Robert Marks and William Dembski co-authored a paper that appeared on their “Evolutionary Informatics Laboratory” website, titled
“Unacknowledged Information Costs in Evolutionary Computing: A Case Study on the Evolution of Nucleotide Binding Sites”. After bragging about how their work was going to overturn the findings of all those folks working on evolutionary computation in the real world, and bragging that they hadn’t had criticism of their latest offerings, people did have a look and made some criticisms. Well, when the criticisms arrived and pointed out that the program that supposedly countered everything people knew about evolutionary computation was, in fact, dependent for its conclusions upon the fact that it improperly initialized some of its variables, the paper was de-linked from the main website. There was no notice given that the criticism specifically discussed as missing by the authors had played a role in the de-linking.
Now, about a month later, there is an acknowledgment that the paper was withdrawn.
Thanks to those who pointed to a bug in our software. This paper has been withdrawn.
For revised analysis, see HERE.
Well, Bob and Bill, while I appreciate the thanks, at this point I’d be astonished if this were actually credited such that the IDC cheerleaders could figure out who exactly deserves that thanks.
And one would expect that the “revised analysis” either would utilize a correct methodology to support the original claims, or it would retract the strong claims made and assert weaker claims, but one would be wrong. Instead, the “revised analysis” continues to claim that “ev”‘s performance is due to “perceptron structure and error measure”, but offers nothing except the fact that it outperforms blind search on the problem of interest as support. It’s a great big instance of begging the question, without even the poor support of a bogus script to spew phony numbers.