dwise1 writes:
There was an interesting outcome to genetic algorithm experiments in which evolutionary processes were used to evolve an amplifier design out of a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). The resulting amplifier was irreducibly complex.
I’m struggling with the concept of irreducible complexity as you allude to it, so you need to help me out here a little. In
Message 55 Sour has posted a link to the experiments in question and I’m pretty confused. I just don’t get the irreducible complexity bit.
My basic understanding of evolution is that if you have a naturally occurring complex mechanism, you might want to label it
x. Evolution suggests that it will have arisen as a result of a mutation (and natural selection) from a different (but most likely similar) mechanism which can be labelled (
x - 1) . which in turn has arisen out of mechanism (
x - 2) etc, all the way back to (
x -
y), being the earliest single cell structures or whatever.
At this point the ID lobby wants to step in and say if we can’t find an (
x - 1) or (
x - 2) etc for any mechanism
x, we can deduce that it cannot have evolved so is therefore the result of ID.
What I’m struggling with is the idea that the aforementioned amplifier is in any way irreducibly complex. Complex yes, irreducible no. According to the report, it took 4,100 ”mutations’ to reach the ”complexity’ required to carry out the task. Each of these mutations is a step on the evolutionary path that leads from (
x -
y) to
x, so fails to match the criteria required by the IDists in their search for irreducible complexity.
What am I missing?