Complex to simple or simple to complex?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Yes. The body came from dust/non-life. Life came from God. I would think it's instantly, why would it take so much time for God to do that. Regardless, I don't know why that matters.Dracargen

Trust me, I have a point for this.

So God did it instantly? Not even a second passed between the time when Adam was dust and the time he was human?

"God formed man out of dust from the ground." I assume that took some time, I don't know how long or how quick. Then he blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.

So. Thus far, you have attested to believing in progressive creation (it took God time to turn Adam from dust to man), and life coming from non-life (Adam came from dust).

We believe the exact same thing. We just believe it in a different way. You believe it took God seconds to create man; I believe it took years. You believe man came from dust; I believe man came from an unknown ancestor.

We both believe in progressive creation and in life coming from non-life. So why do the details matter so much?

You still keep saying "life came from non-life" which isn't the case as I've already explained. It might have taken God some time to form Adam out of dust, but when he came to life (when God blew into his nostrils and he became alive) it's instantaneous. So... no unknown ancestor in between.

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"] I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsRevinh

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xboxdudeman800"] I wouldn't call a zygote complex to simple.

it starts as just a few cells then divides into millions of sepecialized cellsMr_sprinkles

A specialized cell, I was saying, is less complex than the zygote.

brain cell

which looks more complex to you?

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

complex is > than simple. i agree. :)Putzwapputzen

Right, and the flow is complex to simple, not simple to complex.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?domatron23

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?Revinh

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

If you're question was "is a zygote more complex than a brain cell" then I would honestly say no. A brain cell is specialised to perform a very special function, a zygote merely contains the instructions. A house is more complex than the blueprints.

By the way you have a post waiting for you here.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?domatron23

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

If you're question was "is a zygote more complex than a brain cell" then I would honestly say no. A brain cell is specialised to perform a very special function, a zygote merely contains the instructions. A house is more complex than the blueprints.

By the way you have a post waiting for you here.

I just answered it (well, I tried anyway) and my question was that ^ and a zygote is not really just a blueprint, it's the actual house itself (the "body"), just a tiny version.

[QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Revinh"]For the most part you aren't even on the right page as me especially on mutations. And I don't really feel like arguing with you. I'll try to expound on my points and put everything together in the future.Revinh

That's right, we aren't on the right page because your ideas about evolution make no sense. I'm not arguing, I'm trying to have a discussion. Every time I try and correct you on your view of what Evolution is, you avoid it.

It would be helpful if you did try and put it all together and not ignore the explanations I'm giving you about what the Theory of Evolution states. Your 'evidence' against Evolution has got the ideas of evolution wrong. It seems to be a continuing trend in all your arguments where you repeat the same misconceptions.

I'm not avoiding your posts. The humans/apes 2 thread was locked. I've been arguing to too many people it's hard to keep track of 'em. I already explained in your antelopes, unfortunately, you fail to understand. Yeah, you're tall, So what, that's not evolution, but a variation of an already existing trait (height). You and your offsprings will stlll be humans. It's not like your hair has turned into feathers or something.

"fruit flies didn't evolve because their environment didn't require them to" I've heard this before, and it's speculation, you have no evidence that they will "evolve." The the decades of research and billions of mutations on fruit flies showed that mutation as a basis for evolution is unable to give new features on them. They have always been and will always be fruit flies.

If you disagree then tell me: Where or how the heck would they acquire new genetic information to be other than fruit flies??? They only have the "fruit fly code." Just like humans only have "the human code." Living things only reproduce according to their kinds. Mutation only alters what's already there.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?Revinh

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

If you're question was "is a zygote more complex than a brain cell" then I would honestly say no. A brain cell is specialised to perform a very special function, a zygote merely contains the instructions. A house is more complex than the blueprints.

By the way you have a post waiting for you here.

I just answered it (well, I tried anyway) and my question was that ^ and a zygote is not really just a blueprint, it's the actual house itself (the "body"), just a tiny version.

The last time I checked my body was not a microscopic set of genetic instructions, it was the product of those instructions (I know you weren't implying that but I had to say it anyway). Anyways the zygote is nothing special, it's just a cell with genetic information from a sperm and an egg. Actually wouldn't fertilisation be an example of simpleness to complexity? Furthermore if genes are the only thing that determine complexity then why isn't a skin cell on par with a zygote?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Revinh"]For the most part you aren't even on the right page as me especially on mutations. And I don't really feel like arguing with you. I'll try to expound on my points and put everything together in the future.Revinh

That's right, we aren't on the right page because your ideas about evolution make no sense. I'm not arguing, I'm trying to have a discussion. Every time I try and correct you on your view of what Evolution is, you avoid it.

It would be helpful if you did try and put it all together and not ignore the explanations I'm giving you about what the Theory of Evolution states. Your 'evidence' against Evolution has got the ideas of evolution wrong. It seems to be a continuing trend in all your arguments where you repeat the same misconceptions.

I'm not avoiding your posts. The humans/apes 2 thread was locked. I've been arguing to too many people it's hard to keep track of 'em. I already explained in your antelopes, unfortunately, you fail to understand. Yeah, you're tall, So what, that's not evolution, but a variation of an already existing trait (height). You and your offsprings will stlll be humans. It's not like your hair has turned into feathers or something.

"fruit flies didn't evolve because their environment didn't require them to" I've heard this before, and it's speculation, you have no evidence that they will "evolve." The the decades of research and billions of mutations on fruit flies showed that mutation as a basis for evolution is unable to give new features on them. They have always been and will always be fruit flies.

If you disagree then tell me: Where or how the heck would they acquire new genetic information to be other than fruit flies??? They only have the "fruit fly code." Just like humans only have "the human code." Living things only reproduce according to their kinds. Mutation only alters what's already there.

But that's what evolution is. Yes my offspring will still be humans. But what about in a million years? I'm explaining to you the point of survival of the fittest and how it comes to play in evolution. Over a million years my offspring could develop webbed toes or something, so they'd be even faster swimmers. These things don't happen instantaneously. My hair won't turn to feathers in one generation, but it could happen in a million years. The same deal with the antelope explanation. They won't be a whole new species in 2 or 3 generations, not even 10. It could take thousands for a noticable difference. You're still not grasping the point. Evolution is the accumulation of these things like long legs and the ability to swim that could alter a species if it is forced to adapt over thousands to millions of years. The time frame is a very important point here.

Again, it's not a giant, sudden change like macroevolution. It's the accumulation of small changes that gradually transform it.

And as for the fruit flies, you have no evidence that they won't evolve. Simply breeding them over and over in the same environment is just going to result in more fruitflies. If you subjected them to a different environment where they were forced to adapt, a genetic mutation could change the code and give them 6 wings, or larger bodies or different colours. And that is right, mutations alter what is already there. It alters the genetic code.

How can you say they were always fruitflies? Or always will be? That's just as much speculation as you saying that I'm speculating for saying they have no reason to evolve. Which they don't. Just because they aren't evolving doesn't mean they won't. If they're perfectly adapted to their environment, the survival of the fittest won't come in to play and cause any changes.

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

Revinh

every single cell in the body has all 46 chromosomes, apart from the blood cells which have none, and the gametes which each have 23. so to answer your question "which cell has the genetic informations to do all that stuff?" almost all of them

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying, and reassuring. Carl Sagan

People like Revinh is the reason why CS said this.

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

Revinh

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?Revinh

Evolution.

Where in Genesis does it talk of degeneration?

Adam was over 900 years old.. They started as perfect.. Humans today has a bunch of diseases, unhealthier..

Not all disease is a result of genetic abnormality, but other life forms, which according to you must have been intelligently designed. I think its far more reasonable to assume these diseases and viruses evolved rather than were created specifically to plague us.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

The Bible presents humans as degenerating descendants of Adam (originally created perfect). Evolution says humans are improving animals, descendants of some ape-like ancestors.

Which one is more logical?Loonie

Evolution.

Where in Genesis does it talk of degeneration?

Adam was over 900 years old.. They started as perfect.. Humans today has a bunch of diseases, unhealthier..

Not all disease is a result of genetic abnormality, but other life forms, which according to you must have been intelligently designed. I think its far more reasonable to assume these diseases and viruses evolved rather than were created specifically to plague us.

I didn't say it is. Just saying that humans are generally unhealthier today than before.

[quote="Carl Sagan"]It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying, and reassuring. _Tobli_

People like Revinh is the reason why CS said this.

It's people like you I wish I can just kick out. If you're unwilling to be open-minded and just be disrespectful, then just leave.

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

The post is a bit of a puzzle. Please take the time to understand it.

Revinh

If I'm not mistaken, he's trying to point out that things, naturally, go from complex or simple, not the other way as his understanding of evolution says. He is reffering to the second law of thermodynamics, which state that entropy in an isolated system not in equilibrium tends to increase until the maximum value is reached (which is equilibrium).

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?domatron23

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

If you're question was "is a zygote more complex than a brain cell" then I would honestly say no. A brain cell is specialised to perform a very special function, a zygote merely contains the instructions. A house is more complex than the blueprints.

By the way you have a post waiting for you here.

I just answered it (well, I tried anyway) and my question was that ^ and a zygote is not really just a blueprint, it's the actual house itself (the "body"), just a tiny version.

The last time I checked my body was not a microscopic set of genetic instructions, it was the product of those instructions (I know you weren't implying that but I had to say it anyway). Anyways the zygote is nothing special, it's just a cell with genetic information from a sperm and an egg. Actually wouldn't fertilisation be an example of simpleness to complexity? Furthermore if genes are the only thing that determine complexity then why isn't a skin cell on par with a zygote?

I didn't say your body (now) is a zygote.

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

[quote="Carl Sagan"]It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying, and reassuring. Revinh

People like Revinh is the reason why CS said this.

It's people like you I wish I can just kick out. If you're unwilling to be open-minded and just be disrespectful, then just leave.

If you believe in this so badly,why debate over it?You feel that it is true and would probably die for it,so forget it and stop trying to stump people just keep it to yourself.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

The post is a bit of a puzzle. Please take the time to understand it.Manly-manly-man

If I'm not mistaken, he's trying to point out that things, naturally, go from complex or simple, not the other way as his understanding of evolution says. He is reffering to the second law of thermodynamics, which state that entropy in an isolated system not in equilibrium tends to increase until the maximum value is reached (which is equilibrium).

Thank you. I'm not specifically referring to the second law of thermodynamics though, but analogous to it. Other people seem to just attack me without trying to understand my post simply because they sense it's opposed to the theory of evolution.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

[quote="Carl Sagan"]It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying, and reassuring. xxDustmanxx

People like Revinh is the reason why CS said this.

It's people like you I wish I can just kick out. If you're unwilling to be open-minded and just be disrespectful, then just leave.

If you believe in this so badly,why debate over it?You feel that it is true and would probably die for it,so forget it and stop trying to stump people just keep it to yourself.

Just how the hell was I stumping people???

I'm just asking for other people's opinion on the topic I brought up. What the heck is your problem

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?Mr_sprinkles

every single cell in the body has all 46 chromosomes, apart from the blood cells which have none, and the gametes which each have 23. so to answer your question "which cell has the genetic informations to do all that stuff?" almost all of them

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

CptJSparrow

Any cell of yours today cannot possibly be more complicated than the zygote you once were.

[QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

[quote="Carl Sagan"]It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying, and reassuring. Revinh

People like Revinh is the reason why CS said this.

It's people like you I wish I can just kick out. If you're unwilling to be open-minded and just be disrespectful, then just leave.

If you believe in this so badly,why debate over it?You feel that it is true and would probably die for it,so forget it and stop trying to stump people just keep it to yourself.

Just how the hell was I stumping people???

I'm just asking for other people's opinion on the topic I brought up. What the heck is your problem

Whoa, sorry.I just dont see the point of arguing over something when it wont prove a thing.

[QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

The post is a bit of a puzzle. Please take the time to understand it.Revinh

If I'm not mistaken, he's trying to point out that things, naturally, go from complex or simple, not the other way as his understanding of evolution says. He is reffering to the second law of thermodynamics, which state that entropy in an isolated system not in equilibrium tends to increase until the maximum value is reached (which is equilibrium).

Thank you. I'm not specifically referring to the second law of thermodynamics though, but analogous to it. Other people seem to just attack me without trying to understand my post simply because they sense it's opposed to the theory of evolution.

The thing is, the second law of thermodynamics stats that entropy increases as time goes on, which means going from simple to complex, using your terms. Doesn't that oppose your viewpoint?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Red-XIII"][QUOTE="Revinh"]For the most part you aren't even on the right page as me especially on mutations. And I don't really feel like arguing with you. I'll try to expound on my points and put everything together in the future.Red-XIII

That's right, we aren't on the right page because your ideas about evolution make no sense. I'm not arguing, I'm trying to have a discussion. Every time I try and correct you on your view of what Evolution is, you avoid it.

It would be helpful if you did try and put it all together and not ignore the explanations I'm giving you about what the Theory of Evolution states. Your 'evidence' against Evolution has got the ideas of evolution wrong. It seems to be a continuing trend in all your arguments where you repeat the same misconceptions.

I'm not avoiding your posts. The humans/apes 2 thread was locked. I've been arguing to too many people it's hard to keep track of 'em. I already explained in your antelopes, unfortunately, you fail to understand. Yeah, you're tall, So what, that's not evolution, but a variation of an already existing trait (height). You and your offsprings will stlll be humans. It's not like your hair has turned into feathers or something.

"fruit flies didn't evolve because their environment didn't require them to" I've heard this before, and it's speculation, you have no evidence that they will "evolve." The the decades of research and billions of mutations on fruit flies showed that mutation as a basis for evolution is unable to give new features on them. They have always been and will always be fruit flies.

If you disagree then tell me: Where or how the heck would they acquire new genetic information to be other than fruit flies??? They only have the "fruit fly code." Just like humans only have "the human code." Living things only reproduce according to their kinds. Mutation only alters what's already there.

But that's what evolution is. Yes my offspring will still be humans. But what about in a million years? I'm explaining to you the point of survival of the fittest and how it comes to play in evolution. Over a million years my offspring could develop webbed toes or something, so they'd be even faster swimmers. These things don't happen instantaneously. My hair won't turn to feathers in one generation, but it could happen in a million years. The same deal with the antelope explanation. They won't be a whole new species in 2 or 3 generations, not even 10. It could take thousands for a noticable difference. You're still not grasping the point. Evolution is the accumulation of these things like long legs and the ability to swim that could alter a species if it is forced to adapt over thousands to millions of years. The time frame is a very important point here.

Again, it's not a giant, sudden change like macroevolution. It's the accumulation of small changes that gradually transform it.

And as for the fruit flies, you have no evidence that they won't evolve. Simply breeding them over and over in the same environment is just going to result in more fruitflies. If you subjected them to a different environment where they were forced to adapt, a genetic mutation could change the code and give them 6 wings, or larger bodies or different colours. And that is right, mutations alter what is already there. It alters the genetic code.

How can you say they were always fruitflies? Or always will be? That's just as much speculation as you saying that I'm speculating for saying they have no reason to evolve. Which they don't. Just because they aren't evolving doesn't mean they won't. If they're perfectly adapted to their environment, the survival of the fittest won't come in to play and cause any changes

No, you won't EVER have webbed-toes or feathers, instantaneously or in millions of years. Like I've been saying which you haven't yet understood, you'd need new genetic information to acquire new features. Maybe if you learn more about genetics you'd grasp my point.

Slight modifications with descent, or microevolution, such as the different shapes and sizes or all the races of mankind can be considered a fact. But does that mean Darwin's theory that (here's the macro part) all living things (whether it's birds, whales, mice, insects) have a common ancestor? No, and that cannot be true. Whether their environment changes, and however long it is, they'll always be the same creature. Again, such things can happen, but that's variation within fruit flies.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="_Tobli_"]

[quote="Carl Sagan"]It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying, and reassuring. xxDustmanxx

People like Revinh is the reason why CS said this.

It's people like you I wish I can just kick out. If you're unwilling to be open-minded and just be disrespectful, then just leave.

If you believe in this so badly,why debate over it?You feel that it is true and would probably die for it,so forget it and stop trying to stump people just keep it to yourself.

Just how the hell was I stumping people???

I'm just asking for other people's opinion on the topic I brought up. What the heck is your problem

Whoa, sorry.I just dont see the point of arguing over something when it wont prove a thing.

How do you know it won't prove a thing? You never know, and it's just something for discussion.

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="Manly-manly-man"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Complex > simple
Eternal > passing
Organized > disorganized

Agree?

The flow of things is
Eternal - living for over 900 years - average lifespan of 75 years old
An organized place becomes messy and disorganized and has to be fixed again
A complex zygote or fertilized egg, containing all the genetic information, divides into simpler cells

So, how could evolution, the theory that states simple organisms evolved into complex beings, be true?

The post is a bit of a puzzle. Please take the time to understand it.Manly-manly-man

If I'm not mistaken, he's trying to point out that things, naturally, go from complex or simple, not the other way as his understanding of evolution says. He is reffering to the second law of thermodynamics, which state that entropy in an isolated system not in equilibrium tends to increase until the maximum value is reached (which is equilibrium).

Thank you. I'm not specifically referring to the second law of thermodynamics though, but analogous to it. Other people seem to just attack me without trying to understand my post simply because they sense it's opposed to the theory of evolution.

The thing is, the second law of thermodynamics stats that entropy increases as time goes on, which means going from simple to complex, using your terms. Doesn't that oppose your viewpoint?

Entropy (disorder, loss of information, deterioration) increases as time goes on. I wouldn't call that becoming more complex.

I was using terms that suited you. Entropy doesn't use complex and simple, which is why I was clarifying. Entropy goes from order to disorder, and thus you could translate that using complex and simple a couple of different ways.Manly-manly-man

And I was saying it translates to complex to simple. I don't know how it could the other way around.

I wasn't really talking about the 2nd law..

Just saying that since

Complex > simple

and

Eternal > passing

and

Organized > disorganized

and

the flow is

Healthy to aging

Organized becoming disorganized

Isn't the flow complex-to-simple too? (zygote, another example is, can you create something more complex than how you're made?)

So if the flow is not becoming more complex, then the evolution theory cannot be true.

[QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?Revinh

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

If you're question was "is a zygote more complex than a brain cell" then I would honestly say no. A brain cell is specialised to perform a very special function, a zygote merely contains the instructions. A house is more complex than the blueprints.

By the way you have a post waiting for you here.

I just answered it (well, I tried anyway) and my question was that ^ and a zygote is not really just a blueprint, it's the actual house itself (the "body"), just a tiny version.

The last time I checked my body was not a microscopic set of genetic instructions, it was the product of those instructions (I know you weren't implying that but I had to say it anyway). Anyways the zygote is nothing special, it's just a cell with genetic information from a sperm and an egg. Actually wouldn't fertilisation be an example of simpleness to complexity? Furthermore if genes are the only thing that determine complexity then why isn't a skin cell on par with a zygote?

I didn't say your body (now) is a zygote.

Ya I know (look inside the bracket for my justification). Now for my question which you didn't answer. Are genes the only thing that determine complexity?

[QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"][QUOTE="domatron23"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?domatron23

Um actually pretty much every cell in the human body contains a diploid set of chromosomes. How is a common skin cell different in this respect?

Answer my question, though.

If you're question was "is a zygote more complex than a brain cell" then I would honestly say no. A brain cell is specialised to perform a very special function, a zygote merely contains the instructions. A house is more complex than the blueprints.

By the way you have a post waiting for you here.

I just answered it (well, I tried anyway) and my question was that ^ and a zygote is not really just a blueprint, it's the actual house itself (the "body"), just a tiny version.

The last time I checked my body was not a microscopic set of genetic instructions, it was the product of those instructions (I know you weren't implying that but I had to say it anyway). Anyways the zygote is nothing special, it's just a cell with genetic information from a sperm and an egg. Actually wouldn't fertilisation be an example of simpleness to complexity? Furthermore if genes are the only thing that determine complexity then why isn't a skin cell on par with a zygote?

I didn't say your body (now) is a zygote.

Ya I know (look inside the bracket for my justification). Now for my question which you didn't answer. Are genes the only thing that determine complexity?

Well, I never even said that genes are the only thing that determines complexity. My point is...

So a miniature is more complex than what it's modeled after?

Another question, if God is perfect, and all its creations (barring Humans because of free-will and Satan because of... Whatever you want the reason to be) are perfect, and order is better than chaos, then why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics even exist? By your logic, a perfect God making a perfect creation would want it to stay in order, not naturally become more chaotic.

So a miniature is more complex than what it's modeled after?Zagrius

Zagrius...now what!? :roll: :lol:

I think you're talking about the zygote, which isn't a miniature model. It IS the body (some minutes old).

Another question, if God is perfect, and all its creations (barring Humans because of free-will and Satan because of... Whatever you want the reason to be) are perfect, and order is better than chaos, then why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics even exist? By your logic, a perfect God making a perfect creation would want it to stay in order, not naturally become more chaotic.Zagrius

I would say the 2nd law existed after Adam and Eve lost their immortality.

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]So a miniature is more complex than what it's modeled after?Revinh

Zagrius...now what!? :roll: :lol:

I think you're talking about the zygote, which isn't a miniature model. It IS the body (some minutes old).

Another question, if God is perfect, and all its creations (barring Humans because of free-will and Satan because of... Whatever you want the reason to be) are perfect, and order is better than chaos, then why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics even exist? By your logic, a perfect God making a perfect creation would want it to stay in order, not naturally become more chaotic.Zagrius

I would say the 2nd law existed after Adam and Eve lost their immortality.

Well, seeing your latter statement made me decide not to try and come up with a counter-argument to your first statement, so I'll concede that one and leave you be from now on.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Zagrius"]So a miniature is more complex than what it's modeled after?Zagrius

Zagrius...now what!? :roll: :lol:

I think you're talking about the zygote, which isn't a miniature model. It IS the body (some minutes old).

Another question, if God is perfect, and all its creations (barring Humans because of free-will and Satan because of... Whatever you want the reason to be) are perfect, and order is better than chaos, then why does the 2nd law of thermodynamics even exist? By your logic, a perfect God making a perfect creation would want it to stay in order, not naturally become more chaotic.Zagrius

I would say the 2nd law existed after Adam and Eve lost their immortality.

Well, seeing your latter statement made me decide not to try and come up with a counter-argument to your first statement, so I'll concede that one and leave you be from now on.

Hey, I was just kidding about that (feel free to discuss if you have more to say).

[QUOTE="domatron23"]

Ya I know (look inside the bracket for my justification). Now for my question which you didn't answer. Are genes the only thing that determine complexity?Revinh

Well, I never even said that genes are the only thing that determines complexity. My point is...

I got the impression that you were only concerned with genetics after this post "Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?"

Now you say that "Any cell of yours today cannot possibly be more complicated than the zygote you once were."

First what I would like you to do is state what components of the zygote made it so special. Maybe its dna, maybe its originality, maybe its potential, maybe you think it had a soul? I'm not so sure you see so you tell me and we'll go from there.

[

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

Revinh

Any cell of yours today cannot possibly be more complicated than the zygote you once were.

I wasn't really talking about the 2nd law..

Just saying that since

Complex > simple

Revinh

Eternal > passing

Organized > disorganized

Healthy to aging

Organized becoming disorganized

[QUOTE="Revinh"][

[QUOTE="CptJSparrow"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?

CptJSparrow

Any cell of yours today cannot possibly be more complicated than the zygote you once were.

No, the zygote has all the information for it to become human, whereas any cell of yours today does not. The zygote must be very complex for "having all the tasks," as it divides it distributes the different tasks. As it grows, it divides into less complicated cells. I'm calling your bluff.

[QUOTE="Revinh"] [QUOTE="domatron23"]

Ya I know (look inside the bracket for my justification). Now for my question which you didn't answer. Are genes the only thing that determine complexity?domatron23

Well, I never even said that genes are the only thing that determines complexity. My point is...

I got the impression that you were only concerned with genetics after this post "Which had all the genetic information for the brain cells, organs, and body parts to come up in the proper order and the right time?"

Now you say that "Any cell of yours today cannot possibly be more complicated than the zygote you once were."

First what I would like you to do is state what components of the zygote made it so special. Maybe its dna, maybe its originality, maybe its potential, maybe you think it had a soul? I'm not so sure you see so you tell me and we'll go from there.

I know it sounds like it's because of the genetic information that it holds. I'm not sure what it is, but it seems obvious to me that it divides into less complicated cells, that any cell of yours now cannot be more complex than the zygote.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

I wasn't really talking about the 2nd law..

Just saying that since

Complex > simpleCptJSparrow

Opposite

By ">" I mean "greater than" or "better than," not "to" if you didn't know

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Healthy to agingCptSparrow

In a single organism's lifetime? Yes. In human history? No. Again, the maximum known lifespan for someone in the Bronze Age was 45 years.

Really? They died before even having grandchildren? before their hair even turned gray? And again, even if the case was increasing lifespan, how old did people live up to 1000 years before that? 20??

Every cell has DNA though; the genetic instructions for an organism. What does the zygote have that the others don't?Buffalo_Soulja

The information to become human, the information of all the other cells that will come up.

If a zygote is more complex because it was at one time the entire organism, than any single-celled organism is just as complex as a human being...right? BEHOLD: the most complex organism in the universe!
CptJSparrow

The complexity of a human zygote is not the same as any other single-celled organism. Behold: :roll:

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]Every cell has DNA though; the genetic instructions for an organism. What does the zygote have that the others don't?Revinh

The information to become human, the information of all the other cells that will come up.

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

[QUOTE="Buffalo_Soulja"]Every cell has DNA though; the genetic instructions for an organism. What does the zygote have that the others don't?Buffalo_Soulja

The information to become human, the information of all the other cells that will come up.

What do you think DNA is?

I think you're missing my point. The zygote knows the "special task information" of EVERY SINGLE cell you have now. A cell or yours knows how to perform some things that another does not.