Cells' Molecular Motor Diversity Confounds Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

i didn't ask about the cell. I asked about the organism. You made a sweeping claim that mutations can never increase complexity and you've done everything to duck the consequences of that statement ever since.

If the individual parts of the organism are not more complex, I don't see why the organism would be more complex.

Circular objection. You haven't established that the blood cell complexity hasn't changed. Just stated it without explaining how you got to your conclusion.
So you can't say the creature's complexity hasn't changed, at any level.
And if the creature IS more complex, now, then something, somewhere has changed to make that so.

In this case, we have an organism that has blood cells. After the nutation, the organism still has blood cells.

After the mutation, the organism has twice as many types of blood cells.

I don't see that the organism has become more complex.

I think you do. In any case, simple denial doesn't change the obvious fact.

Obvious complexity increase is obvious.

OK. That's your opinion. We need a definition of complexity to determine whether you are correct.

Actually, we need a definition of complexity to determine what the fuck you meant in the first place. THEN we can use it to see if you have a leg to stand on.

I proposed a definition earlier and by my definition, I don't see an increase in complexity - we started with a blood cell and we still have a blood cell.

No, no, no. You offered the definition of the term 'irreducible complexity.' Not a definition of complexity.
For one thing, 'irreducible complexity' is meant to indicate where things have to have had intelligence involved in their creation. That's the reason the phrase was coined.
And it's a binary state, not a means to compare before/after complexity or measure how much they changed.

It's a useless definition in this particular case. You can't use it to say 'more complex' or 'less complex' or 'same complex' by the use of the definition of 'irreducible complexity.'

The blood cell performs a necessary function in the organism and that function has not changed.

What is your definition of complexity that allows you to draw the opposite conclusion?

How about a rather simple definition of 'something with many parts and/or many functions?'
More parts = more complex.
More functions is more complex.
A gene pool with a recessive gene trait is more complex than a gene pool with traits that never change.

 

[rhutchin]

What is your definition of complexity that allows you to draw the opposite conclusion?

How about a rather simple definition of 'something with many parts and/or many functions?'
More parts = more complex.
More functions is more complex.

I don't see why more parts would be more complex. A car with eight wheels would not be more complex than one with four wheels. Did you mean unique parts?

More functions would not be a reason either. Wouldn't they have to be new functions not previously possible.

A gene pool with a recessive gene trait is more complex than a gene pool with traits that never change.

Don't you mean, "A gene pool with a recessive gene trait is more complex than a gene pool without a recessive trait."

 

[rhutchin]

In this case, we have an organism that has blood cells. After the nutation, the organism still has blood cells.

After the mutation, the organism has twice as many types of blood cells.

What do you mean by "type" of blood cell. With sickle cell anemia, the shape of the red cell changes but not its type.

 

[Keith&Co.]

How about a rather simple definition of 'something with many parts and/or many functions?'
More parts = more complex.
More functions is more complex.

I don't see why more parts would be more complex.

Then offer a better definition or stop pretending you don't understand.
It's okay by me. MY understanding of the theory does not depend on the word 'complexity.' Your objection definitely needs it.

A car with eight wheels would not be more complex than one with four wheels. Did you mean unique parts?

No. I mean more parts or more functions. As a simple entry to the conversation.
DNA that makes two different kinds of blood cells has to be more complex than DNA that only makes one.

More functions would not be a reason either. Wouldn't they have to be new functions not previously possible.

No. You're still trying to shape the use of the word to fit your argument. You argue that we cannot mutate to increase complexity. That means we need to be able to measure the complexity of one generation all by itself, then measure the other generation, then compare the two. Or three generations. Or four species. No need for 'new' functions.
Just count functions. Parts.

OR come up with a real fucking definition of COMPLEXITY and see how it goes.

A gene pool with a recessive gene trait is more complex than a gene pool with traits that never change.

Don't you mean, "A gene pool with a recessive gene trait is more complex than a gene pool without a recessive trait."

Sure.

 

[Keith&Co.]

After the mutation, the organism has twice as many types of blood cells.

What do you mean by "type" of blood cell. With sickle cell anemia, the shape of the red cell changes but not its type.

I mean there are red blood cells and there are sickle cells in the person with sickle cell anemia. Two different shapes. They perform differently in the bloodstream. Which has nothing to do with blood-type, but still: the SA sufferer has two visibly distinct forms of blood cells.

Like a car with round and square wheels would be more complex than a car with only round wheels.

 

[Malintent]

so far, we confirmed from rhutchin that he does not beleive that having a greater quantity of parts of somethng makes it more complex, nor does having more functions than something else, nor does having a different shape than something else.

What makes somethng more complex, then? Does "complexity exist". If you do not have the words for it, can you just name two things that have different complexity and state what it is that makes one more complex than the other?

You know my position.. I think you are full of shit and know it... prove me wrong, if you can.

 

[Narapoia]

More functions would not be a reason either. Wouldn't they have to be new functions not previously possible.

So you would agree that an organism is more complex than its forebears if it can perform new functions that were not possible in previous generations?

 

[Keith&Co.]

More functions would not be a reason either. Wouldn't they have to be new functions not previously possible.

So you would agree that an organism is more complex than its forebears if it can perform new functions that were not possible in previous generations?

Like, say, a resistance to malaria?

 

[Kharakov]

Various genes (phenotypes) that were used for specific tasks in the past, now are used for more functions. It's like a screwdriver can be used on a computer now- same tool, more functions. Eyes are used for more functions now- reading, pitching, looking at beauty, judging how things fit together, figuring out how something should fit together, peering into the universe, etc.


When you get down to it, the total number of subatomic particles on Earth is not greatly increasing or decreasing in number, yet they engage in increasingly complex behaviors over time. This is because they band together into units, which band together into other units, so on and so forth.

The number of subatomic particles involved in the local ecosystem has slowly increased over time (biomass increase), which is an increase in complexity. The number of behaviors of subatomic particles in the ecosystem has increased over time, which is an increase in complexity. The connectivity of various units in the ecosystem has increased over time, creating larger individual units of greater complexity (thoughts, brains, the internet).

We have biomass increase (B), function increase (F), and connectivity increase (C). All of these occurred after the initial formation of the Earth, assuming the universe's form, including natural laws and past, were not selected from all possible forms with an intact past and future (like a  block universe).

So complexity of the ecosystem has increased over time: The number of tools (including genes), functions for tools (or metatools), and connectivity have increased. Evolution does not stop at speciation- although tools are passed down, and sideways (through viruses), and are used in increasingly complex ways over time.

 

[Underseer]

I'm still waiting for the explanation for where the extra complexity in snowflake formation comes from. Those crystalline patterns are incredibly complex, and for all that "information" to spontaneously form out of random water vapor strains credulity. Obviously, snowflakes cannot be formed by natural processes, but must be magicked into existence by magical beings.

 

[Kharakov]

I'm still waiting for the explanation for where the extra complexity in snowflake formation comes from. Those crystalline patterns are incredibly complex, and for all that "information" to spontaneously form out of random water vapor strains credulity. Obviously, snowflakes cannot be formed by natural processes, but must be magicked into existence by magical beings.

Yeah, you've got the very simple recurrence relation that defines the Mandelbrot set as well, which generates an infinitely complex mathematical object (well, assuming infinite iterations of the function).

A very simple function, that very complex behaviors arise from. One can generate "snowflakes" with a pseudorandom function simulating the symmetry of frozen water's crystal structure. In the case of a computer simulation, one needs to store the information somehow.

In the case of reality, the information is stored by No0ne.

 

[Underseer]

I'm still waiting for the explanation for where the extra complexity in snowflake formation comes from. Those crystalline patterns are incredibly complex, and for all that "information" to spontaneously form out of random water vapor strains credulity. Obviously, snowflakes cannot be formed by natural processes, but must be magicked into existence by magical beings.

Yeah, you've got the very simple recurrence relation that defines the Mandelbrot set as well, which generates an infinitely complex mathematical object (well, assuming infinite iterations of the function).

A very simple function, that very complex behaviors arise from. One can generate "snowflakes" with a pseudorandom function simulating the symmetry of frozen water's crystal structure. In the case of a computer simulation, one needs to store the information somehow.

In the case of reality, the information is stored by No0ne.

The complex crystalline structure of a snowflake contains far more information than random water vapor, therefore the formation of snowflakes by natural processes is scientifically impossible. You would already know this if you really understood science. Thank goodness I am here to explain it to you.

Since the formation of snowflakes by natural processes is a scientific impossibility, I don't know how snowflakes form. Therefore, I know that snowflakes are created by magic performed by magical beings. Thus the existence of snowflakes proves the existence of Naked Snow Faeries. My ignorance about how snowflakes form proves that they exist. QEDuh.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, you've got the very simple recurrence relation that defines the Mandelbrot set as well, which generates an infinitely complex mathematical object (well, assuming infinite iterations of the function).

A very simple function, that very complex behaviors arise from. One can generate "snowflakes" with a pseudorandom function simulating the symmetry of frozen water's crystal structure. In the case of a computer simulation, one needs to store the information somehow.

In the case of reality, the information is stored by No0ne.

The complex crystalline structure of a snowflake contains far more information than random water vapor, therefore the formation of snowflakes by natural processes is scientifically impossible. You would already know this if you really understood science. Thank goodness I am here to explain it to you.

Yeah, thank goodness.

The truth is that the amount of classical data in one snowflake is less than the amount stored in a cloud of the same atoms spread out in the atmosphere. This isn't simply due to the additional data of the additional molecules in the atmosphere- we can postulate a snowflake in space, and the same atoms spread out "randomly" in space after the snowflake has been evaporated by a shark with a laser attached to its head.

The structure of frozen water follows specific patterns. There are more degrees of freedom for free water molecules than there are for water molecules in a crystalline form. In other words, there are only so many possible orientations in the crystalline form, but a free water molecule can be oriented in any direction relative to the other water molecules. The distances between, and relative velocities of the free water molecules comprise of data as well. In addition, you have the data encoded in the structuring of spacetime and EM fields of the free water molecules (em fields with greater variation in orientation due to the greater variation in orientation of the water molecules).

So in some sense, you do have more information stored in free water molecules than in crystalline, while actually, even in crystalline form, the molecules may vibrate as individuals, and have individual perturbations in orientation that are infinitesimally off of the other ones. In this case, the same amount of information that is required to store each molecules specific orientation and vibrational velocity in relation to the other molecules in the crystal is the same as that which is required to store these properties in the molecules spread out in space.

In either case (classical data as described in the first 2 paragraphs above, or infinitesimal data as in the paragraph right above this sentence), the idea that a crystalline structure contains more information than free water molecules is incorrect.

 

[RandomCoolzip]

There is no evidence that there ever was an Ark, and the proposed timeframe for the Ark does not provide anywhere near enough time for the mega-evolution that would be required to provide the observed diversity of life from the highly compressed, limited number of "kinds" that would fit on the Ark.

Complexity, even superfluous complexity, is no problem for evolution, especially since it has had 3+ billion years to operate. It is expected. In fact, pointless complexity is more of a problem for design than it is for evolution. For example, why do we have a non-functional pseudogene that is almost identical to one that makes Vitamin C in other mammals? Why do we share this non-functional pseudogene with other great apes, if we and they are not descended from a common ancestor?

 

[Underseer]

The complex crystalline structure of a snowflake contains far more information than random water vapor, therefore the formation of snowflakes by natural processes is scientifically impossible. You would already know this if you really understood science. Thank goodness I am here to explain it to you.

Yeah, thank goodness.

The truth is that the amount of classical data in one snowflake is less than the amount stored in a cloud of the same atoms spread out in the atmosphere. This isn't simply due to the additional data of the additional molecules in the atmosphere- we can postulate a snowflake in space, and the same atoms spread out "randomly" in space after the snowflake has been evaporated by a shark with a laser attached to its head.

The structure of frozen water follows specific patterns. There are more degrees of freedom for free water molecules than there are for water molecules in a crystalline form. In other words, there are only so many possible orientations in the crystalline form, but a free water molecule can be oriented in any direction relative to the other water molecules. The distances between, and relative velocities of the free water molecules comprise of data as well. In addition, you have the data encoded in the structuring of spacetime and EM fields of the free water molecules (em fields with greater variation in orientation due to the greater variation in orientation of the water molecules).

So in some sense, you do have more information stored in free water molecules than in crystalline, while actually, even in crystalline form, the molecules may vibrate as individuals, and have individual perturbations in orientation that are infinitesimally off of the other ones. In this case, the same amount of information that is required to store each molecules specific orientation and vibrational velocity in relation to the other molecules in the crystal is the same as that which is required to store these properties in the molecules spread out in space.

In either case (classical data as described in the first 2 paragraphs above, or infinitesimal data as in the paragraph right above this sentence), the idea that a crystalline structure contains more information than free water molecules is incorrect.

You have a funny way of defining "information" then. It's just obvious when you look at it that snowflakes contain far more information than random water vapor, that's how we know that the natural formation of snowflakes is impossible as per the Law of Information, thus we know for certain that each individual snowflake is a separate miracle performed by magical beings. You just deny the existence of Naked Snow Faeries because you want to be a bad person.

Addendum: by disproving the natural snowflake formation theory, I have also proved that diseases are caused by evil spirits (after all, the Germ Theory of Disease is just a theory, so no one should have taken that seriously in the first place).

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah, thank goodness.

The truth is that the amount of classical data in one snowflake is less than the amount stored in a cloud of the same atoms spread out in the atmosphere. This isn't simply due to the additional data of the additional molecules in the atmosphere- we can postulate a snowflake in space, and the same atoms spread out "randomly" in space after the snowflake has been evaporated by a shark with a laser attached to its head.

The structure of frozen water follows specific patterns. There are more degrees of freedom for free water molecules than there are for water molecules in a crystalline form. In other words, there are only so many possible orientations in the crystalline form, but a free water molecule can be oriented in any direction relative to the other water molecules. The distances between, and relative velocities of the free water molecules comprise of data as well. In addition, you have the data encoded in the structuring of spacetime and EM fields of the free water molecules (em fields with greater variation in orientation due to the greater variation in orientation of the water molecules).

So in some sense, you do have more information stored in free water molecules than in crystalline, while actually, even in crystalline form, the molecules may vibrate as individuals, and have individual perturbations in orientation that are infinitesimally off of the other ones. In this case, the same amount of information that is required to store each molecules specific orientation and vibrational velocity in relation to the other molecules in the crystal is the same as that which is required to store these properties in the molecules spread out in space.

In either case (classical data as described in the first 2 paragraphs above, or infinitesimal data as in the paragraph right above this sentence), the idea that a crystalline structure contains more information than free water molecules is incorrect.

You have a funny way of defining "information" then. It's just obvious when you look at it that snowflakes contain far more information than random water vapor, that's how we know that the natural formation of snowflakes is impossible as per the Law of Information, thus we know for certain that each individual snowflake is a separate miracle performed by magical beings.

Wait a second. I get the feeling you are being sarcastic about snowflakes containing far more information than a collection of randomly oriented molecules spread out over space.

You just deny the existence of Naked Snow Faeries because you want to be a bad person.

Ok, did a google image search and this was the first image (NSFW). I don't even know if I'd heard of NSF...haha. nice trick. color me impressed.

 

[Underseer]

If it exists, there is porn of it.

Erm, what I of course mean to say is: see? They even have pictures! Did I or did I not prove that naked snow faeries are real? You can all thank my superior understanding of information theory, folks! You're welcome!

 

[bilby]

So NSFW stands for 'Naked Snow Faerie Website'?

Finally it makes sense

 

[Kharakov]

So NSFW stands for 'Naked Snow Faerie Website'?

Finally it makes sense

I still can't remember where, when, or how I heard about a hot strippers carved out of blow (movie, or was it just a conversation at 4am??), with people slowly working through her as the party progressed. Anyway, it's ogooglebar (if you put "stripper carved out of blow"), but you do find artwork by Sajsa von Zeipel which looks a bit like it.

 

[RandomCoolzip]

Where'd rhutchin get to? Is he a drive-by shooting style of creationist?