Paper: Irreducible complexity (IC) not falsified, as claimed

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 7, 2014

Intelligent Design, Irreducible Complexity}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Abstract Irreducible complexity is a concept developed by Michael Behe to describe certain biological systems. Behe claims that irreducible complexity poses a challenge to Darwinian evolution. Irreducibly complex systems, he argues, are highly unlikely to evolve because they have no direct series of selectable intermediates. Various computer models have been published that attempt to demonstrate the evolution of irreducibly complex systems and thus falsify this claim. However, closer inspection of these models shows that they fail to meet the definition of irreducible complexity in a number of ways. In this paper we demonstrate how these models fail. In addition, we present another designed digital system that does exhibit designed irreducible complexity, but that has not been shown to be able to evolve. Taken together, these examples indicate that Behe’s concept of irreducible complexity has not been falsified by computer models. – Cite as: Ewert W (2014) Digital irreducible complexity: A survey of irreducible complexity in computer simulations. BIO-Complexity 2014 (1):1–10. doi:10.5048/BIO-C.2014.1.

Paper.

Comments

Thanks for reading the paper!
You are welcome: I generally enjoy reading the output of the evolutionary informatics lab. Your article should be added to the list of publications... My comments on this site are held in the moderation queue, and it is quite unlikely that this will change. So, I will follow your invitation at Digital Irreducible Complexity - Author Thread".DiEb_{April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
09:43 AM
9
09
43
AM
PDT}

Funny how unguided Darwinian processes figured all that ‘virtually impossible to hack’ stuff out by trial and error processes. :)
Indeed. And it makes one wonder what is the selective pressure that stimulates such evolution? Has evolution also produced a hacker that can break all but the "almost impossible to hack" processes of human biology? Some kind of parasite that disrupts the heart-lung coordination? ... absent such selection pressure, "why does such a thing exist at all?" is the first question, followed closely by "How did it get to be so effective and simultaneously efficient?" Basically, the holy grail of engineering design, simultaneous high effectiveness and high efficiency, is demonstrated in these mechanisms. Not at all what a "wasteful turtles"-producing undirected process should look like, I think.ScuzzaMan_{April 10, 2014
April
04
Apr
10
10
2014
04:36 AM
4
04
36
AM
PDT}

DieB, Thanks for reading the paper! Yes, Avida is the environment. However, I wouldn't say that EQU is the system, rather it is the function that the system performs. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that Avida itself was the allegedly irreducibly complex system.Winston Ewert_{April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
07:56 PM
7
07
56
PM
PDT}

OT: 'Unbreakable' security codes inspired by nature - April 3, 2014 Excerpt: A revolutionary new method of encrypting confidential information has been patented by scientists at Lancaster University. They have been inspired by their discoveries from human biology, which model how the heart and lungs coordinate their rhythms by passing information between each other. A mathematical model based on the complex interaction between these organs has now been transferred to the world of modern communications. This discovery could transform daily life which is reliant on secure electronic communications for everything from mobiles to sensor networks and the internet.,,, Professor Stefanovska emphasized the interdisciplinary aspect: "As so often happens with important breakthroughs, this discovery was made right on the boundary between two different subjects -- because we were applying physics to biology." Dr Stankovski said: "Here we offer a novel encryption scheme derived from biology, radically different from any earlier procedure. Inspired by the time-varying nature of the cardio-respiratory coupling functions recently discovered in humans, we propose a new encryption scheme that is highly resistant to conventional methods of attack." The advantage of this discovery is that it offers an infinite number of choices for the secret encryption key shared between the sender and receiver. This makes it virtually impossible for hackers and eavesdroppers to crack the code. The new method is (also) exceptionally resistant to interference from the random fluctuations or "noise" which affects all communications systems. It can also transmit several different information streams simultaneously, enabling all the digital devices in the home, for example, to operate on one encryption key instead of dozens of different ones. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140403132111.htm Funny how unguided Darwinian processes figured all that 'virtually impossible to hack' stuff out by trial and error processes. :)bornagain77_{April 9, 2014
April
04
Apr
9
09
2014
12:35 AM
12
12
35
AM
PDT}

Important omission in brackets
Irreducibly complex systems, he argues, are highly unlikely to evolve [via Darwinian mechanisms] because they have no direct series of selectable intermediates.
I am sure Behe is OK with IC evolving by design. And those computer models fail to meet the criteria of Darwinian mechanisms. Just sayin'...Joe_{April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

Irreducible complexity is a concept developed by Michael Behe to describe certain biological systems.
Biological systems. Got it.
Various computer models have been published that attempt to demonstrate the evolution of irreducibly complex systems and thus falsify this claim.
Non-Biological systems. Got it.Mung_{April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

To facilitate discussion, I've opened a thread on the Creation Evolution University website: http://creationevolutionuniversity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=82. I'll be monitoring that and attempting to answer any questions people may raise.Winston Ewert_{April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
06:31 PM
6
06
31
PM
PDT}

Winston Ewert, congratulations for your new paper. I just started to read it, but I already have a question about the last paragraph of your section on "Avida" (p. 3):
The parts in Avida are the individual steps in the process. If any of the steps in the process are missing, Avida will fail to calculate the EQU function. In this sense Pennock is correct, but we will discuss whether he is correct with respect to the other terms of Behe’s definition.
Isn't the EQU function the irreducibly complex system, and Avida just the environment in which it dwells?DiEb_{April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped @ 2
Where are all those objectors?
Interesting question. Maybe there are genuine honest inquirers, who may not understand the IC issue well enough, so they ask valid questions in order to visualize the idea. I don't have problems chatting with those folks. However, the objectors who simply defend their position entrenched in their materialistic worldview, regardless of the evidences and the strength of the arguments presented to them in favor of IC and/or CSI, are not easy to get along with or to keep a decent discussion. I don't know how to interact with those objectors.Dionisio_{April 8, 2014
April
04
Apr
8
08
2014
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT}

Where are all those objectors?Upright BiPed_{April 7, 2014
April
04
Apr
7
07
2014
06:57 PM
6
06
57
PM
PDT}

Congrats Winston!scordova_{April 7, 2014
April
04
Apr
7
07
2014
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply