Article <vov55a$13r1b$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano
<vov55a$13r1b$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!open-news-network.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: To sum up
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 22:05:14 +1100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 98
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <vov55a$13r1b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vo1kt4$2r8m5$1@dont-email.me> <vo1n39$2rdv4$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo47ib$3cm8h$1@dont-email.me> <vo7jg5$2090$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo7kt0$qvu$2@dont-email.me> <voovjr$3o3ri$1@dont-email.me>
 <vop70b$3sjqq$2@dont-email.me> <ndr0rj1m7bp2r4erpms6mcpquunmu4k9d0@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="24323"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Cancel-Lock: sha1:WXAoPYh4yo1TQr205NIrT7O8ZYg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <ndr0rj1m7bp2r4erpms6mcpquunmu4k9d0@4ax.com>
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED,
	RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,
	USER_IN_WELCOMELIST,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.6
	smtp.eternal-september.org
Bytes: 7354

On 15/02/2025 10:06 pm, jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 15:59:53 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 15/02/2025 1:53 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2/8/25 5:06 AM, MarkE wrote:
>>>>
>>>> My argument is therefore, as complexity goes up, the challenges to
>>>> naturalistic OOL and evolution also increase.
>>>
>>> Evolution produces complexity without the least concern. Design tries to
>>> minimize it and create simplicity. As complexity goes up, the challenge
>>> to designed OOL also increases.
>>>
>>
>> My assertion is self-evident, is it not? I.e.:
>>
>> OOL: the more complex the first self-replicating entity needs to be, the
>> greater the challenge to its prebiotic (i.e. pre-Darwinian evolution)
>> formation.
>>
>> Evolution: the more complex a "higher" organism, given a maximum
>> plausible rate of mutation, fixation and time, the greater the challenge
>> to its evolution.
>>
>> On the other hand, your assertion that "evolution produces complexity
>> without the least concern" is not self-evident, and is neither an
>> argument nor a rebuttal. The capability of evolution to produce
>> complexity is, rather, a fundamental contention.
> 
> 
> Here's an opportunity for you to actually speak to me, instead of your
> usual petty sniping.  I understand your arguments stated above.
> 
> WRT OOL: It's unknown what the complexity of a self-replicating entity
> "needs to be". Any estimates about this are based on *assumptions*
> about the mechanism(s) which could create the first self-replicating
> entity, and the environment(s) which could support those mechanism(s).
> This makes your claim a GotG argument.
> 
> WRT OOL and Evolution: The fatal flaw with both of your arguments is
> they conflate complexity with functionality.  The one does not inform
> the other.  The actual challenge to evolution is to create better
> functionality for a given environment.
> 
> Pro Ployd's concurrent post WRT altitude hypoxia illustrates the
> difference.  Most humans respond to extreme altitude by increasing
> their hematocrit.  This is a simple but at best temporary solution,
> with long-term and fatal complications. A simpler and better solution
> most mountain human populations did is to change their hemoglobin to
> increase its oxygen saturation.  Of course, this requires time for
> natural selection to select for this trait, and some individuals will
> likely die without it.
> 
> Once again, your obsession with complexity serves you poorly.
> 

Agreed, care is needed in defining complexity and its relationship to 
function.

The challenge to evolution is the creation of functional complexity. 
Here is a description of the ultimate manifestation of functional 
complexity:

'The human brain contains some 100 billion neurons, which together form 
a network of Internet-like complexity. Christof Koch, chief scientific 
officer of the Allen Institute for Brain Science, calls the brain "the 
most complex object in the known universe," and he's mapping its 
connections in hopes of discovering the origins of consciousness.'
http://www.npr.org/2013/06/14/191614360/decoding-the-most-complex-object-in-the-universe

'According to physicist Roger Penrose, what’s in our head is orders of 
magnitude more complex than anything one sees in the Universe: "If you 
look at the entire physical cosmos," says Penrose, "our brains are a 
tiny, tiny part of it. But they're the most perfectly organized part. 
Compared to the complexity of a brain, a galaxy is just an inert lump."'

'Each cubic millimeter of tissue in the neocortex, reports Michael 
Chorost in World Wide Mind, contains between 860 million and 1.3 billion 
synapses. Estimates of the total number of synapses in the neocortex 
range from 164 trillion to 200 trillion. The total number of synapses in 
the brain as a whole is much higher than that. The neocortex has the 
same number of neurons as a galaxy has stars: 100 billion. One 
researcher estimates that with current technology it would take 10,000 
automated microscopes thirty years to map the connections between every 
neuron in a human brain, and 100 million terabytes of disk space to 
store the data.'
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/12/human-brain-intelligence-networks-identified-.html

Can we deduce "complexity therefore design" from this? That's one question.

However, another question that needs to be asked is, can we deduce "that 
evolution can create sentient beings due to a galaxy of functional 
complexity inside their heads"?