What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

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

then the basic carbon atom is the simplest form? can it be reduced? 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

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? 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. reduce:reduce
One entry found.reduce pertinent definition:reduce: 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 eyehave 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

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. 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

emphasis on A thing. 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. 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

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? 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. 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

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

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. 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

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. 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

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

lol good point.

---

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