• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Simulations of 'Irreducible Complexity' Emerging from Evolution

Wowbagger

The Infinitely Prolonged
Wowbagger
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
15,660
Location
Westchester County, NY (when not in space)
I used to have a good list of these things. But, I don't know where it is, right now. Perhaps some of you could help me rebuild it.

I am looking for any and all of the most fascinating computer simulations of evolutionary processes. In particular, those that demonstrate how "Irreducible Complexity" could emerge from such a process.

The only one I remember, for now, is this one, first demonstrated to me at TAM5: http://www.stellaralchemy.com/ice/

I know there are a few others out there.

Even if the simulation does not, specifically, demonstrate "IC" very well, perhaps contributions that are notably fascinating in some other way would also be cool.
 
Wowbagger said:
I am looking for any and all of the most fascinating computer simulations of evolutionary processes. In particular, those that demonstrate how "Irreducible Complexity" could emerge from such a process.
Click to expand...

Why would you care about this? The concept of irreducible complexity has some philosophical merit, but it cannot be defined rigorously (meaning there's no way to tell unambiguously whether something is irreducibly complex - we could just be too stupid to figure out how to reduce it), and so it has no use scientifically.
 
Have you looked at Wolfram Mathematica. There are lots of applications there that might be what you are looking for.:)
 
Ziggurat said:
Why would you care about this? The concept of irreducible complexity has some philosophical merit, but it cannot be defined rigorously (meaning there's no way to tell unambiguously whether something is irreducibly complex - we could just be too stupid to figure out how to reduce it), and so it has no use scientifically.
Click to expand...

You may be able to show that something is irreducibly complex within a certain context, but not in every possible context. Therein lies the problem faced by ID'ers; that pieces of structures that serve completely different purposes can come together to serve a new purpose without breaking any natural laws.
 
Not to sound stupid, but what is Irreducible-Complexity?


INRM
 
Forgive the lack of explanation. I assumed most folks, here, would know what "Irreducible Complexity" meant.

INRM said:
Not to sound stupid, but what is Irreducible-Complexity?
Click to expand...
The idea that if you remove some critical part of a system, it will not function anymore, (or at least not nearly as well).

Some folks see certain structures in biology, that they assume are irreducibly complex. And, therefore, they argue, could never have been the product of an evolutionary process.

They are, generally, making at least two mistakes, if not more:

1. Assuming evolution only involves the addition of parts. They neglect to take into account co-option and removal of parts, etc.

2. They make an argument from personal incredulity. Just because they could not figure out how evolution could develop something, does not mean someone more clever than them could never figure it out.

Ziggurat said:
Why would you care about this?
Click to expand...
Because I think it's cool. That's why.

I happen to like seeing complex things (even "irreducibly" complex things) coming out of simple processes. :)

Ziggurat said:
The concept of irreducible complexity has some philosophical merit, but it cannot be defined rigorously (meaning there's no way to tell unambiguously whether something is irreducibly complex - we could just be too stupid to figure out how to reduce it), and so it has no use scientifically.
Click to expand...
I think the I.D. proponents have a good grasp on defining characteristics of what "I.C." means to them. And, that is what we can produce in these simulations.

Evolutionary biologists even described it as "Interlocking Complexity" long before I.D. was born. So, the concept has some uses. But, it does not imply what I.D. thinks it does.
 
Not sure I understand Ziggurat's objection. Sheer interest factor aside, why would any of us care about addressing the primary claim of any other fringe group? IC is the crumbly cornerstone of "Intelligent Design" and by demonstrating graphically that it's BS, we win over fence-sitters. That's why!
 
You got me searching google and I found something really cool. I don't think you could call this IC, but I found the video fascinating.

This guy used a genetic algorithm program to evolve clocks to counter the blind watchmaker argument. In each case a relatively accurate clock was evolved and in one case it appears that a perfectly accurate clock was evolved.

10 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

On second thought, if you remove a gear the clock would cease to function, isn't that IC?
 
Big Les said:
Not sure I understand Ziggurat's objection. Sheer interest factor aside, why would any of us care about addressing the primary claim of any other fringe group? IC is the crumbly cornerstone of "Intelligent Design" and by demonstrating graphically that it's BS, we win over fence-sitters. That's why!
Click to expand...

Exactly... it's a scientific-SOUNDING objection, and so some people who prefer their own theories will stop there and even be able to stymie other people trying to argue with them.

By increasing awareness of how complex systems CAN emerge, it becomes a less effective argument. Maybe a little harder to convince a few school boards to include ID.
 
aggle-rithm said:
You may be able to show that something is irreducibly complex within a certain context, but not in every possible context. Therein lies the problem faced by ID'ers; that pieces of structures that serve completely different purposes can come together to serve a new purpose without breaking any natural laws.
Click to expand...

Its worse then that, it’s possible for “irreducibly complex” structures to evolve into existence even in the same context.

For example:
1) A solid slab of rock allows you to cross a gully, but blocks any water trying to flow in the gully.
2) The slab evolves into stepping stones which still allow you to cross, but doesn’t block the gully
3) A smooth top evolves on top of the steps so you don’t trip crossing the gully
4) The intermediate steps are now redundant and disappear to allow better water flow in the gully leaving you will a pillar on each side and a flat bridge spanning them

This structure is “irreducible complex” because it doesn’t function without any of it’s component parts but it evolved from parts whose purpose was always to allow crossing the gully.
 
Wowbagger said:
I think the I.D. proponents have a good grasp on defining characteristics of what "I.C." means to them. And, that is what we can produce in these simulations.
Click to expand...
I don't think they have as good a grasp as you may assume. I recommend checking on the history of the definition of irreducible complexity to see how it has changed over the years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

~~ Paul
 
Wowbagger said:
I am looking for any and all of the most fascinating computer simulations of evolutionary processes. In particular, those that demonstrate how "Irreducible Complexity" could emerge from such a process.
Click to expand...

That would involve a contradiction. "Irreducible Complexity" is an invention of cretinists and means that which cannot result from an evolutionary process. Anything produced by an evolutionary process is necessarily not Irreducibly Complex.

The cretinist position is that IR exists and it's up to everybody else to prove that it doesn't. However many cool things you evolve you'll never make a dent in that.

Life in silico is fun in itself though :).
 
Just as a general point I'm astounded as to how anyone would give credence to the findings of 'computer simulations'; even more so in areas of heightened scientific controversy.
People believe in AGW and go off to write programs which will confirm their ideology.
People believe in evolution and go off to write programs which will confirm their belief in the theory.

When any such computer simulations find against the underlying ideology, what are they? Oh, they're mistaken, badly written, bugged, ill conceived etc..

When you're relying on computer programs, you yourself have made up, in order to try to convince people of some substantive phenomenon in the real world, then you're on exceedingly shaky, very possibly self-delusive ground.
Maybe I should go off and write some machine code which will prove God's existence.
 
plumjam said:
When you're relying on computer programs, you yourself have made up, in order to try to convince people of some substantive phenomenon in the real world, then you're on exceedingly shaky, very possibly self-delusive ground.
Click to expand...
You better go warn all the pilots training in flight simulators!! :eek:

Computers programs are models. "All models are inaccurate. Some are merely more useful to others."
 
Wowbagger said:
You better go warn all the pilots training in flight simulators!! :eek:

Computers programs are models. "All models are inaccurate. Some are merely more useful to others."
Click to expand...

You'd have awful trouble writing a flight simulator if powered flight were not an undeniable aspect of human experience.
Flight simulation software is not written in order to try to convince people that planes fly in the sky.
With thinks like AGW and evolution the computer simulations are just that, they're trying to convince people about ontological realities which may or may not exist. So, as I said, they have exactly the same merit as me writing a computer program which would try to establish God's existence via algorithms or whatnot.
 
I give credence to computer simulations using random variation and selection because they are frequently used for purposes having nothing to do with proving evolution works. Such as, to design useful things.

The fact that designs generated by such programs often exceed the performance of traditionally engineered designs while breaking "rules of good/elegant design" that trained and experienced engineers apply to the problem refutes the notion that the genetic method is somehow merely regurgitating expertise that was explicitly programmed into it.

Observing genetic algorithm programs performing their function of generating novel optimized solutions has about the same relationship to demonstrating that evolution is a real phenomenon in the real world that observing that the light goes on when you flip the switch has to demonstrating that electricity is a real phenomenon in the real world.

Respectfully,
Myriad
 
The idea of irreducible complexity has two parts, the first has been mentioned, that is, a structure that cannot function if a single piece is removed. The second part says, essentially, that that structure, with one piece removed, cannot serve any purpose and neither can the pieces.

The former favorite was the vertebrate eye, as it might appear that evolution creating such a complicated device is impossible. However, it is easy to imagine a creature with light sensitive spots that then evolved into a creature with light sensitive spots in pits (for protecting them and providing some directionality to the light sensation) which then were covered with a film for protection (at the same time filling the pit with fluid, as it is no longer able to evaporate,) then that film developed into a lens that provided better resolution and the pit was separated, largely, from the body and attached to muscles to give it a range of motion. Essentially, the vertebrate eye is a fantastic example of something that is NOT irreducibly complex, but the ID-ers still use it.

The other major example is "the watchmaker." This says that all of the parts of a watch are useless unless they are assembled very precisely into the shape of a watch and that the watch is useless without any one of them. I don't know what possible use a bunch of springs, gears, axles and knobs could have other than making a watch, after all. :boggled: This was a fairly old argument, but Richard Dawkins wrote a book titled The Blind Watchmaker that, among other things, addressed this idea.

By the way, Avida is a nice application for watching the evolution of a program. It can be used to make a product that APPEARS to be irreducibly complex while showing exactly how the thing was made, stepwise. I read about it in Discover some years ago and have played around with it from time to time since.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom