Originally posted by Emperor AshtarAgain I have no idea where your misguided attempt at playing the semantics game is supposed to be going.
Cute, did you [B]Read What I said I didn't say attribute, I said Contribute. [/B]
The leg attributes to the circulatory system. Is not a sentence that makes grammatical sense.
The leg contributes to the circulatory system. Is.
You have no idea how the nervous system functions if you think the leg doesn't "add to the function" of it.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Again I have no idea where your misguided attempt at playing the semantics game is supposed to be going.The leg attributes to the circulatory system. Is not a sentence that makes grammatical sense.
The leg contributes to the circulatory system. Is.
You have no idea how the nervous system functions if you think the leg doesn't "add to the function" of it.
I made a typo, second the none of the systems you have mentioned are dependent on the legs in any way.
Let me clarify further. The leg attributes to the circulatory system is not a sentence that makes any sense, let alone grammatical sense.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarIf you mean the leg can be removed and the circulatory, skeletal, muscular and nervous systems are still viable then yes you're right.
I made a typo, second the none of the systems you have mentioned are dependent on the legs in any way.
If you mean the leg doesn't contribute to the above systems in any way. Then no you're wrong.
And a cell is "a system."
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Let me clarify further. The leg attributes to the circulatory system is not a sentence that makes any sense, let alone grammatical sense.
If you mean the leg can be removed and the circulatory, skeletal, muscular and nervous systems are still viable then yes you're right.If you mean the leg doesn't contribute to the above systems in any way. Then no you're wrong.
And a cell is "a system."
Than can you explain to me,what contributions does the leg make to the function, in any of those systems?
And a cell is not a system, it is part of one and also contains one. but on it's own it isn't one.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarFor one thing the leg is a component part of all those systems. That in itself is a contribution. Unless you want to redefine the verb "contribute" too.
Than can you explain to me,what contributions does the leg make to any of those systems?
Somatosensation, golgi tendon organs and muscle spindle fibres provide afferent input to the nervous system.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarSingle celled organism. Red blood cell. Neuron. Astrocyte. All fit you're subjective definition of what comprises a system.
And a cell is not a system, it is part of one and also contains one. but on it's own it isn't one.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
For one thing the leg is a component part of all those systems. That in itself is a contribution. Unless you want to redefine the verb "contribute" too. Somatosensation, golgi tendon organs and muscle spindle fibres provide afferent input to the nervous system.
you ignored my question, I asked what does it "ADD" to the function of the many systems that you previously named. Second you just gave me an example of the leg being dependent on the nervous system? 😕
Originally posted by xmarksthespotSingle celled organism. Red blood cell. Neuron. Astrocyte. All fit you're subjective definition of what comprises a system.
Your play on words is fun, So I'll rephrase this and give you the question I asked allaince. How does killing one cell change the role of blood cells in general.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarThe central nervous system is reliant on golgi tendon organs and muscle spindles in the leg for afferent sensory input. The leg is a component of all those systems listed.
you ignored my question, I asked what does it "ADD" to the function of the many systems that you previously named. Second you just gave me an example of the leg being dependent on the nervous system? 😕
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarHow does that effect it's status as a system?
Your play on words is fun, So I'll rephrase this and give you the question I asked allaince. How does killing one cell change the role of blood cells in general.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The central nervous system is reliant on golgi tendon organs and muscle spindles in the leg for afferent sensory input The leg is a component of all those systems listed..
How does that effect the function, of any of those previous systems?
In other words would the systems stop if we eliminated the leg?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
How does that effect it's status as a system?
This game your playing is funny, tell me if I were to eliminate the ribosomes of a blood cell would it work?
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarNeuroscientist. I'm sure others who study in those fields can tell you how wrong you are more aptly.
How does that effect the function, of any of those previous systems?
In other words would the systems stop if we eliminated the leg?
No, the nervous system can function without the leg. But the leg, a grouping of anatomical structures, is still a component of the nervous system, circulatory system, and musculoskeletal system.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarYou do realise a mature mammalian erythrocyte is enucleated and doesn't perform protein synthesis? Oh apparently you don't.
This game your playing is funny, tell me if I were to eliminate the ribosomes of a blood cell would it work?
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
How does that effect the function, of any of those previous systems?
In other words would the systems stop if we eliminated the leg?
I am not sure of what you are asking here, could you summarize the question more adequately. I scanned through a couple of previous posts, but did not see a decent explanation of exactly what this is in reference to. Here are some thoughts that, based on the posts I read, my address the comments.
Lack of a leg in an organism, at development, leaves the brain area dealing with that area capable of taking on other functions. If the leg does not exist at development, then neural development does not occur in the leg. Other brain activities encroach on that area and take advantage of the extra space, often times brain development in the area maintains some similar function to what would have existed had that area been developed in a "whole" individual.
This area in a person with an amputation will still receive input from the nerves that were sheared as long as they remain active. The nerve often dies off and the area continues to receive some input for an extended period. In some cases the brain areas involved remain functioning for long periods of time, in other cases the area is slowly cannibalized to allow development of other function within that area. Phantom limb experience can be due to other areas as well as the localized area, due to the interconnectivity of neural communication, so phantom limb experience could be due to necessary, functional, areas of the brain that had communication with the nerves of that area responding as they have been developed regardless of the presence of the limb.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Neuroscientist. I'm sure others who study in those fields can tell you how wrong you are more aptly.
That's nice,too bad I asked you.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
No, the nervous system can function without the leg. But the leg, a grouping of anatomical structures, is still a component of the nervous system, circulatory system, and musculoskeletal system.
You do realise a mature mammalian erythrocyte is enucleated and doesn't perform protein synthesis? Oh apparently you don't.
Okay thanks for proving my point, those systems can function without the leg.
Originally posted by Regret
I am not sure of what you are asking here, could you summarize the question more adequately. I scanned through a couple of previous posts, but did not see a decent explanation of exactly what this is in reference to. Here are some thoughts that, based on the posts I read, my address the comments.Lack of a leg in an organism, at development, leaves the brain area dealing with that area capable of taking on other functions. If the leg does not exist at development, then neural development does not occur in the leg. Other brain activities encroach on that area and take advantage of the extra space, often times brain development in the area maintains some similar function to what would have existed had that area been developed in a "whole" individual.
This area in a person with an amputation will still receive input from the nerves that were sheared as long as they remain active. The nerve often dies off and the area continues to receive some input for an extended period. In some cases the brain areas involved remain functioning for long periods of time, in other cases the area is slowly cannibalized to allow development of other function within that area. Phantom limb experience can be due to other areas as well as the localized area, due to the interconnectivity of neural communication, so phantom limb experience could be due to necessary, functional, areas of the brain that had communication with the nerves of that area responding as they have been developed regardless of the presence of the limb.
I was originally responding to adam poe claim about Irreducible Complexity
Criticisms of Complex Specified Information...Dembski uses "complex" as most people would use "absurdly improbable". They also claim that his argument is a tautology: CSI cannot occur naturally because Dembski has defined it thus.
They argue that to successfully demonstrate the existence of CSI, it would be necessary to show that some biological feature undoubtedly has an extremely low probability of occurring by any natural means whatsoever, something which Dembski and others have almost never attempted to do.
Such calculations depend on the accurate assessment of numerous contributing probabilities, the determination of which is often necessarily subjective. Hence, CSI can at most provide a "very high probability," but not absolute certainty.
Another criticism refers to the problem of "arbitrary but specific outcomes". For example, it is unlikely that any given person will win a lottery, but, eventually, a lottery will have a winner; to argue that it is very unlikely that any one player would win is not the same as proving that there is the same chance that no one will win.
Similarly, it has been argued that "a space of possibilities is merely being explored, and we, as pattern-seeking animals, are merely imposing patterns, and therefore targets, after the fact."
Originally posted by Adam_PoEBehe defines "Irreducible Complexity" on page 39 of Darwin's Black Box as "a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
However, whether a system qualifies as "Irreducibly Complex" depends on how one defines the system:
One may say that the function of a leg is to walk, and call legs "walking systems," but what are the parts? If one divides a leg into three parts, removal of any part results in loss of the function. However, if one considers each bone a part, then several parts may be removed, and still have a functional walking system.
In this way, "Irreducible Complexity" is an arbitrary, subjective, and tautological imposition of patterns where none exist.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarI have no idea what your "point" was. The leg is a component of those systems. It "contributes" to those systems. Because the systems can function without the leg does not mean that the leg is not part of said systems. For someone who criticizes others debating skills maybe you should refrain from trying to create false dichotomy.
That's nice,too bad I asked you.Okay thanks for proving my point, those systems can function without the leg.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I have no idea what your "point" was. The leg is a component of those systems. It "contributes" to those systems. Because the systems can function without the leg does not mean that the leg is not part of said systems. For someone who criticizes others debating skills maybe you should refrain from trying to create false dichotomy.
I never said it was not part of those systems, again it is not necessary for their function.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
You can [B] TRY to redefine it, but a system is a group of independent, interrelated parts. Irreducible complexity holds "If one part of this system is removed then the whole system falls apart.circulatory, respritory, and nervous system all have fit the definition, thus can be defined as irreducibly complex.[/B]
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar😑
I never said it was not part of those systems, again it is not necessary for their function.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarWhich demonstrates a lack of "irreducible complexity" because the leg contributes to all those systems.
😕Again none of those systems are dependent on the leg.
Do you actually have any background in biology? Even high school biology? Have you ever taken any anatomy and physiology?
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which demonstrates a lack of "irreducible complexity" because the leg contributes to all those systems.Do you actually have any background in biology? Even high school biology? Have you ever taken any anatomy and physiology?
And you LACK sense, instead of giving me an answer you give me the run around. what function does the leg add that is neccessary for performance of the systems you named?