Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FEA, PR, E, Ro, EOS (Or, Why Darwinian Computer Simulations are Less than Worthless)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

FEA = finite element analysis
PR = Poisson’s Ratio
E = Young’s modulus
Ro = mass density
EOS = equation of state

Darwinian computer simulationists have no idea what I’m talking about, but they should.

A thorough understanding of FEA, PR, E, Ro, and EOS is a prerequisite for any computer-simulationist who hopes to have any confidence that his computer simulation will have any validity concerning the real world (and this just concerns transient, dynamic, nonlinear mechanical systems — nothing that even approaches, by countless orders of magnitude, the complexity, sophistication, and functional integration of biological systems).

Even with all of my understanding and years of experience, I would never expect anyone to accept the results of one of my FEA computer simulations without empirical verification. However, with a consistent track record of validated simulations within a highly prescribed domain (which I have) I can at least save much wasted effort pursuing what the simulations suggest will not work.

It is for this reason, and many others, that I consider Darwinism to be not just pseudoscience, but perhaps the quintessential example of junk science since the advent of the scientific method and rational inquiry concerning how things really work in the real world.

Darwinists have no idea what rigorous standards are required in the rest of the legitimate engineering and science world, and how they have been given an illegitimate pass concerning empirical or even rational justification of their claims.

Comments
Exactly. It seems that demonstrably inadequate simulations can be used to disprove evolution, while all simulations that attempt to demonstrate the power of evolution are regarded as, well, inadequate. I spy moveable goalposts.Elizabeth Liddle
January 15, 2012
January
01
Jan
15
15
2012
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
Gil, I know what all those terms mean, and I have devised (simple) Darwinian simulations. Please explain how those concepts are relevant to Darwinian simulations.Elizabeth Liddle
January 15, 2012
January
01
Jan
15
15
2012
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT
Darwinian computer simulations are worthless because no one knows if they simulate real-world biology.Joe
January 15, 2012
January
01
Jan
15
15
2012
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PDT
champignon:
This supposed lack of rigor pervading evolutionary biology exists only in your fevered imagination, Gil.
Really? Then perhaps you can produce this alleged rigor pervading evolutionary biology. Heck you can't even tell us how to determine if a bacterial flagellum evolved via stochastic processes. IOW your alleged rigor exists only in your fevered little mind.Joe
January 15, 2012
January
01
Jan
15
15
2012
05:54 AM
5
05
54
AM
PDT
petrushka an average protein length is about 300 aa and have a sequence space of a 20^300 .how much functional sequence do you think that perform a functional protein?mk
January 15, 2012
January
01
Jan
15
15
2012
02:03 AM
2
02
03
AM
PDT
Petrushka, What you tacitly assume is that the burden of proof is with the ID proponents and others who question the truth of Darwinism. What the probability calculations and consideration of the informational requirements of living organisms do is shift the burden of proof to Darwinism, given that there is no actual direct evidence that Darwinism is true (ie., it has never been observed to generate one single macroevolutionary advance, not in nature, in the laboratory, or in the fossil record). Also, how can you say that Darwinism is any more than an unproved hypothesis, given your claim that there is no theory of folding and no way to calculate the probabilities?The problem with proponents of the theory is that they never do the math; they never attempt to calculate whether the changes required for the emergence of any novel body plan, organ, organ system, or process (such as blood clotting, sexual reproduction, or insect metamorphosis) are remotely probable, given the probabilistic resources available in the history of the Universe. Yet they claim that Darwinism is established. Yes, the calculations are difficult, maybe even impossible, but that doesn't change the fact that they haven't been done, and without the calculations to support the theory, it is no more than an idea waiting for confirmation or refutation.Bruce David
January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT
I find it amusing that ID proponents simulate chemistry with simplistic references to information theory, completely ignoring the fact that there is no general model of protein folding, no theory of folding that would support design of folds, no database of coding sequences that would support design, and no knowledge at all of the functional -- a prerequisite to any claim that incremental evolution is improbable. All the probability calculations published by ID advocates are complete BS, because there is insufficient knowledge of the functional landscape. When the landscape is tested in specific instances, as by Thornton, it supports evolution.Petrushka
January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
07:33 PM
7
07
33
PM
PDT
Gil,
A thorough understanding of FEA, PR, E, Ro, and EOS is a prerequisite for any computer-simulationist who hopes to have any confidence that his computer simulation will have any validity concerning the real world...
Seriously? You think that someone modeling an optical system needs to worry about Young's modulus? Do you take color into account when you're simulating a mechanical system? Of course not. Every simulation is an abstraction, Gil, including your beloved finite element analysis. Some details are always left out.
Darwinists have no idea what rigorous standards are required in the rest of the legitimate engineering and science world,..
Sure they do, since many 'Darwinists', including me, are scientists and engineers in fields other than evolutionary biology. This supposed lack of rigor pervading evolutionary biology exists only in your fevered imagination, Gil.champignon
January 14, 2012
January
01
Jan
14
14
2012
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply