Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 9 of 72 (456816)
02-20-2008 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rrhain
02-19-2008 5:34 AM


i seen where most creationists and ID advocates have left this topic alone, because it doesn't support what is observed.
there is however one question that runs through my mind.
if looking at the simplest forms of biological things, or even the greatest forms of biological things, they are all composed of the same base elements as the universe. if we take carbon out of the picture, how many things would be alive? so where did carbon come from? what is the simplest form of carbon? can it get any simpler than its simplest form? eventually, can we say that it cannot be reduced any farther and by all tests see that to be true? looking at the very base, where did the base come from?
"living" is accepted by all as what is considered "biological". but if all things "alive" came from what everyone calls "not alive" then how could anything be any more or less alive than the system that it was spawned from? atoms have a very powerful energy of the "strong" force, and react and evolve within conditions, like biological things. when an atom ceases to be iron, and becomes steel, did the iron "die"? i believe that only living things come from the living, and that our universe is a "living" body.

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 1 by Rrhain, posted 02-19-2008 5:34 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 10:16 AM tesla has replied
 Message 11 by Wounded King, posted 02-20-2008 10:22 AM tesla has replied
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 11:47 AM tesla has replied
 Message 51 by Rrhain, posted 02-21-2008 3:28 AM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 12 of 72 (456824)
02-20-2008 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2008 10:16 AM


Self replication.
The system that the self replicating molecules spawned from was not self replicating, itself. So the self replicating molecules could be said to be "more" alive.
if you look at T=0 and a singular energy existed in a timeless state, with nothing else to interact with but itself: it self replicated.
Of course, that requires you to use an unconventional definition of living. That seems to be your bag, baby. Redefining words so you can make some outrageous claim like you do here to say that universe is alive. Why do you do that? It looks and smells like trolling.
i don't redefine the terms, i simply look at the definitions and refine them based on new information. a lot of terms are just surface definitions ie: existing :to have being. being? being: to exist.
so what did the definition say? being is existing and existing is being? wheres the definition in that?
i do not put this here to be a "troll" i put this here for your observation, at which you can dismiss, think about it, or acknowledge however you choose. IC is provable in what you call "non living" things. but as i see it; non living means : to not exist. without the so called "non living components" nothing would be "alive".
Edited by tesla, : for got a / in /qs

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 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 10:16 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 11:32 AM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 13 of 72 (456828)
02-20-2008 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Wounded King
02-20-2008 10:22 AM


All you had to do was say 'I don't know what irreducible complexity means'. You didn't have to give us such a graphic demonstration of just how badly you failed to understand the concept.
it means that there is a form of biological matter that could not have evolved from another form (as accepted definition) meaning that a phlagellum could not have come from another phlagellum. but its false because all biological matter has come from the base components of matter.
however, irreducible complexity also means that a base form that cannot be reduced any further. by its wording "irreducible" = cannot be reduced. complexity= (Generally avoided as an overused and poorly defined word, except in specific systems.) therefore, my example.
You aren't Evopeach are you? He made the same totally ridiculous argument, Message 286, and it seems incredible that 2 people could so totally misunderstand a concept independently in exactly the same way.
i am only Tesla or Tim Brown here. and Tim Brown is my name, and i dont use it for a handle. if i have stated as any other, it is just because we have observed the same thing.
how would i define complexity? since i like to "make up definitions"?
complexity: variations in structure.
Edited by tesla, : No reason given.
Edited by tesla, : forgot : not.

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 11 by Wounded King, posted 02-20-2008 10:22 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 18 of 72 (456852)
02-20-2008 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
02-20-2008 11:47 AM


Oh, for crying out loud, there's no such thing as "simplest form of carbon" because carbon is an atom that happens to be able to form 4 very strong covalent bonds with many other atoms.
Oh, for christ sake, steel is an alloy, a combination of iron and a small amount of carbon. Iron in steel remains iron.
then isn't bonds with carbon , alloy's of carbon, and carbon remains carbon in the alloy? what does carbon look like if separated from anything it could bond with?

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 16 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 11:47 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 12:41 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 19 of 72 (456853)
02-20-2008 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2008 11:32 AM


That's not what self replication is.
if nothing else to interact with but itself, what is it? define self replication for me since I'm a fool?

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 15 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 11:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 1:58 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 21 of 72 (456862)
02-20-2008 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taz
02-20-2008 12:41 PM


Carbon is carbon, no matter what it is bonded with.
then the basic carbon atom is the simplest form? can it be reduced?
It looks like carbon. It looks like nothing.
Atoms are colorless and some would argue that they are shapeless as well. When you are talking about atomic and subatomic matter, you need to stop thinking in term of normal macro matter. Don't think of them as solid objects like we are used to in everyday life.
if i took 1 billion carbon atoms, and took away all other elements it would bond with, would it not have a form you could visually see?

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 20 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 12:41 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 12:52 PM tesla has replied
 Message 30 by Rahvin, posted 02-20-2008 2:23 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 23 of 72 (456865)
02-20-2008 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Taz
02-20-2008 12:52 PM


There's no such thing as "simplest form" of carbon atom. Carbon atom is carbon atom.
if carbon atom is a carbon atom, is that not its simplest form? if you cannot reduce it, is it not irreducible? if it cannot be made any less complex, is that not irreducible complexity?
Think of it this way. You have 10 persons in the room. They all hold hands. Is a person any less of a person if he stops holding hand with another person? Is he any more of a person if he holds hands with another person?
no, the person is a person such as others are people, but if you cannot visually see what a person looks like unless you have all 10 people present, then let them join hands, because then you can gather more information : such as, visual verification.
Define "reduced".
reduce:
reduce
One entry found.
reduce
Main Entry: re·duce
Pronunciation: \ri-'ds, -'dys\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): re·duced; re·duc·ing
Etymology: Middle English, to lead back, from Latin reducere, from re- + ducere to lead ” more at tow
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 a: to draw together or cause to converge : consolidate b (1): to diminish in size, amount, extent, or number (2): to decrease the volume and concentrate the flavor of by boiling c: to narrow down : restrict d: to make shorter : abridge
2archaic : to restore to righteousness : save
3: to bring to a specified state or condition
4 a: to force to capitulate b: force, compel
5 a: to bring to a systematic form or character b: to put down in written or printed form
6: to correct (as a fracture) by bringing displaced or broken parts back into their normal positions
7 a: to lower in grade or rank : demote b: to lower in condition or status : downgrade
8 a: to diminish in strength or density b: to diminish in value
9 a (1): to change the denominations or form of without changing the value (2): to construct a geometrical figure similar to but smaller than (a given figure) b: to transpose from one form into another : convert c: to change (an expression) to an equivalent but more fundamental expression
10: to break down (as by crushing or grinding) : pulverize
11 a: to bring to the metallic state by removal of nonmetallic elements b: deoxidize c: to combine with or subject to the action of hydrogen d (1): to change (an element or ion) from a higher to a lower oxidation state (2): to add one or more electrons to (an atom or ion or molecule)
12: to change (a stressed vowel) to an unstressed vowel
intransitive verb
1 a (1): to become diminished or lessened; especially : to lose weight by dieting (2): to become reduced b: to become concentrated or consolidated c: to undergo meiosis
2: to become converted or equated
synonyms see decrease, conquer
” re·duc·er noun
” re·duc·ibil·i·ty \-?d-s?-'bi-l?-te, -?dy-\ noun
” re·duc·ible \-'d-s?-b?l, -'dy-\ adjective
” re·duc·ibly \-ble\ adverb
pertinent definition:
reduce:
7 a: to lower in grade or rank : demote b: to lower in condition or status : downgrade
You're committing the fallacy of composition. Look that up and tell me if you get it or not.
By the way, 1 billion carbon atoms ain't nothing.
if nothing, then how can you give it a name?
fallacy of composition example:
Example
Atoms are not visible to the naked eye
Humans are made up of atoms
Therefore, humans are not visible to the naked eye
have i committed the fallacy, or have you?

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 22 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 12:52 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Zucadragon, posted 02-20-2008 1:41 PM tesla has replied
 Message 27 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 2:12 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 25 of 72 (456867)
02-20-2008 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Zucadragon
02-20-2008 1:41 PM


How complex is an atom, do you have any means to measure its complexity, or make an estimate at least?
Does more atoms equal more complexity or just more atoms together ?
If so, does anything causing a higher quantity cause higher complexity at the same time ?
many questions so ill try to answer effectively, although i will admit these questions are more in taz's ability than in mine. physicists study atoms, therefore, they are studying "something" within the means available to know they are there.
do more atoms equal a greater complexity? there is no good definition for complexity, if by my definition: variation in structure, then more atoms are a greater complexity, because of the greater variation. by this definition; higher quantity would mean greater complexity, because there is more substance and variation for interaction.
Atoms are not visible because no wavelength of visible light is small enough to bounce back from the atom, electron microscopes (like the SEM) though uses electrons, electrons have a much much smaller wavelength and can be used to "see" individual atoms.
Just because you don't see atoms, doesn't mean they don't exist and there is a point where so many atoms are bonded that there will be an object which is visible in light of a normal wavelength.
you have answered some of your initial questions here. and i agree with your last statement. the only question remains, can a carbon atom be made any more simpler than its base form, and if not, is that then "irreducible complexity" if the argument is: we cant see the atoms structure, and the models we produce are tentative, then so also is irreducible complexity tentative, but by all data if there appears under all scrutiny, to be no possible simpler form, then the theory of irreducible complexity is a solid tentative theory.

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 24 by Zucadragon, posted 02-20-2008 1:41 PM Zucadragon has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 28 of 72 (456873)
02-20-2008 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
02-20-2008 1:58 PM


Nanotechnologists in particular believe that their work will likely fail to reach a state of maturity until human beings design a self-replicating assembler of nanometer dimensions [3].
These systems are substantially simpler than autotrophic systems, because they are provided with purified feedstocks and energy. They do not have to reproduce them. This distinction is at the root of some of the controversy about whether molecular manufacturing is possible or not. Many authorities who find it impossible are clearly citing sources for complex autotrophic self-replicating systems. Many of the authorities who find it possible are clearly citing sources for much simpler self-assembling systems, which have been demonstrated. In the meantime, a LEGO-built autonomous robot able to follow a pre-set track and assemble an exact copy of itself, starting from four externally-provided components, was demonstrated experimentally in 2003 [4].
Merely exploiting the replicative abilities of existing cells is insufficient, because of limitations in the process of protein biosynthesis (also see the listing for RNA). What is required is the rational design of an entirely novel replicator with a much wider range of synthesis capabilities.
For a discussion of other chemical bases for hypothetical self-replicating systems, see alternative biochemistry.
emphasis on A thing.
Self-replication is any process by which A thing might make a copy of itself. Biological cells, given suitable environments, reproduce by cell division. During cell division, DNA is replicated and can be transmitted to offspring during reproduction. Biological viruses can reproduce, but only by commandeering the reproductive machinery of cells through a process of infection. Computer viruses reproduce using the hardware and software already present on computers. Memes reproduce using the human mind and culture as their reproductive machinery.
if there is only a single thing, and it evolved with no other interactions, what else can you call it? we cannot see what the energy looked like in its pure form, but like atoms, we can understand some things of it, by what we can see.
And here is the page on irreducible complexity since you seem to not know what that is either.
i know what it is. even if you disagree, in my initial statement i have already concluded this for a definition to be incorrect. and that the theory is not absolutely incorrect, but is targeting something that more than likely is reducible by all data.

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 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 1:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-20-2008 2:25 PM tesla has replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 days)
Posts: 1199
Joined: 12-22-2007


Message 29 of 72 (456875)
02-20-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Taz
02-20-2008 2:12 PM


No, because if you take away an electron, it becomes a positively charged carbon atom. If you take away a proton, it becomes a boron.
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?
which has least energy, a positively charged carbon, or a carbon with the extra electron? which has more substance?
Are you telling me that a person looks like 10 people together? What planet do you live on?
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.
You're the one that implied we could see what carbon looks like if we have a billion carbon atoms together. Who's committing this fallacy?
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.

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 27 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 2:12 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taz, posted 02-20-2008 3:20 PM tesla has not replied

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 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 1700 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

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 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

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 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

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 1700 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024