Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,261 Year: 5,518/9,624 Month: 543/323 Week: 40/143 Day: 2/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 72 (456877)
02-20-2008 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:15 PM


if there is only a single thing, and it evolved with no other interactions, what else can you call it?
You just call it a thing. I don't get what you are asking? If it is self replicating, then after the replication, you will have two of those things. You said the universe self replicated, that would mean that we would end up with two universes. But that defeats the wole point of the "Uni" part of the word.
in my initial statement i have already concluded this for a definition to be incorrect.
If you want to make up your own definitions for words then you are just trolling.
You are waaaaay too under-edjucated to be discussing these things with your attitude that your always right.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:15 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 32 of 72 (456878)
02-20-2008 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Rahvin
02-20-2008 2:23 PM


Not without no longer being Carbon. You can reduce it to subatomic particles (protons, neutreons, electrons) and then those even further (quarks, gluons, etc), but a single atom of Carbon is the simplest form of matter that can still be called Carbon. GO read up on atomic theory - this is basic chemistry.
very interesting, i wonder if carbon could be isolated and enough put together without anything else to bond with. I'm curios. thanks rhavin, i find your post very informative.
do you believe there is a stage of carbon that cannot be reduced any less remaining carbon? and if yes, would that mean it could be considered a "true" definition of "irreducible complexity"?

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 2:23 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 2:41 PM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 33 of 72 (456879)
02-20-2008 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2008 2:25 PM


You just call it a thing. I don't get what you are asking? If it is self replicating, then after the replication, you will have two of those things. You said the universe self replicated, that would mean that we would end up with two universes. But that defeats the wole point of the "Uni" part of the word.
your right about "self replicating". but i wonder what term can be applied to something that is "self evolving" that is: to evolve into a different structure than its initial state, without any outside interactions.
If you want to make up your own definitions for words then you are just trolling.
You are waaaaay too under-edjucated to be discussing these things with your attitude that your always right.
your words are like venom, the OP is discussing the truth of irreducible complexity, and how it could be tested. I'm looking at biology to its simplest "irreducible" form to determine what "irreducible complexity" truly means, and where it would be truly applicable.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 2:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 2:55 PM tesla has replied
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 3:19 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 34 of 72 (456881)
02-20-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:29 PM


very interesting, i wonder if carbon could be isolated and enough put together without anything else to bond with. I'm curios. thanks rhavin, i find your post very informative.
That would be tough. It bonds very well with several other elements - which is the big reason life is Carbon-based, and other organic (meaning carbon-based) compounds are so common throughout the Universe.
do you believe there is a stage of carbon that cannot be reduced any less remaining carbon? and if yes, would that mean it could be considered a "true" definition of "irreducible complexity"?
You're talking about the very definition of an atom, tesla -it's the simplest possible example of any given element that is still identifiable as that element. But that's a human definition - atoms are simply different groupings of electrons, protons, and neutrons, and they have very distinct properties depending on the number of protons they contain - which is why you can't reduce them further and still identify them as a particular element. You can reduce the components into the subatomic particles, and you can reduce those even further into quarks and gluons and such, but the properties of, say, Carbon are not the properties of a collection of quarks and gluons.
How far can you reduce a forest and still call it a forest? Does a human cell have all of the properties of a full human being, able to walk and talk and think?
I hesitate to say that atoms are "greater than the sum of their parts," but I will say that, reduced farther than the atomic level, you can no longer identify the parts as belonging to a given element, because elements are defined by their number of protons.
But this has no relevance at all to irreducible complexity, with is an argument against evolution - a completely separate topic. You're trying to shift the goalposts from the ID argument that "IC means that all biological entities must have been designed" to your own argument, that "well, god designed the atoms because you can't reduce them any further, so he kinda sorta designed life too." Those are very different discussions.
"You can't take anything away from the bacterial flagellum and still have it work as a means of transportation, so it couldn't have evolved" is completely disassociated from "you can't reduce Carbon any further than a Carbon atom and still call it Carbon."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:29 PM tesla has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 35 of 72 (456882)
02-20-2008 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:34 PM


your right about "self replicating". but i wonder what term can be applied to something that is "self evolving" that is: to evolve into a different structure than its initial state, without any outside interactions.
What do you call the change in phase from a solid to a liquid to a gas? It's structure changes, and it has different properties.
What do you call electrical energy becoming heat and light? The energy form changes.
That isn't anything all that special, tesla. The Universe doesn't "decide" to change - its natural properties cause its components to slowly increase in entropy, and we can observe the changes in those components as they do so (stars form, burn out their fuel, explode, etc). It's no different from heating water into steam - the natural properties of the substance make the change in state inevitable.
your words are like venom, the OP is discussing the truth of irreducible complexity, and how it could be tested. I'm looking at biology to its simplest "irreducible" form to determine what "irreducible complexity" truly means, and where it would be truly applicable.
Irreducible complexity is an argument against evolution, tesla, and doesn't deal with atomic theory, which you're getting into. It's biological in nature and scope. Stick to the biology, or you risk shifting the goalposts.
You may also want to read up on these subjects. You can find a lot of information online or at the library, or you can just ask around here - but when you start to make arguments the way you have been, without even understanding the most basic aspects of the field you're discussing, you really only show that you aren't remotely able to reach the conclusions you attempt to draw. Before discussing atoms, for instance, you may want to read just a bit about what they are and how they work before leading into an argument about irreducible complexity.

When you know you're going to wake up in three days, dying is not a sacrifice. It's a painful inconvenience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:34 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 3:26 PM Rahvin has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 72 (456887)
02-20-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:34 PM


but i wonder what term can be applied to something that is "self evolving" that is: to evolve into a different structure than its initial state, without any outside interactions.
But things just do that on their own. Take a sealed glass of water at room temp and put it in the freezer. Without any outside interactions, the water will "self evolve" into ice. The term we use for that is: freezing.
In the context of the universe/Big Bang we just call it 'expanding'. You seem to think that the universe was just hanging out as a singularity for some amount of time and then something happened that made it change into what it is today. It turns out, that is not the case.
Things change on their own. Take some gas concentrated in a little box, put the box in a room, and then open it. The gas will fill the room without outside interaction. It just does it all on its own, and there's a term for that too.
We don't need some all encompasing term like "self evolving" to describe things that are already defined.
your words are like venom
Ditto.
I'm looking at biology to its simplest "irreducible" form to determine what "irreducible complexity" truly means, and where it would be truly applicable.
Then you're not talking about irreducible complexity.
Why obfuscate the issue by taking an already defined concept and turning into your own little fantasy?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:34 PM tesla has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3409 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 72 (456888)
02-20-2008 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by tesla
02-20-2008 2:21 PM


tesla writes:
then which is the simpler form? if it becomes boron, it is no longer carbon, so what is the simplest form of carbon before it is no longer carbon?
Again, depends on what you mean by "simplest". Carbon tends to form bonds with other elements to fill up its valence shell. So, is "simplest" just mean the least number of particles in the atom or the most stable form of the atom?
which has least energy, a positively charged carbon, or a carbon with the extra electron? which has more substance?
*Blink* You did not just say that did you?
This conversation is getting a little redundant.
What do you mean by "substance"?
it was your analogy concerning atoms. so it was a description concerning how atoms are visible when combined with other atoms, and if all atoms are the same type, then a visual verification of the atom is available collectively.
No, it was YOU who proposed that we could see what carbon looks like if we have a billion carbons together.
we can see what the atoms look like collectively, which is a reflection of the base component that cannot be seen unless in a collective environment.
Reflection? You've brought a completely new meaning to the composition fallacy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:21 PM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 38 of 72 (456890)
02-20-2008 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rahvin
02-20-2008 2:55 PM


What do you call the change in phase from a solid to a liquid to a gas? It's structure changes, and it has different properties.
What do you call electrical energy becoming heat and light? The energy form changes.
That isn't anything all that special, tesla. The Universe doesn't "decide" to change - its natural properties cause its components to slowly increase in entropy, and we can observe the changes in those components as they do so (stars form, burn out their fuel, explode, etc). It's no different from heating water into steam - the natural properties of the substance make the change in state inevitable.
these things are possible with other interactions in an environment, if there is only a single environment of a singular timeless state, there is nothing else to interact with but its own condition in a timeless state, and an evolution in a timeless state with no outside interactions is a self evolvement.
i will not discuss this here. this is my final post concerning it here.
Irreducible complexity is an argument against evolution, tesla, and doesn't deal with atomic theory, which you're getting into. It's biological in nature and scope. Stick to the biology, or you risk shifting the goalposts.
then as only the currently recognized concept of what "irreducible complexity" was defined as in biological things is not supported, yet unsupported within our current knowledge of evolution, and either option remains a possibility until further data is found, and by current data, irreducible complexity is apparently false, because the biological bodies are composed of the same elements of the universe, and because of evolution apparent in both (what is considered) non living, and living things, the earth not having always been here, it is reasonable to conclude that biological things evolved from the earth's base components by a currently unknown condition that supported the first evolution of a DNA strand. considering IC false by these observations neither proves that God IS, nor God is not. but shows the limitations of current understanding of the universe concerning the start of biological things.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 2:55 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 3:57 PM tesla has replied
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 4:05 PM tesla has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 39 of 72 (456894)
02-20-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by tesla
02-20-2008 3:26 PM


then as only the currently recognized concept of what "irreducible complexity" was defined as in biological things is not supported, yet unsupported within our current knowledge of evolution, and either option remains a possibility until further data is found, and by current data, irreducible complexity is apparently false, because the biological bodies are composed of the same elements of the universe, and because of evolution apparent in both (what is considered) non living, and living things, the earth not having always been here, it is reasonable to conclude that biological things evolved from the earth's base components by a currently unknown condition that supported the first evolution of a DNA strand. considering IC false by these observations neither proves that God IS, nor God is not. but shows the limitations of current understanding of the universe concerning the start of biological things.
You definitely win the "run-on sentence of the year award," tesla.
It also didn't make any sense whatsoever.
Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it, and predicts the type of structures IDists claim are irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity is an argument from incredulity, has no evidence for its base, and works by sompletely ignoring all of the evidence counter to its position. Every example of supposedly irrecudibly complex biological systems that I have ever heard of has been soundly refuted by actually looking at the evidence rather than responding from incredulity.
You seem to be saying that you accept evolution as true, and throw in a bit of abiogenesis, chemistry, and cosmology to your concepts as well - you seem to be incapable of discussing a tree, instead insisting that we discuss the whole forest at once. You don't even seem to be able to distinguish one tree from another - all you see is the forest. From a very large distance. Without glasses. Through a frosted glass window.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 3:26 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 4:05 PM Rahvin has replied
 Message 47 by Brad McFall, posted 02-20-2008 6:02 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 40 of 72 (456895)
02-20-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Rahvin
02-20-2008 3:57 PM


You definitely win the "run-on sentence of the year award," tesla.
It also didn't make any sense whatsoever.
Evolution has a mountain of evidence supporting it, and predicts the type of structures IDists claim are irreducibly complex.
Irreducible complexity is an argument from incredulity, has no evidence for its base, and works by sompletely ignoring all of the evidence counter to its position. Every example of supposedly irrecudibly complex biological systems that I have ever heard of has been soundly refuted by actually looking at the evidence rather than responding from incredulity.
You seem to be saying that you accept evolution as true, and throw in a bit of abiogenesis, chemistry, and cosmology to your concepts as well - you seem to be incapable of discussing a tree, instead insisting that we discuss the whole forest at once. You don't even seem to be able to distinguish one tree from another - all you see is the forest. From a very large distance. Without glasses. Through a frosted glass window.
thanks, i like awards.
the rest: take away plant life, all dies, take away the earth, all dies, take away bacteria, all dies, take away water, all dies, take away carbon, all dies, take away oxygen, all dies. take away the sun, all dies.
everything that is has a very delicate balance within the full scope of properties in the earth. i just dont limit myself to a single thing, because thats tunnel vision, and there would only be a tree in a forest.
do you say you know the tree of man? the full tree of chimp? the full tree of dog? the full tree of anything in the forest of evolution? because you understand how some things will evolve, does that mean you understand all variables to how everything will or has evolved? its a theory of evolution, because no one knows all the things.
the topic was IC and if you limit your vision to a current definition and variables pertaining, and ignore the other variables, what hope do you have of ever knowing more than you do now and true discovery of all viewable variables to evolution?
as you decide it to be, then let that be for you.
Gods will be done. so be it.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 3:57 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 4:48 PM tesla has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 72 (456896)
02-20-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by tesla
02-20-2008 3:26 PM


if there is only a single environment of a singular timeless state, there is nothing else to interact with but its own condition in a timeless state, and an evolution in a timeless state with no outside interactions is a self evolvement.
What's wrong with a self evolvement?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 3:26 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 42 of 72 (456899)
02-20-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2008 4:05 PM


lol good point.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 4:05 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 43 of 72 (456910)
02-20-2008 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by tesla
02-20-2008 4:05 PM


Thanks, i like awards.
You've earned it!
the rest: take away plant life, all dies, take away the earth, all dies, take away bacteria, all dies, take away water, all dies, take away carbon, all dies, take away oxygen, all dies. take away the sun, all dies.
False. Ever heard of extrmophiles? There are some amazing creatures on this planet - some of which don't require plant life, or the sun. A microbe I read about a year or two back actually lives on the heat generated by radioactive decay - it basically lives on radiation. There are many od species of bacteria that live deep beneath the ocean where no sunlight reaches that live off of completely non-biological chemicals and heat streaming out of superheated vents on the ocean floor.
Granted, if you start taking away elements from the periodic table, life as we know it could not exist. That doesn't mean life couldn't exist at all, and it doesn't mean that life itself is irreducibly complex - simply that, given the conditions of this Universe, life can exist.
everything that is has a very delicate balance within the full scope of properties in the earth. i just dont limit myself to a single thing, because thats tunnel vision, and there would only be a tree in a forest.
The problem is that your lack of focus prevents you from remaining on topic in any thread you participate in. When we're talking about evolution, please stick to talking about evolution. When we're talking about Irreducible Complexity as it applies to biology, please do not bring up the Big Bang. When we discuss computers, please don't bring up your bicycle.
do you say you know the tree of man? the full tree of chimp? the full tree of dog? the full tree of anything in the forest of evolution? because you understand how some things will evolve, does that mean you understand all variables to how everything will or has evolved? its a theory of evolution, because no one knows all the things.
That's not what the word "theory" means, and the Theory of Evolution does not require full knowledge of every generation of the entirety of life that has ever existed. The Theory of Evolution is a model of the observed process of changing allele frequencies in biological populations. As such, it has predictive qualities, and those predictions have been confirmed to be extremely accurate. It doesn't pretend to answer all questions, or need to. Of those questions it can answer and that can be tested, it has proven to be extremely accurate.
the topic was IC and if you limit your vision to a current definition and variables pertaining, and ignore the other variables, what hope do you have of ever knowing more than you do now and true discovery of all viewable variables to evolution?
Broadening the scope of discussion does nothing but attract Admin's ire as the topic drifts. Limiting ourselves to current definitions is how we make sure everyone involved knows what is being said - if you start changing definitions because you feel like it (like, say, trying to apply IC to atomic theory, which is way off topic), there's no point in defining anything, and communication breaks down.
Try to stay focused on the topic of an individual thread. It will keep the banstick away, it will help prevent your posts from getting tangled up until only nonsense remains, and it will allow for good, honest debating.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 4:05 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 5:08 PM Rahvin has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1710 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 44 of 72 (456912)
02-20-2008 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rahvin
02-20-2008 4:48 PM


Extremophiles are currently being extensively studied by the Astrobiology program both as possible ancient forms of terrestrial life, and hence as clues about the origin and early forms of life, and also as possible analogues for extraterrestrial life.
fascinating. perhaps this is one step closer to IC.

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 4:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 5:44 PM tesla has replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 45 of 72 (456917)
02-20-2008 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by tesla
02-20-2008 5:08 PM


quote:
Extremophiles are currently being extensively studied by the Astrobiology program both as possible ancient forms of terrestrial life, and hence as clues about the origin and early forms of life, and also as possible analogues for extraterrestrial life.
fascinating. perhaps this is one step closer to IC.
...that doesn't make sense. In what way, specifically, are extremophiles in general related to Irreducible Complexity? How is current research of extremophiles in any way "one step closer to IC?" IC isn't a goal, tesla, it's a current claim by proponents of (un)Intelligent Design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 5:08 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 5:49 PM Rahvin has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024