Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-19-2019 12:53 PM
204 online now:
14174dm, caffeine, DrJones*, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Stile, Tangle, Tanypteryx (9 members, 195 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,458 Year: 3,495/19,786 Month: 490/1,087 Week: 80/212 Day: 10/31 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   What could/would falsify Irreducible Complexity?
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 72 (456848)
02-20-2008 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by tesla
02-20-2008 9:41 AM


tesla writes:

what is the simplest form of carbon?


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.

"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?

There's no fine line between living things and nonliving things. It's like color. Red and orange are obvious colors of their own, but where does red ends and orange begins?

atoms have a very powerful energy of the "strong" force, and react and evolve within conditions, like biological things.

Did you just make this statement to sound smart?

when an atom ceases to be iron, and becomes steel, did the iron "die"?

Oh, for christ sake, steel is an alloy, a combination of iron and a small amount of carbon. Iron in steel remains iron.

i believe that only living things come from the living, and that our universe is a "living" body.

And you got this from your very inaccurate statements above?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 9:41 AM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:00 PM Taz has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 17 of 72 (456849)
02-20-2008 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by mrjoad2
02-20-2008 11:08 AM


Bravo! to your first post, mrjoad2. Welcome!

What IC fails to account is that seemingly IC units when reduced CAN perform other functions. The flagellum is a perfect example of this. When certain parts are taken out, it could be used by the bacterium to inject toxin into a eukaryotic cell.

By the way, if you press the reply button on the bottom right hand corner of a particular post, then it will show that you are responding to that post. This helps us keep track of who's talking to who. Otherwise, by using the general reply button all the time we will become a group of people yelling past each other.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mrjoad2, posted 02-20-2008 11:08 AM mrjoad2 has not yet responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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 responded

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

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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 responded

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 20 of 72 (456860)
02-20-2008 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by tesla
02-20-2008 12:00 PM


tesla writes:

then isn't bonds with carbon , alloy's of carbon, and carbon remains carbon in the alloy?


Carbon is carbon, no matter what it is bonded with.

what does carbon look like if separated from anything it could bond with?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:00 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:47 PM Taz has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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 responded

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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 22 of 72 (456864)
02-20-2008 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by tesla
02-20-2008 12:47 PM


tesla writes:

then the basic carbon atom is the simplest form?


There's no such thing as "simplest form" of carbon atom. Carbon atom is carbon atom.

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?

can it be reduced?

Define "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?

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.

Edited by Taz, : Added person analogy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:47 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 1:06 PM Taz has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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-'düs, -'dyüs\
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 \-?dü-s?-'bi-l?-te, -?dyü-\ noun
— re·duc·ible \-'dü-s?-b?l, -'dyü-\ 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 responded

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

  
Zucadragon
Member (Idle past 1630 days)
Posts: 61
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006


Message 24 of 72 (456866)
02-20-2008 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tesla
02-20-2008 1:06 PM


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?

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 ?

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?

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 1:06 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 1:51 PM Zucadragon has not yet responded

    
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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 yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 72 (456871)
02-20-2008 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by tesla
02-20-2008 12:03 PM


if nothing else to interact with but itself, what is it? define self replication for me since I'm a fool?

Did you always have other people do your homework for you?

Why don't you just look it up if you don't know what it means?

And here is the page on irreducible complexity since you seem to not know what that is either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:03 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:15 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 1365 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 27 of 72 (456872)
02-20-2008 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by tesla
02-20-2008 1:06 PM


tesla writes:

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, because if you take away an electron, it becomes a positively charged carbon atom. If you take away a proton, it becomes a boron.

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.

Are you telling me that a person looks like 10 people together? What planet do you live on?

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?


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?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 1:06 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:21 PM Taz has responded

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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 responded

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

  
tesla
Member (Idle past 2131 days)
Posts: 1198
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 responded

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

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1260 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 30 of 72 (456876)
02-20-2008 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by tesla
02-20-2008 12:47 PM


quote:
Carbon is carbon, no matter what it is bonded with.

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

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.

quote:
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?

You still wouldn't see anything - billions of Carbon atoms are still too small for the naked eye. But in the spirit of your question, if you had, say, a full kilogram of pure carbon (which, if I remember Avogadro's Number correctly, would be 6.022*10^23 / 12 (the atomic weight of Carbon) * 1000 (for grams into kilograms) = 5.0183*10^25 atoms - that's a LOT more than 1 billion)...Carbon absorbs heat pretty readily, and carbon-rich substances like coal and graphite are basically black. Diamonds, on the other hand, are almost compeltely made of carbon, and they're quite clear (impurities cause colored diamonds). The "form" it would take would depend on the temperature - it could be solid, liquid, or a gas, but you'll never see a full kilogram of Carbon completely un-bonded to anything. Carbon nanotubes and fullerenes (commonly called "Bucky Balls") are structures composed entirely of Carbon bonded to other Carbon atoms, but these are still viewable only under an electron microscope, which does not allw "color" because it's not based on light.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 12:47 PM tesla has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by tesla, posted 02-20-2008 2:29 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019