Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution Logic
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 116 of 302 (319299)
06-08-2006 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Someone who cares
06-08-2006 8:54 PM


AIG vs TO
I could say the same about Talk Origins or any other sources you guys use.
You could say it. Want to open a thread on a comparison of the two?
We can take turns picking an item from one then the other. Offer evidence to support what we say. Saying is cheap. Backing it up is where the meat lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 8:54 PM Someone who cares has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Someone who cares, posted 06-08-2006 10:07 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 203 of 302 (319976)
06-10-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by ReverendDG
06-10-2006 4:32 AM


Separate paths
universal common decent (one line of decent) isn't fully accepted, but most people accept common decent - the ancester would be really far back between the two right before backbones
This is not relevant to the comparison of eyes. If I recall correctly it is clear that the octocpus and human eye evolved separately. Eyes have evolved lots (don't remember the number --more than 10?) time.
The nature of the differences helps point that out. In addition the last common ancestors of octopi and mammals is so far back it is (I think) before eyes evolved. It would be in the Cambrian I believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 4:32 AM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Chiroptera, posted 06-10-2006 3:15 PM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 224 by ReverendDG, posted 06-10-2006 8:15 PM NosyNed has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 294 of 302 (322769)
06-17-2006 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by Rob
06-17-2006 10:53 PM


Measuring complexity
In other words, an amoeba may contain a lot more information, but is that information as complex and specified as the genetic information for a Mammal of Reptile?
We've seen how information can be measured and assigned a quantitative value. Can you tell us how one does this with "complexity" and "specificity"? I've never seen them defined well enough to be able to assign a number to. Without a number I can't tell if a mammal or a reptile or an amoeba has "more" or "less" of this stuff.
The important thing to note is that one needs to be able to arrive at a number before you can talk in terms of more or less.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 06-17-2006 10:53 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 12:16 AM NosyNed has replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 297 of 302 (322784)
06-18-2006 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Rob
06-18-2006 12:16 AM


Re: Measuring complexity
I think I understand, but have no number to give you. I only offer the concept which is intuitively recognizable without such a value.
Loosly translated as:
I was fooled when I read about it because it sounded so scientific.
or
I have not clue what it means.
Given what I understand complexity to mean it is probably that both a mammal and a reptile are more complex than an amoeba (but I can't prove it since I don't know what complexity is). I am pretty darn sure that a reptile and a mammal are about the same in complexity and it would be very difficult indeed to figure out if there is an difference.
Guessing what "specificity" is (and making up a bit of definition of my own)I would say that in that sense they all have very close to zero specificity. So close as to be safely approximated by zero. If you think it is significantly greater than zero you will have to show that.
Rob, you've been had. You've read this stuff somewhere and thought it was really hot stuff. It is just random words made up to sound good. When questioned on it you've gone off into words without any more meaning that the ones that were used to fool you. Try again. I'm not fooled.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 12:16 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Rob, posted 06-18-2006 1:45 AM NosyNed 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