Irreducible complexity

[Greg Boyles]

Have been reading the "how life begins" thread and about irreducible complexity as it applies to the flagellum.

 

It crossed my mind that there may be examples of human created irreducible complexity in the realms of engineering and computer software.

 

Might the internal combustion engine be an example of this. Modern internal combustion engines are so precision engineered and so finely tuned that removal of any component or even slight alteration of any component will cause the engine to cease functioning.

 

But is it the case with very early iterations of the internal combustion engine that they are more robust in that you could remove some components or alter them signficantly but the engine would still function........albeit not necessarily very well.

[pwagen]

A barrel vault?

[michel123456]

post deleted. Killed by a doubt.

Edited August 5, 2011 by michel123456

[ydoaPs]

Have been reading the "how life begins" thread and about irreducible complexity as it applies to the flagellum.

It doesn't.

[A Tripolation]

Might the internal combustion engine be an example of this. Modern internal combustion engines are so precision engineered and so finely tuned that removal of any component or even slight alteration of any component will cause the engine to cease functioning.

 

But is it the case with very early iterations of the internal combustion engine that they are more robust in that you could remove some components or alter them signficantly but the engine would still function........albeit not necessarily very well.

 

Your second paragraph holds some truth. I could remove a valve from an engine, or cause the spark plugs to fire out of alignment. And the engine would still run. At a diminished capacity, of course, but it would still be better than no engine at all.

[InigoMontoya]

But is it the case with very early iterations of the internal combustion engine that they are more robust in that you could remove some components or alter them signficantly but the engine would still function........albeit not necessarily very well.

 

Sure...

 

You can ditch the entire ignition system, alter the valve timing, hook it up to a boiler... voila, a steam engine.

 

Or simplify it even more....

 

Ditch the ignition system, alter the valve timing, and manually turn the crank.... voila, an air compressor. (Hook it up to a water wheel and now you really have something!)

[Greg Boyles]

Your second paragraph holds some truth. I could remove a valve from an engine, or cause the spark plugs to fire out of alignment. And the engine would still run. At a diminished capacity, of course, but it would still be better than no engine at all.

 

That is based on the premise that you know precisely how it works and how far you can push the components, in minor ways, before the thing fails entirely. Imaging puting some one from the middle ages in front of an engine and say tinker away. They would not comprehend how something so complex and finely tuned could have been developed slowly over a long time from much simpler devices. They might conclude that god or gods created it.

 

 

Just thinking how little it takes to stop a 2-stroke brush cutter or what ever from working - gaskits not sitting quite right, a small speck of gaskit material blocking a fuel port, a missing tiy spring from the carburetta.

 

 

Same situation with the moden flagellum. An advocate of intelligent design would be in the same situation as a person from the middle ages sitting in front of a modern engine.

Edited August 6, 2011 by Greg Boyles