 questions have already been answered, and the same guy, rather than accepting the answers, is spending all his time trying to think up new questions. And he does this not out of a spirit of intellectual inquiry, but because he has an ulterior motive for believing the modern synthesis is insufficient to explain the development of life.

Gosh, it's a scandal.

So are you ready to describe an undesigned universe yet?

It's only about 1 or 2 questions. The one relevant here has been asked since Darwin, and only answered with Dawkinsian just so stories. How can randomness explain apparent design? If you have the answer I have a nickel(um, 50 cents nowadays) you can use to give Berlinski that call.

I can't describe the ultimately self-contradictory. Just what does a square circle look like?