Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,784 Year: 4,041/9,624 Month: 912/974 Week: 239/286 Day: 46/109 Hour: 0/3


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Evolution of complexity/information

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution of complexity/information
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 40 of 254 (123897)
07-12-2004 7:37 AM 		Reply to: Message 39 by Saviourmachine
07-12-2004 6:56 AM

Re: Complexity - a new effort for a definition
want to see human as nothing special, animal among animals (mainly based only on the genome size)
​
prove to me there exists no more complex an animal than man. i would like a more specific definition, but if you find some practical way to use the one you have there, by all means, go ahead and use it.
​
decrease the need for a god as nessecary to guide this hypothetical increase of complexity (what isn’t appropriate if you think randomness and selection suffice)
​
science is naturalism. god is supernatural. science has nothing to do with god.
​
haven’t small virtual evolutionary systems to test definitions and see complexity arise (but cybernetics do)
​
i've seen evolutionary algorithms produce very complex systems. irreducibly complex, even.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Saviourmachine, posted 07-12-2004 6:56 AM Saviourmachine has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Saviourmachine, posted 07-12-2004 9:03 AM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 1:45 PM arachnophilia has replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 43 of 254 (123917)
07-12-2004 10:19 AM 		Reply to: Message 42 by Saviourmachine
07-12-2004 9:03 AM

Re: Complexity - a new effort for a definition
You're proving my point, thinking that these things matter. They don't!!!
​
The existence of 'complexity' and 'increase of complexity' is something you can discuss objectively.
​
how am i doing anything of the sort. i asked you to prove that no animal exists that is more complex by man, using any definition you so choose. since you say science is making the opposite claim, that complexity isn't a valid measure of anything and can't be quantisized (in order lower man to the status of animal), i am asking you to make your case, which you have not done. show me it can discussed objectively, using this example.
​
and if you think they don't matter, why bother posting?
​
That's fine! So, would you mind to tell me how the complexity in this systems was measured?! (You said that complex systems were produced!)
​
yes, using behe's defintion, that if any component is subtracted, the overall function of the system fails.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Saviourmachine, posted 07-12-2004 9:03 AM Saviourmachine has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Saviourmachine, posted 07-12-2004 2:21 PM arachnophilia has replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 58 of 254 (124069)
07-12-2004 6:01 PM 		Reply to: Message 50 by Saviourmachine
07-12-2004 2:21 PM

Re: Complexity - Behe's definition
I tried to discover why so many biologists don't want to talk about 'complexity', 'increasing complexity' or even 'information'.
​
because they're biologists. try talking to geneticists, i'm sure they'll tell you all about information and genes.
​
So, that's a binary definition of complexity? If there is any component that can be subtracted then it's complex, and else it isn't?
​
don't look at me, i didn't make it up.
​
it's sometimes possible to perform another function when subtracting a component
​
actually, this is the case all the time. when cornered in debate, behe makes it very clear that just the overall function which he has designated fails. very often subsystems work just fine independently. (even though behe insists he's not dealing with things with subsystems early in his book. basically, he's full of crap)
​
maybe it's necessary to add first a component before subtracting others (tower of Hanoi idea)
​
and vice versa. evolution does funny things.
​
So, I would like it if you can define complexity for this rather simple 'complex' systems.
​
hey, you brought it up. i wasn't saying your definition was WRONG. i was asking for elaboration and examples.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Saviourmachine, posted 07-12-2004 2:21 PM Saviourmachine has not replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 59 of 254 (124074)
07-12-2004 6:07 PM 		Reply to: Message 45 by Hangdawg13
07-12-2004 1:45 PM

Re: Complexity - a new effort for a definition
I'm no biologist, but I'll take a stab at this. A human has more brain matter that functions better together than brains of other animals. This is evident by humans ability to talk, do math, think beyond instincts, and do other things.
​
i'd argue that abstract thought is more important to this point. i've seen some dolphins do some very intelligent things, and we know chimps can use language.
​
Now if you put a human brain in... an Ardvaark, it wouldn't be very useful to it. The Ardvaark doesn't have the vocal cords to talk or sing or whatnot, it doesn't have the hands to manipulate materials and create things like a man does.
​
irrelevant. these systems do not develop independently.
​
A man seems to have several qualities such as bipedal stance, hands, vocal cords for speech, forward facing eyes, etc... that all work together with his far surpassing brain design that put him above the animals.
​
lots of animals have hands, vocal chords, and forward facing eyes. not alot of animals today are bipeds though (although lots of dinosaurs were).
​
Exactly the point. There can be no more obvious an intimate relationship between us and God than his creation of us.
​
that's good. science studies god's creation. the problem arises in the fact that creationism does not, favouring man's bible instead.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-12-2004 1:45 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 60 of 254 (124076)
07-12-2004 6:09 PM 		Reply to: Message 57 by jar
07-12-2004 5:17 PM

Re: Convincing is a good task.
hahahaha, is there a post of the month thread yet?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by jar, posted 07-12-2004 5:17 PM jar has not replied
  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1370 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004

Normal Thread Display
Message 64 of 254 (124167)
07-13-2004 2:06 AM 		Reply to: Message 63 by Hangdawg13
07-13-2004 1:51 AM

Re: Unitcellular to multi
because things breed faster than that.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-13-2004 1:51 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024