Irreducible Complexity News

New paper on how computer models don’t refute irreducible complexity—lay-friendly explanation

Spread the love

Abstract.

Explanation:

Since “Darwinian evolution is an ateleological process,” operating without a goal, this means that “If a model is designed to assist the evolution of an irreducibly complex system, it is not a model of Darwinian evolution” and “Any decision in the construction of a model made with an eye towards enabling the evolution of irreducible complexity invalidates the model.” Ewert finds that this is precisely what many of these models do. In the one case that a truly irreducibly complex system was produced by a program, Ewert found it was “designed as part of the ancestor used to seed the … simulation,” and thus did not evolve in the Darwinian sense. He concludes that computational attempts to explain the evolution of irreducible complexity have “failed on a number of fronts”: … More.

“If a model is designed to assist the evolution of an irreducibly complex system, it is not a model of Darwinian evolution”

No, but it is a model of Darwinism. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the intelligent design controversy.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

3 Replies to “New paper on how computer models don’t refute irreducible complexity—lay-friendly explanation

  1. 1
    Dionisio says:

    How cant one build an in-silico model of a system we don’t understand well enough?

    For example, I’m gathering information on the cell fate determination mechanisms that act during the first few weeks of human development, from the zygote on. I still can’t build a reliable software-controlled model, because I don’t have the whole picture clear. Found much information on the subject, but not even close to the whole thing yet. New discoveries keep shedding light on this subject, so I look with great excitement and anticipation to reading the results of the ongoing and future scientific research.

    Similar situation with another modeling/simulation project, regarding the mechanisms associated with genotype-phenotype association. Although much information is available, the whole picture is not clear yet. Again, I know future discoveries should improve the situation.

    However, on the other hand, one could build an incomplete in-silico model and later adjust it and readjust it, as more data comes from the research labs. That’s an approach.

    But I’m not in the position to build even an incomplete beta version yet. Still missing some important pieces of the logical puzzle.

    If any of you can provide a link to a good source of that information, I will highly appreciate it.

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    # 1

    Either mentioned approach is time-consuming and challenging. Any thoughts or suggestions on this? Thank you in advance.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Irreducible Complexity – Michael Behe – Princeton University lecture on ‘Darwin’s Black Box’ – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yudmK5jZy9A

    On the Origin and Design of the Universe – Michael Strauss – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhUhMiDALC0

    The Cambrian Explosion – Stephen Meyer lecture from a few years ago – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLpSb-iDNyw

Leave a Reply