Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 There are two problems that I can see with this idea. It implies that simple things cannot combine to make much more complicated things. There are a host of valid critiques to this work, but so what? The argument I was making was not that simpler things can't create complex things, but that the original things weren't that simple. I think the degree of complexity could be quantified (by complexity theory) and contrasted with the degree of complexity of "higher" life forms. If the conclusions were validated by the mathematics, it would suggest that things started out very complex. I think this would be a worthwhile exercise, and I consider this science.
Buffy Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 The argument I was making was not that simpler things can't create complex things, but that the original things weren't that simple. I think the degree of complexity could be quantified (by complexity theory) and contrasted with the degree of complexity of "higher" life forms. If the conclusions were validated by the mathematics, it would suggest that thiing started out very complex.But what is "original"? It gets into the philosophical argument of "what is life" which evolution doesn't have a whole lot to say about. Moreover this is a perfect setup for the "gap-obsession" arguments since because we do not have a lot of fossils of things that were made of substances about as fossilizable as Jello, we can't show alot of these original "really simple" things. Also, complexity theory does not have "degrees" of complexity as computer algorithms have "orders" of complexity, its only shades of gray, and thus endlessly arguable based on opinions. How simple is simple? Is this simple enough for you, or is it really complex? Of course we all realize that you don't agree with this stuff Bio, we're just trying to disabuse you of the notion that there's anything scientific about ID.... Cheers,Buffy
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 But what is "original"? I am not sure why you are reacting against this. I said before that the assumptions are problematic. But the line of research would still be informative. It does not require any life definition. Only stated assumptions.Also, complexity theory does not have "degrees" of complexity as computer algorithms have "orders" of complexity, its only shades of gray,Isn't that the point? Suppose we were to do the work to compare the complexity of a putative primordial single celled organism with a contemporary mammal. Suppose that, with a given set of assumptions, the single celled organism came out with 90% of the complexity of the mammal? What if it came you with 95%? 99%? Could you see how this might alter the discussion about gradualism? Are you going to contend this is not science? Who cares if the postulate driving the researchers is theistic?
Buffy Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 Isn't that the point? Suppose we were to do the work to compare the complexity of a putative primordial single celled organism with a contemporary mammal. Suppose that, with a given set of assumptions, the single celled organism came out with 90% of the complexity of the mammal? What if it came you with 95%? 99%? Could you see how this might alter the discussion about gradualism? Are you going to contend this is not science?It certainly depends on the assumptions doesn't it though? One key assumption you imply here is that the complexity of the later forms would be less than the earlier forms: Based on the right assumptions, Eniac was far more complex than a Pentium chip. Which is more sophisticated? Which came later? All judgement calls that are endlessly arguable. I'm actually not arguing against experiments along the lines of what you describe (they are being done extensively actually, and they're showing that no, we're not much different than mice!), but just warning that the assumptions do drive incorrect conclusions on both sides: In the case of complexity, at some point I come up with something that is way simpler, but the opponents can complain "well that's not life"Who cares if the postulate driving the researchers is theistic?I don't care if their *purpose* is theistic, good for them! But if they say that their *proof* includes a *postulate* that there is a deity running things and they provide no evidence other than their belief or arguments that few can agree on, that's not science! Cheers,Buffy
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 One key assumption you imply here is that the complexity of the later forms would be less than the earlier formsI don't know where you got that. In my example, I suggested that earlier forms were less complex, but not a lot less complex.I don't care if their *purpose* is theistic, good for them! But if they say that their *proof* includes a *postulate*...The example I stated had no such assumption in it. Imagine for a moment that 5 years from now, Behe-Sosocgs* publishes a complexity reference model, including 150 assumptions described in grisly detail. The model establishes that a sample primordial life form, similar to an amoeba is 94.2% as "complex" as a contemporary cat, given the then-current bounds of sophistication of complexity theory. This would be the fodder for a significant assessment of assumptions, and (probably concurrently) a potential revision to all of the elements of evolution that smack of gradualism. The fact that in 2025, someone has significantly modified the B-S model into the "General Be-Sc Corollary", is expected. A single, well structured analysis in this regard would be useful. And it is certainly science. *sosocgs=Some unknown set of current grad students
Buffy Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 One key assumption you imply here is that the complexity of the later forms would be less than the earlier formsI don't know where you got that. In my example, I suggested that earlier forms were less complex, but not a lot less complex.Sorry! I mis-read your example! My Eniac/Pentium example proves that the more extreme point I assumed still proves that "more complexity" is a matter of opinion. :(Imagine for a moment that 5 years from now, Behe-Sosocgs* publishes a complexity reference model, including 150 assumptions described in grisly detail. The model establishes that a sample primordial life form, similar to an amoeba is 94.2% as "complex" as a contemporary cat, given the then-current bounds of sophistication of complexity theory....Agreed, and it would be interesting to see those B-S assumptions and results! :( OTOH though, interpreting them, as proof of "irreducible complexity" is not science! :( Cheers,Buffy
Biochemist Posted May 7, 2005 Report Posted May 7, 2005 ....interpreting them, as proof of "irreducible complexity" is not science...A more interesting topic. Probably a new thread. I think the notion of irreducible complexity is useful, but I can't picture an experiment that would prove it. It is easier to picture perpetual complexity (per my last example}. Maybe we ought to start a thread specifically on irreducible complexity.
lindagarrette Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 I can't speak for the committed Naturalism folks, but I am pretty sure that many of them believe evolution is a theory of origin. I do understand (and agree) with your assertion.Can't be. The process of evolution could only take place after mitochondrial DNA existed. There was an earlier form of life.
lindagarrette Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 There are a host of valid critiques to this work, but so what? The argument I was making was not that simpler things can't create complex things, but that the original things weren't that simple. I think the degree of complexity could be quantified (by complexity theory) and contrasted with the degree of complexity of "higher" life forms. If the conclusions were validated by the mathematics, it would suggest that things started out very complex. I think this would be a worthwhile exercise, and I consider this science.Everything started out with a high degree of order (I wouldn't call it simple, just consistent.) Entropy is the driving force behind increasing "complexity" or disorder. Maximum entropy, which is the direction we appear to be heading is an absense of energy and matter (the Big Rip), as it was before the BB. All the events in between, including evolution of life with its apparent "higher forms" emerging temporarily, are just manifestations of the disordering.
Biochemist Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 Everything started out with a high degree of order (I wouldn't call it simple, just consistent.) Entropy is the driving force behind increasing "complexity" or disorder......I don't think you are using the term "complexity" in the same sense that I did. I was using it in the sense that the proponents of complexity theory use it. In that context, complexity does not egual disorder: Complexity is the degree of chaotic interaction.
Biochemist Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 Everything started out with a high degree of order... All the events in between, including evolution of life with its apparent "higher forms" emerging temporarily, are just manifestations of the disordering.Hey- this is the core doctrinal statement from the Churh of LG! We got it down to one sentence!
Biochemist Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 Can't be. The process of evolution could only take place after mitochondrial DNA existed. There was an earlier form of life.As I mentioned above, many folks assume the term "evolution" includes abiogenesis, rightly or wrongly.
lindagarrette Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 Hey- this is the core doctrinal statement from the Churh of LG! We got it down to one sentence!It's the second law of thermodynamics. If you have evidence to the contrary, then I'm sure many scientists would love to hear it.
Biochemist Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 Everything started out with a high degree of order.... All the events in between, including evolution of life with its apparent "higher forms" emerging temporarily, are just manifestations of the disordering. It's the second law of thermodynamics. If you have evidence to the contrary, then I'm sure many scientists would love to hear it. LG- I admit I was gently poking fun at you, but it consistently appears (as in this case) that you are oblivious to your bias. Can you not see anything in your earlier statement that is just a litte bit broader than the second law of thermodynamics?
C1ay Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 LG- I admit I was gently poking fun at you, but it consistently appears (as in this case) that you are oblivious to your bias. Can you not see anything in your earlier statement that is just a litte bit broader than Newton's second law?I didn't particularly see anything in her statement that had anything to do with Newton's second law. IIRC, Newton's Second Law states, "The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object." Could you enlighten us?
Biochemist Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 I didn't particularly see anything in her statement that had anything to do with Newton's second law. Whoops. Second low of thermodynamics. Per LG. What was I thinkin'?
paultrr Posted May 8, 2005 Report Posted May 8, 2005 I would not call the Kansas situation one ahead for God since in general God according to at least western thought never wanted robots in the first place. Seems to me we have again a great example of the Moral Majority out there dictating to everyone else what should or should not be taught. What's next burning books as the Cathlics once tried. It did not work then and it will not work now. No this is one for those who desirepower and nothing else. Its one giant step backwards into the dark ages again is all it is. By the way, for you who have forgotten history one of the things the Catholics tried the squash besides one's ability to openly read the Bible for oneself, was the belief that the earth was not the center of the Universe. That one turned out right in the end run. Since God, by the book is the truth then any downplay of the truth is more one for devil, so to speak.
Recommended Posts