1. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    11 Jul '05 03:02
    Page one post one:
    Defining functionally complexity:
    When it is said that something is getting more "functionally complex"
    what is it that is being said?
    Kelly
  2. Standard memberPhlabibit
    Mystic Meg
    tinyurl.com/3sbbwd4
    Joined
    27 Mar '03
    Moves
    17242
    11 Jul '05 03:18
    Originally posted by KellyJay
    Page one post one:
    Defining functionally complexity:
    When it is said that something is getting more "functionally complex"
    what is it that is being said?
    Kelly
    A paper clip is not functionally complex, it's bent metal for holding paper together.

    A combustion engine is moreso, and a human brain is probably very functionally complex. Its the measurement of how 'indepth' or 'advanced'(?) something is when it's doing it's job.

    P-

  3. Standard memberKellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    USA
    Joined
    24 May '04
    Moves
    148423
    11 Jul '05 08:04
    Originally posted by Phlabibit
    A paper clip is not functionally complex, it's bent metal for holding paper together.

    A combustion engine is moreso, and a human brain is probably very functionally complex. Its the measurement of how 'indepth' or 'advanced'(?) something is when it's doing it's job.

    P-

    How can we measure something and say complexity has increased by
    this value? I've used in the past checkers and chess to try and get
    just complexity understood, the amount of variables involved
    increases therefore is it more complex? Is a checker piece before it is
    kinged, less complex than rook in chess because the rook has more
    options, or is it simply one piece doing whatever it is it does,
    compared to another piece doing whatever it is it does? It is difficult,
    we cannot even seem to agree what information is.

    To move on to functionally complex is a bicycle less complex than
    say a motorcycle? Do we look at a single cell species and figure out
    how many molecules are in it, than compare those numbers to a
    human so we can compare “X” figure within a single cell to “Y” figure
    within a human than say that now our complexity has increased by
    whatever that figure is? The cell has this many molecules doing
    whatever it is that they do that is required to make the cell live, and
    the human has this many within it making the human body live. Can
    we say that the complete DNA code required for a cell is “x” while the
    complete DNA code for a human is “y” and judge complexity has
    increased?

    Could we also simply say that what is required for a human to digest
    food is more complex that what a cell goes through? Simply again
    because of the all the molecules at work within the single cell is
    whatever that is, and all of those molecules making up the digestive
    system within the human is whatever that is, if we were to say that
    you were going to modify our single cell DNA to produce a human
    instead, are we increasing something here? If so how do we measure
    and do the math?

    We have to keep in mind we are talking about something functionally
    complex, there are things within a cell or human if we break it dies.
    If we tinker with the code we can have choices but lose in the end
    because death will follow. Keeping something functionally complex
    and increase that (FC) to the point that new systems or organs are
    created has yet to be demonstrated as far as I know. Frogs have not
    grow wings so they still bump their butts when they land. (poor things)
    Kelly
  4. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    14 Jul '05 13:361 edit
    I fully agree with you Kelly.

    Another stain in the knickers of the evolutionists is DNA. This incredibly complex system is found from the most "simple" organisms to the most "complex". How do you explain that one?

    The number of chromosomes vary immensely, e.g. a furn has 44, whereas the human which is supposed to be more "complex" only has 23.

    Moreover, DNA is made up of many proteins, of which, more than 50 can only be made by a DNA regulated process.

    Unfortunately the simplest single celled organism is many times more complex that our most advanced space-shuttle.
  5. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    14 Jul '05 14:18
    What you are forgetting is that it is not just the number of cells, but the amount of chromosomes within these cells, the amount of replications that occurred and the functionality that these cells have as part of a larger organism, th amount of energy required to run the system, the replication processes of a system and soooo much more. Complexity is not something you can judge by how many cells are contained within. A rock is not more complex than a pebble merely because it is larger. Just as the measure of a human's complexity is not just that it is bigger than an amoeba
  6. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    14 Jul '05 14:30
    Originally posted by Starrman
    What you are forgetting is that it is not just the number of cells, but the amount of chromosomes within these cells, the amount of replications that occurred and the functionality that these cells have as part of a larger organism, th amount of energy required to run the system, the replication processes of a system and soooo much more. Complexity is not ...[text shortened]... rger. Just as the measure of a human's complexity is not just that it is bigger than an amoeba
    Thanks for making my point. As the human is obviously very far down on the evolutionary chain as it has much fewer chromosomes than many other organisms. See above.
  7. Joined
    19 Nov '03
    Moves
    31382
    14 Jul '05 14:50
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Thanks for making my point. As the human is obviously very far down on the evolutionary chain as it has much fewer chromosomes than many other organisms. See above.
    My reply was to Kelly Jay, not you. You are also ignoring the fact that functional complexity is not based solely on the number of chromosomes present in a cell.
  8. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    14 Jul '05 19:09
    Originally posted by Starrman
    My reply was to Kelly Jay, not you. You are also ignoring the fact that functional complexity is not based solely on the number of chromosomes present in a cell.
    You still can't explain how DNA came about by chance... This is the key of life, found in the simplest of living organisms, but Scientist are still baffled by how it functions. Yes we finally nailed its double-helix shape, but a teaspoon-load of DNA contains enough information to fill thousands of volumes. How can a simple organism such as an amoeba contain DNA which evinces such phenomenal complexity and design.

    DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 proteins, but these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA. (Correction on my statement in the previous post)

    The only way this manufacturing process could have come about was if it all came into existance simultaniously.
  9. SubscriberAThousandYoung
    Just another day
    tinyurl.com/y8wgt7a5
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    24791
    14 Jul '05 21:281 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    You still can't explain how DNA came about by chance... This is the key of life, found in the simplest of living organisms, but Scientist are still baffled by how it functions. Yes we finally nailed its double-helix shape, but a teaspoon- ...[text shortened]... have come about was if it all came into existance simultaniously.
    Your post is totally irrelevant to this thread.

    By the way, how did you measure the information in a teaspoon of DNA and determine that it was equivalent to that of thousands of volumes?
  10. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    14 Jul '05 21:411 edit
    Originally posted by Starrman
    My reply was to Kelly Jay, not you. You are also ignoring the fact that functional complexity is not based solely on the number of chromosomes present in a cell.
    no more than the # of words in a statement , has any bearing on on the statements validity.
  11. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    14 Jul '05 21:43
    Originally posted by Halitose
    You still can't explain how DNA came about by chance... This is the key of life, found in the simplest of living organisms, but Scientist are still baffled by how it functions. Yes we finally nailed its double-helix shape, but a teaspoon-load of DNA contains enough information to fill thousands of volumes. How can a simple organism such as an amoeba contai ...[text shortened]... s manufacturing process could have come about was if it all came into existance simultaniously.
    Baffled by DNA? I know plenty of scientists who know quite alot about how DNA functions. Why don't you go away and read something about it, you'll be surprised at what you might learn.
  12. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    15 Jul '05 08:26
    Originally posted by aardvarkhome
    Baffled by DNA? I know plenty of scientists who know quite alot about how DNA functions. Why don't you go away and read something about it, you'll be surprised at what you might learn.
    I suppose you have an explanation for the formation of DNA by chance?
  13. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    15 Jul '05 10:57
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I suppose you have an explanation for the formation of DNA by chance?
    once again you give your strawman definition and expect people to explain something that isn't correctly postulated by you.
    That hogwash might impress people in bible class, but the laws of chemistry are not dependent upon your pseudo-probility theory calculations.Quantum Mechanics isn't respectful of your notion of time which even if chemical reactions followed you pseudo-chemistry rules (which of course they don't) would still make your pseudo-theory completely invalid.
  14. Standard memberfrogstomp
    Bruno's Ghost
    In a hot place
    Joined
    11 Sep '04
    Moves
    7707
    15 Jul '05 11:52
    Originally posted by dj2becker
    I suppose you have an explanation for the formation of DNA by chance?
    one tiny clue for you ".....all of us human beings and all the objects with which we deal are essentially bundles of simple quarks and electrons. If each of those particles had to be in its own independent state, we could not exist and neither could the other objects. It is the entanglement of the states of the particles that is responsible for matter as we know it."
  15. Shetland Primary
    Joined
    01 Oct '04
    Moves
    11829
    15 Jul '05 12:012 edits
    Originally posted by frogstomp
    one tiny clue for you ".....all of us human beings and all the objects with which we deal are essentially bundles of simple quarks and electrons. If each of those particles had to be in its own independent state, we could not exi ...[text shortened]... of the particles that is responsible for matter as we know it."
    Hmm. OK. Fine. So I suppose you have an explanation of how complex strands of DNA can be formed by chance if DNA can only be produced with the help of at least 20 proteins, but these proteins can only be produced at the direction of DNA?

    The only way this manufacturing process could have come about was if it all came into existance simultaniously.

    PS: I know you are not a Biology teacher, but I'm sure you should be smart enough to figure out that you have a little problem here.
Back to Top