...
From my knowledge I didn't edit anything and this has already been discussed, quotemining doesn't exist. Probably why it gets flagged for spelling.
Wait, so because you don't realise that 'quote-mine' should either be hyphenated or be written as two separate words the concept doesn't exist? The mind boggles...
Here you go: "The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as "contextomy" or "quote mining", is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning."
That's 'quote mining', or 'quote-mining' if you prefer.
Again just adding energy from outside a system does not result in complexity. If anything it simply accelerates decay leading to a decrease in complexity.
Er... no. All that is needed is a mechanism to convert the influx of energy. And wouldn't you know it - there are atoms all 'round. Little funky things that convert between light, thermal and chemical potential energy all the freakin' time. Fancy that...
If this system didn't exist it would do much more than invalidate evolution; it would make life itself impossible. What you don't seem to get is that evolution requires only three things: 1) reproduction, 2) a framework of selection and 3) heritable variation. That's it. We know they happen, and evolution is the inevitable result.
a) Complexity can be defined as the arrangement of particles towards a goal or an end. An example of simple complexity is the combination of protons and neutrons to form atoms.
It can be. It shouldn't necessarily though. I suggest you have a look at
Techne's link to his old thread above - you are conflating concepts in a manner that is simply nonsensical.
b) Actually the sun would be more like the battery that through a complex system converts electrical energy to magnetic energy and then to kinetic energy. Simply adding a sun does not give rise to life. Radiant energy has to be converted to chemical (and potential?) energy that then also gets directed to where work is needed when its needed.
'Giving rise to life' has sweet **** all to do with evolution. The emergence of life is a riddle not wholly solved; the process leading to the diversification of life after its emergence is crystal clear to anyone who doesn't have his or her head firmly up his or her ass.
Oh my, tell me you didn't just play that one. First off I am not misapplying a principle. Funny enough an ardent evolutionist and many others agree that the principle applies to complexity because it's almost self-evident and he even gives examples. That is where we both agree so by calling me a moron you are essentially calling him a moron and also saying a lot about your own intelligence and ability for deductive reasoning. Way to go with the logic here.
Yes, you are misapplying a principle, which is why the concept is known as the
second law of thermodynamics and not the 'universally applicable law of complexity and entropy and ****'.
Of course we differ on the implication. I never claimed otherwise and even said he's an ardent evolutionist so no quoting out of context. Get your fusking fallacies right first. Or perhaps you won't do that because then you'll see they aren't fallacies and also see your own fallacies.
Oh, bollocks to that. What you did is no different than what creationists often stoop to when supposedly quoting Darwin in an apparent state of bafflement at the eye's complexity, always and without fail neglecting to extend the quote so far as the following few paragraphs where he offers an explanation. You've been called on acting like a typical fundagelical and now you're attempting to back-pedal. Sorry... won't work.
Isaac claims that life is an exception...
Which it is.
... and that simply putting in enough energy can solve an impossible problem. It can't and this is easily refutable. Suppose there is a planet like ours but consisting mostly of metal with a sun equal or larger than ours. If Isaac is correct that simply throwing a brutish amount of energy in a dumb manner towards a problem then it's just as likely for terminator like machines to develop there as for life to develop on our own planet.
Hate to break it to ya, Skippy but... you've just described Earth - between 50% and 65% metal (depending on how you classify silicon). The 'problem' you keep harping on again seems to be attributable to your confusion between life's emergence and its diversification. In terms of the latter there is no problem but for the one in your head. Evolution happens - deal with it.
Any sane person would say that is an absurd idea...
It is, so let's just forget that you came up with it.
so it's clear mindless energy doesn't accomplish anything beyond rudimentary complexity and that doesn't just happen either, it's the laws of physics. Energy has to be directed through a controlling process towards accomplishing a goal or an end. Isaac also claims that life gains complexity while the sun loses complexity. That is "spooky action at a distance" and pure conjecture. Complexity doesn't spontaneously arise in one part of the universe when it's lost in another. Life continues as a result of photosynthesis converting and storing energy. The same way we don't expect one computer to just repair itself while another deteriorates. No it requires interaction and work towards a goal to use parts from one to repair the other.
This is just one big non sequitur. Any system, when left to itself, might tend towards increasing disorder but this simply doesn't follow for biological systems. They are inherently not simply left to themselves, but acted upon by outside influence constantly.
Refuting your examples; convection currents simply follow a path from highest to lowest energy. They are NOT complex unless you also count a mess of spilled sugar as amazingly complex. In most cases they don't even have a clear unchanging pattern unless the system is designed that way. Hurricanes are much the same and don't even do anything useful. In fact they destroy the complexity we create. Termite mounds result from intelligence (though very rudimentary) working repeatedly and finely tuned towards a goal.
Sorry, must've missed the refutation in there - the argument is not that they are complex when judged by your lofty standards, but simply that they're more complex than their initial states. They are... Maybe you can 'refute' these few additional examples:
That last one's caused by freeze-thaw cycles in the soil. Pretty cool, huh.
Sorry but that is pure crap you're spewing without applying any logic. We use computer programs to design more complex programs and computers made of micro-circuits to design ever more complex and powerful circuits. Machines can even be programmed to create more complex machines from smaller parts without intervention. Over time however they start to malfunction, they create non-working products or break down, they deteriorate and eventually fall apart entirely. It does not happen instantly though so your refutation is refuted. I can also write a virus that unpacks itself in host memory and repacks itself when infecting another file, essentially behaving like your embryo example. It doesn't happen without applying intelligence though so the only thing it can refute is your mindless process of evolution.
:wtf:
And that has what to do with the fact that your misapplication of principles of thermodynamics would make the development of an embryo from a fertilised egg impossible? It's not
my embryo example; it's the invariable consequence of what you're suggesting.
