Creationists PWNED

[Kuciwalker]

According to an article in the new Discover, natural selection with random mutations CAN produce irreducible complexity!

Scientists at Caltech developed a program called AVIDA, an " auto-adaptive genetic system designed primarily for use as a platform in Digital or Artificial Life research". It generates a set of random programs in its language, and then makes copies of those programs that perform a particular task. The copies have a certain chance of random mutation. Researchers using this program to create a program that added two numbers found that it resulted in irreducibly complex programs (remove any line of code and it was completely nonfunctional) and beat the odds in doing so.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
But only because God created that, too, when he created the entire world.

Silly Tassadar, you made an Old Earth Creationist troll. Those are so passe. You should be making Intelligent Design trolls like these:
"That's because our kind God is an active God who gets his daily exercise. He controlled every mutation in that experiment to get irreducible complexity."

[Ted Striker]

MC Hawking would be proud

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
According to an article in the new Discover, natural selection with random mutations CAN produce irreducible complexity!

Not really news. Biologists had been pointing this out for years.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not really news. Biologists had been pointing this out for years.

yeah, its called Genetic Mutation. We've known about this for centuries.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Not really news. Biologists had been pointing this out for years.

No, most of the arguments against the irreducible complexity show that the things AREN'T irreducibly complex. This is conclusive proof that purely natural selection with random mutation can produce irreducibly complex structures ahead of the odds.

[Berzerker]

computer models

[Kuciwalker]

It's not a computer "model", Berzerker, it's actual evolution in a computer environment.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
No, most of the arguments against the irreducible complexity show that the things AREN'T irreducibly complex.

Not exactly. Some sytems could be irreducibly complex, but they would serve other purposes even if a few parts are missing.

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is conclusive proof that purely natural selection with random mutation can produce irreducibly complex structures ahead of the odds.

Perhaps, but it seems rare that an organism would keep something "useless" until it becomes useful via mutations.

[Kuciwalker]

The point is this clearly can and does occur.

[Urban Ranger]

Digital organisms aren't the same as carbon-based units.

Thus, this discovery indicates that irreducible complexity is possible. It's sort of like testing stuff with rats, only a bit further away.

[Kuciwalker]

It makes irreducible complexity inadmissible as an argument, even as a "god of the gaps" argument, because irreducible complexity clearly can arise from random mutations and natural selection. There are now no grounds on which they can argue that irreducible complexity somehow invalidates evolution.

[DRoseDARs]

Erm, computer critters are not carbon critters Kuci. A computer program does not evolution prove.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It makes irreducible complexity inadmissible as an argument, even as a "god of the gaps" argument, because irreducible complexity clearly can arise from random mutations and natural selection. There are now no grounds on which they can argue that irreducible complexity somehow invalidates evolution.

Creationists including IDers are exceptional at nitpicking.

So we need to do the nitpicking ourselves first to see if anything new we throw into the fray will stand up to attacks.

So far the discovery adds something to our side, but it's far from conclusive.

[Berzerker]

It's not a computer "model", Berzerker, it's actual evolution in a computer environment.

My fault... just in case you missed it

Oh yeah, did life on earth evolve in a computer environment? Maybe Intelligent Design should be taught in schools.

[Spiffor]

In some way, the creatinists help science progress. Because of their amazing nitpicking talents, many scientifics feel compelled to solidily prove what would otherwise be accepted as mere common sense.

This devotion to proving evolution in such a way to be proof to zealot nitpickers, is what makes the theory more solid than it would otherwise be

[Urban Ranger]

@ Spiffor

[The Mad Monk]

So...they made incredibly complex programs that add two numbers, and crash if a line of code is removed?

...

Haven't college programming courses been doing that for years?

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar
My god could beat up your god.

I can buy your God

[Chemical Ollie]

Weren't creationists pwnd in 1850 something? Why would anyone have to do it again?

[Urban Ranger]

See, there are zombie Creationists in the US of A...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
Weren't creationists pwnd in 1850 something? Why would anyone have to do it again?

The "God is the cause of everything and religion is the true explanation of the world" line of reasoning was PWNed by that time.

But now, the God fanboys have regouped under the "God is in the gaps" line of reasoning. Thus many scientists feel compelled at filling in the gaps (which in itself isn't a bad thing, even if it isn't that useful).

Kinda like one Polytubbie can feel compelled to correct the ignorance of another poster, until understanding that the other poster will never accept his ignorance to be corrected

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Erm, computer critters are not carbon critters Kuci. A computer program does not evolution prove.

Yes, it does. Whether it's made out of bits or carbon atoms has nothing to do with the creationists' and IDers' irreducible complexity argument.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Yes, it does. Whether it's made out of bits or carbon atoms has nothing to do with the creationists' and IDers' irreducible complexity argument.

Then clearly SimEarth is a highly accurate digital recreation of Earth's climate and biosphere.

[Last Conformist]

What irreducibly complex biological systems are out there, anyway?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Then clearly SimEarth is a highly accurate digital recreation of Earth's climate and biosphere.

Strawmen

[FrostyBoy]

Evolution does not explain existence, it explains the change of existence.

Be careful what you dismiss.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Strawmen

Why? You seem to be very accepting of the notion that a computer program of this day and age is capable of accurately and unequivocally replicating the complex system of evolution, thus proving it at least in part.

[Last Conformist]

@DRose: Try reading Kuci's arguments with a bit of comprehension.

[Spiffor]

Drose:
I think Kuci's point is not to say that the computer model closely imitates life.

His point is that an evolving program (a program that "reproduces" with a random chance at modification) has been proven to create different programs of irreductible complexity, without any intelligent design in this complexity.

It doesn't show how it happens yith real lifeforms. It proves, however, that a system left to its own devices can become irreductibly complex.