Stillness

Quote: Originally written by *i: Quote: …complex structures spring up suddenly in the record. There’s no sex, then sex; no feathers, then feathers; no insects, then insects; etc. Within a span of a decades to a few centuries? Source. Remember, quick on these time scales is tens of thousands of years. First of all the break between inanimate and animate is extremely sharp. I know that some may not view this as relevant, but it is nonetheless as the first life is said to be simple. It is not, at least not compared to lifeless chemicals, which lack extraordinarily complex mechanisms such as protein production. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html “The overriding question is when (and then how) sexual reproduction itself evolved. Despite decades of speculation, we do not know. The difficulty is that sexual reproduction creates complexity of the genome and the need for a separate mechanism for producing gametes. The metabolic cost of maintaining this system is huge, as is that of providing the organs specialized for sexual reproduction (the uterus of mammalian females, for example). What are the offsetting benefits? The advantages of sexual reproduction are not obvious” Maddox, John, What Remains to be Discovered, The Free Press, New York, p. 252, 1998. “Unlike many other transitions in evolution, there are no intermediates between eukaryotes and prokaryotes. It is as if honeybees mutated into humans without any evidence of rats, cats, or chimpanzees in between. The evolutionary processes behind this great revolution have had to be discerned without the help of one of the evolutionist’s most trusted sources of evidence—the fossil record” Wakeford, Tom (2001), Liaisons of Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons) pp.147-148 “Fossil remains of the skin of reptiles are rare and tell us little to nothing about the morphology of scales in possible avian ancestors among the reptiles…. We lack completely fossils of all intermediate stages between reptilian scales and the most primitive feather ” Bock, Walter J. (2000), “Explanatory History of the Origin of Feathers,” American Zoologist , pp. 480. “The oldest known feathers from the Late Jurassic are already modern in form and microscopic detail” Martin, Larry D. and Stephen A. Czerkas (2000), “The Fossil Record of Feather Evolution in the Mesozoic,” American Zoologist pp. 687 “The most primitive insects known are found as fossils in rocks of the Middle Devonian Period and lived about 350,000,000 years ago. The bodies of those insects were divided then, as now, into a head bearing one pair of antennae, a thorax with three pairs of legs, and a segmented abdomen.” http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-41296/insect “…insects first appear suddenly in the fossil record at the very beginning of the Late Carboniferous period, Early Bashkirian age , about 318 million years ago. Insect species were already diverse and highly specialized by this time, with fossil evidence reflecting the presence of more than half a dozen different orders .” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect_evolution The fossil record does not support common descent. Anyone who thinks it does has been fooled.

Quote: Originally written by Kirby had never eaten toes before.: Why does this look familiar? Déjà vu? Quote: A small number of primitive structure -> a small number of less primitive structures -> a larger number of less primitive structures -> ... -> a complex structure assembled from a large number of complex structures. I'm honestly not sure if you've noticed the difference yet. You've certainly never acknowledged it. —Alorael, who actually thinks irreducible complexity in man-made items is an interesting problem. The components of cars weren't invented all together to make a car. They were invented one by one, often for different uses. They didn't come into existence at the same time and they never existed uselessly. I see the difference, but as of yet have seen no detailed theory as to how such a thing could occur. Simply saying, “structure x was once used in a more primitive organism for some other purpose” glosses over much. In the teachings of common descent, organisms don’t have an intelligent agent that can move structures about, plan, and adapt them for sophisticated new purposes like a car does. Not only do they have to be functioning through the whole theoretical process, but also there has to be some advantage so that these genes are passed.

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: You do not seem to be thinking through your own arguments, Stillness. Removing a retina from a human eye no doubt renders it useless. Not just the eye, but also the lateral geniculate nucleus and the optic chiasm become useless. That is what makes it part of an irreducibly complex system. Until I see how small stepwise changes can make a system like this from scratch (organism that can’t sense visible light at all to human vision) while at the same time giving advantages that surpass disadvantages I have no reason to think life is different from non-life in that systems with such complexity are made with intelligence. I can’t imagine it and I have never seen a model that explicitly and quantitatively details such changes. Quote: you are not criticizing evolution: you are criticizing unintelligent design. Evolution is real. Common descent is weak. There’s no continuum in the historical record and changes of the type it requires are unseen. It requires faith to accept them. Creation by a purposeful agent explains systems like DNA/RNA protein production; avian flight; sexual reproduction and is supported by the sudden appearance of organisms in the record. If identifying intelligent cause over unintelligent cause was impossible or pointless, then we could never convict an unwitnessed murderer or determine that an arrowhead was made. Only when it’s convenient does “science” want to exclude an intelligent cause.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: In other words, I'm calling you on your description of eyes as irreducible. Demonstrate that no proto-parts of eyes could have any value on their own without the full structure of an eye. If you can't do that, you can't prove that eyes are irreducible. Kelandon, we can’t progress because you still don’t understand the definition and it’s usefulness. You think it it has something to do with common descent, creation, or impossibility and it absolutely does not. Please read and think carefully. Human vision is irreducible because it has many parts that have no function without multiple parts in place. If one of the parts that form the irreducible system is removed, it is rendered completely useless. The same can be said of many nonbiological systems. My truck does not run without the pistons, wheels, and sparkplugs. Those parts, along with many others form part of in irreducibly complex system. If you take the passengers seat, the air conditioner, or the speedometer out the truck can still run. Those are nice to have, but not part of the irreducible system. If you take out the retina (supposedly made of some of the most complicated tissue in the human body), optic nerve, or visual cortex humans cannot see. This has nothing to do with your beliefs or mine - it is a fact. Here is where my understanding comes in. I believe that our creator not only created life, but also created with great variety. These initial acts do not account for all the variety though. Ability to adapt was placed into all life. If I want to try to get a feel for what was originally created and what evolved from that creation, irreducible structures serve me as a guide because they are only seen to arise from purpose driven action. Why should I think any differently? Enter the misguided nonbeliever (e.g. Kelandon, SoT, *i, Thuryl, Alo, and friends), raining on my parade. They make wild claims such as irreducible structures not being a reliable guide for me to discover the creator’s works. They say that observable reality is not a good guide, because these structures could evolve slowly so that they would be invisible to us. Good ol’, faithful, salt-of-the-Earth folks (like me) are shocked by this affront to the Creator. But since we are patient and understanding, we proceed to listen at the description of how this is claimed to be possible. Only in some kind of bizzaro world is the ownness on me to develop infinite numbers of paths to support a theory I don’t believe to show how it doesn’t work. The owness is on you to develop your theory! As I said on the previous thread, I recognize that this is difficult. You’d have to show the starting state (including related systems); describe the initial regulatory mechanisms; have a stepwise route to the new state; a description of how regulatory mechanisms adapted to the new state; and more. It would have to be very explicit and detailed. And after all this work you’d have me picking apart every detail. Either that or show how evolution has made an equally complex system. The latter is preferable (probably for both of us). (Interestingly I heard a story on NPR today of a man who could see just fine, but as he got older his mind had more and more difficulty distinguishing objects. All his equipment worked, but his perception was off. It started with faces, but got worse. He though his wife was a hat for example. And he was perfectly sane. So, even having the right hardware and software might not be enough).

Quote: Originally written by *i: We don't see nature make systems like this (as you define them above) because our observation time is dramatically limited. The only real conclusion we can draw is that nature does not do this on the time scales we observe. This does not, however, preclude significantly longer time scales. I think the real concern is generations, not time, right? With things like flies and bacteria this becomes observable in our lifetimes, yet I don’t know of any such case where such a system has evolved. Quote: Originally written by *i: A way to show design is to be able to show very rapid changes (on the order of decades, although I'll even take centuries or a few millennia) occurring early on in the history of Earth and you would have a stronger case. The fossil record shows this very thing! That is why you all like punctuated equilibrium. I’ve been yelling this all along, that complex structures spring up suddenly in the record. There’s no sex, then sex; no feathers, then feathers; no insects, then insects; etc.

Quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Your second is fine, I guess, but non-periodic and non-random forms can arise without the intervention of an intelligence, as we've discussed over and over again. By all means, speak up man! Give us the examples. I can't think of one.

Now I see the problem! My arguement has never changed (except for me dropping the thermodynamic part). An irreducibly complex system has several well matched parts to function such that if any are removed it fails. In living things the parts offer no value by themselves, but only as part of the whole. This says nothing of impossibility. My argument is that we don't see nature make systems like this, but we do see purposeful action create them. Mechanisms of this sort are indicative of planning. Therefore purposeful action is a better explanation.

Alo, I have stated and restated for so long that my argument is that purposeful action is a better explanation for what we see. I have constantly used observable reality as a basis for determining what happened in the past. If I have used terms like "impossible" and "never" it certainly wasn't intended to be the strength of my argument. Specified complexity is self-defining. It describes patterns that are specified and complex. If you want different words call it the quality or state of having aperiodic and nonrandom form.

Quote: Originally written by Student of Trinity: These bacteria have somehow learned to live on artificial sugar, and you call it a loss because it is a change which 'if continued' would leave them unable to eat anything? This sure seems like taking the specified complexity theory over common sense. My original use of specified complexity had nothing to do with camparisons of living things. This is why I hate posting links. I was originally comparing living things to non-living things that occur in nature. This sidetracked us to a discussion we already had on the other thread.

Sot, your bird analogy is flawed. Animals can run in all of those environments as well. In what way does that fit?

If you don't get it I'm not of much help quantitatively. My original quote was meant as I understand it - qualitatively. Life has a quality that distinguishes it from simply random or ordered phenomena. I imagine this is how Leslie Orgel meant it. You all are the ones that brought up quantitative measure when it really is not necessary for the point. And explicit all-inclusive concise definitions are notoriously difficult. (Try defining "life," "science," or "species" in such a way that includes everything belonging to those categories, but does not include things that do not). When I try to give them they are never satisfactory for you. The concept is clear though for anybody that wants to see it, though. Whether you agree with it or not is entirely up to you. I know I joke around a lot, but I'm dead serious here. I can’t remember who was saying that this discussion was pointless, but I thoroughly disagree. I’m glad I didn’t quit sooner. The last page of the other thread was especially educational for me. I got some very honest and refreshing responses from Kel and SoT, in particular. To hear and read and come to conclusions is one thing, but to actually be part of the experience is another. I'm sad it got lost, but what needed to be said was said in my eyes. Since you all were honest with me I'll be honest as well. My religious beliefs are not subject to scientific reasoning or observable reality either. They can be enhanced or accented by them, but not torn down. So, if mutations somehow caused "irreducibly complex" systems to arise I'd be shocked, but I would accept it. It's not really a religious belief. It would change my view of creation, but never of the Creator. That is latter is beyond science.

No the Devil.

Calculating information is not a creationist idea. On the last thread Schrodinger, an origin of life researcher, did it. If you like, use your own means of calculating information, because that's what it's based off of. It's clear to me from a qualitative perspective though that changes that if continued would result in a bacteria that has no response in any substrate or a fish that has no functionality can't be qualified as anything but loss. It makes it better in some environments, but it's not the kind of change in complexity that gets one from bacteria to biologist. I don't see how gaining the ability to fly would be a decrease. That is exactly the opposite kind of change to loss of eyes. Successive changes of that sort would seem to get us to where we are given enough time. Even if your flying organism lost something like the capability to run well, it'd still be good. We can't do everything bacteria can do, but we're definitely more complex.

Since you insist the same question was asked at How Is Information Content Measured

Your number is complex but what specific information does it convey? It's just random. I really think you missed the point. Living things have high information content beyond encyclopedic scale. I'll repost and see if you get the difference. Quote: Originally quoted by Stillness: For my sake please think of [specified complexity] as qualitative instead of quantitative. It is actually a term coined by evolutionary origin of life reasearcher Leslie Orgel and hijacked by the good guys. “Living things are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals such as granite fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; mixtures of random polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.” L. Orgel, The Origins of Life (New York: John Wiley, 1973), p. 189 It can be quantitative and is measured based on [high] information content. Here is an explanation that makes me understand it: View it as the shortest algorithm you’d have to write to get generate a particular arrangement. Italics mine. I really don't have much more to say on this.

I also remember using thahd shades quite efeectively.

Quote: Originally written by Suspicious Vlish: Past Geneforge experience, + the ingame description, sort of indicates that Ur-Glaahks should have potent stun ability. It never ceases to amaze me how lame melee characters are in these games. It almost seems as if their use is intentionally discouraged by their design. How do you explain ur-glaaks and p. clawbugs otherwise? In fairness I guess there is something to be said for an extra attack in the same round. Even so, I have a hard time imagining a strategy in which a melle creation gives an advantage over missile creations. I could see rots havings some usefulness, but I always feel crippled with them on my team.

Shaping is by far the most powerful ability for any class IMO. I run infiltrators/serviles with at least one or two creations at all times. I might even use 3.

Litalia - "The Trakovites may be right. They may be wise, and virtuous, and ahead of their time. But history teaches us that those blessed with that sort of madness tend to end up dead. Proven right, but dead." or The twisted battle beta stumbles backwards. "Is this ... the end ... for Krazo?" Apparently it is. He falls backwards and dies. I don't know why the last one is so funny to me. I am often entertained by the death throws of the characters in this game.

Terrorists intentionally attack civilians for the sake of causing fear normally because their military might is insufficient to win, Emp. They hope to scare the enemy off, discourage, or punish them in that way because they can't win toe-to-toe. The rebellion attack does not fit that mold. The true target is shapers.

I love Tullegolar's theories. He always manages to come way out from left field and blindside his opponent. Waylander, you should take him off ignore and not be so sensitive.

Yeah, you all are right. I am giving up. I can't argue against your drakons-don't-clean-toilets theory. I lose.

I think this thread is dead.

Quote: Originally written by Spokesman of the Dead: How does being sufficient only in Shaping not make the Drakons inferior? First the drakons can't shape, now that's all they're good at. You guys are a riot.

Quote: Originally written by Morior: Yes. Who needs mechanics? I know what a car looks like, I can figure the rest out. Who needs people to build computers? I know what they look like and what they end up doing, so I can figure out the rest. No, I agree that no man is an island. humans and drakons need others. What we're takilng about is shaping though. The Unbound are designed and shaped by drakons. You need machanics, janitors, metalurgists, etc, but shaping is king and the drakons have mastered that art. They are not inferior to humans. That is my point.