Is Human Equality just a concept?

[Larniavc]

........I - just - explained - the - physical - laws - to - you - regarding - thermodynamic - entropy.
But - if -you - want - to - fight - about - it - then -you - can - just - burn.

Because - I - am - not - repeating - the - same - thing - over - and - over - again - to - a - wicked -unlettered - incoherent - fool - who - want's - to - argue - the - point - with - me - about - my - own -humanity.

So - as - far - as - I - am - concerned - you - can - take - up - your - complaint - regarding - my - statement - about - chemicals - and - choke - on - it - because - I - will - not - be - denied - my - humanity - by - a - complete - stranger - that - believes - their - an - animal - by - way - of - chemical - evolution.

In other words you can keep complaining to me as if you're an authority, but as it stands, human equality is incontestable, and that is not only because every human being has a conscience, but also because no amount of chemical reactions can become self-aware due to the thermodynamic principles of entropy and the conservation of energy, which states that:
-The total amount of disorder within an open system will increase over time and will never decrease.

And what that means for those of you who are still asking the wizard of Oz for a brain, is that chemicals cannot organize them self into a set of instructions. And I do not need to watch chemicals for one million years to prove it...Because the law of thermodynamics has demonstrated it by way of example through the inability of organic matter to produce a living organism without the need for a pre-existing life.

You're wrong about entropy. It can decrease in an open system. How do you explain the decrease in entropy when ice forms?

By the by: how are your predictions of me bearing out?

 

[Larniavc]

Here is something that is more suitable for your learning capacity:

And thirdly, I will predict that your attitude will degenerate rapidly through the process of trying to demonstrate the impossible.

Hoist meet petard.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

....? The source of all wealth is by creativity and there is no other example. The first liberty is the freedom of conscience, which is not only freedom of thought. And as you would have it to enslave the mind of others to believe they cannot have a religion of their own choosing, and still be protected under law.
When the law protects freedom of belief, and not freedom to deny our freedom of conscience, which is universal.
Merry Christmas

United Nations Global Declaration of Human Rights and Equality
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.


Dictionary
Definitions by Oxford Languages
creativity
/ˌkriːeɪˈtɪvɪti/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the use of imagination or original ideas to create something; inventiveness.
"firms are keen to encourage creativity"
Similar:
inventiveness
imagination

And creativity doesn't involve the mind at all?

 

[Adrian Moir]

I guess I have to repeat my previous post, and your contention that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase. Which means that complex things must come into existence, they have no choice.

So I've already kicked out one of the legs of your stool. But let's go for a second. And that's the idea that creativity must be involved.

The obvious question is...why?

Now if there is a "creator" being, how creative does He have to be? The answer is...not very. All that that being has to create is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and from there everything else inevitably creates itself. No further creativity required. Just one simple, mindless law, entropy must increase.

Now if a conscious system is more complex than than an unconscious system, and complexity always increases, then a conscious system is inevitable, no further input required.

So your creative being really doesn't have to be very creative.

What you have confused here is the word "complexity" because though a snowflake has complexity, it is still not governed by complex ...>>>"INSTRUCTIONS"<<< And what this means is that unless you can show how ...((("INSTRUCTIONS"))) can come into existence you will then be without an explanation for the cause of complexity, and that will mean that your ability to instruct me or others will have no basis.

Natural complexity is only natural for the system, meaning that the functionality of a system is regarded as a natural process, but the inventing of system requires the input of creativity, either directly or indirectly, and not just matter and energy. Because spacetime cannot arrange matter into an instructional sequence over time. And with this principle in mind we can establish a self-evident fact that life is the result of supernatural creation, because the origin of instructions was not natural.

None of the ten dimensions of reality can produce instructions, and because living systems are governed by genetic instructions, it will mean that all living systems have derived from a creation. And there is no other explanation for what causes instructions to come into existence, and this is the same with genetic instructions because the principle is still the same.

So it does not matter what the materials are that have been used for the system, if instructions have been added at any point, it is by definition a creation...Which is self-explanatory. Entropy cannot remain at a constant within a living system unless the process which is causing the disorder is reversed, and that is what repair proteins do they cut out the incorrect coding and splice in a correct sequence based on the previous instruction set. And this is the result of an applied creativity to the genetic instructions, because genetic instructions are self-repairing based on the instructions needed for protein manufacture, and "ANY" manufacturing process is the result of a creation, whether directly or indirectly.

And the one process which is defined as disorder within a living system is called "mutation", or "natural selection". Which means that no amount accumulative mutaions can improve the over all survivability of an organism, and pedigree animals are a perfect example of that.

For example: Any limb reduced creature cannot regain its limbs over time if the genetic information which codes for the limbs is gone and they cannot be retrieved by nature, which is self-evident.
Because no amount of selective breeding can increase the over all life expectancy of any organism, which is because all mutations are a loss of genetic instructions, and nature cannot specify for the missing instructions....EVER.....................


What happens to entropy during reversible process?

Another form of the second law of thermodynamics states that the total entropy of a system either increases or remains constant; it never decreases. Entropy is zero in a reversible process; it increases in an irreversible process.


Is reverse entropy possible?
It is not possible to reverse entropy in a closed system. ... An object's entropy is a measure of the amount of energy that is inaccessible to do work. Entropy is also a measure of how many possible configurations the atoms may have in a system.

Can your body repair mutations?
Summary: DNA repair is compromised at important regions of our genome, shedding new light on the human body's capacity to repair DNA damage, medical scientists have discovered.

 

[Adrian Moir]

And creativity doesn't involve the mind at all?

If the mind can organize then what organized the brain...Think!

 

[Adrian Moir]

Hoist meet petard.

My predictions have come to pass by the looks of it...

 

[Adrian Moir]

I guess I have to repeat my previous post, and your contention that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy must increase. Which means that complex things must come into existence, they have no choice.

So I've already kicked out one of the legs of your stool. But let's go for a second. And that's the idea that creativity must be involved.

The obvious question is...why?

Now if there is a "creator" being, how creative does He have to be? The answer is...not very. All that that being has to create is the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and from there everything else inevitably creates itself. No further creativity required. Just one simple, mindless law, entropy must increase.

Now if a conscious system is more complex than than an unconscious system, and complexity always increases, then a conscious system is inevitable, no further input required.

So your creative being really doesn't have to be very creative.

Define evolution:
evolution, theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. - Encyclopedia Britannica

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
postulate
See definitions in:
all
verb
/ˈpɒstjʊleɪt/
1.
suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.
"his theory postulated a rotatory movement for hurricanes"
Similar:
put forward
suggest
posit
hypothesize
take as a hypothesis
propose
assume
presuppose
suppose
presume
take for granted

Define creation:
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
creation
/kriːˈeɪʃ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce See definitions in:
all
noun
1.
the action or process of bringing something into existence. "creation of a coalition government"
Similar:
design

Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages
action
/ˈakʃ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce See definitions in:
all
noun
1.
the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim.
"ending child labour will require action on many levels"

 

[jayem]

Throughout time humanity has divided itself based on land disputes as well as disputes over which laws are fair, and which laws are not fair. Historically, the fairest systems of law have not only included collective distributions to the poor, but also rights for the poor in order that their cause should be heard, which is the sole basis for case law (common law).

The most unfair systems in history have been empires with imperial ambitions to rule and govern people as a whole, leaving little or no room for the cause of the poor to be heard and understood from their hardships. An imperial rule is no different to a fascism historically, because both imperial rule and government dictatorships rely on covet means to expand their interests abroad to include foreign territories for resources, and direct taxation of the inhabitants to fund imperial ambitions.

The best way to describe the differences between these two systems of rule is to imagine a straight line with a 100% margin at the left end of the line, and a 0% margin at the far right of the line. The far left represents total government, which is defined as a fascism because of its totalitarian authority.
The far right on the other hand is distinguished by having no government, which is defined as anarchy, because there is no system of law in place.

Between these two scopes there is a wide margin between anarchy and fascism, with the conservative view in the middle. The conservative view includes a system of law from the government that protects the people's right to life and liberty.
A democratic republic is defined as a conservative system, because the democracy is from the far right, while the republic is from the far left.
A constitutional system of law presides from the middle of these two extremes as being conservative, which is in the best interests of the democracy, and the republic. Because if democracy is not upheld by the republic then the government is to be defined as a fascism, and not as a democratic republic.

The declaration of independence in its second paragraph says that:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

And these words have had such a significant level of importance on human life that the declaration itself is never to be underestimated in terms of its value. Because, this is the sole basis for human equality, and without human equality, there will be no lawful premise for equal justice.

So according to the First Amendment, the human being is endowed with rights, and these rights have been defined as inalienable, meaning that a person is born with them, and they cannot be given away, and can be exercised at any time.
But what makes this different from being just a concept is due to the fact that we are all endowed with a conscience in order to understand morality, which is how we decide right from wrong.

And what is self-evident here, is that no amount of chemical reactions can ever become self-aware, which means that life is a conscious reality, and not just a physical one, which is self-explanatory.
The difference between being conscious, and having a conscience, is that the conscience is specifically for determining fact from fiction, the truth from a lie, and yes or no with. While being conscious means to be aware of your surroundings, yourself and to be breathing also, because, being conscious was initially from breath to begin with according to Genesis chapter 2.

And what all of this means is that we are all equal under the law according to our God given conscience, and not, according to one's appearance. And this is the international standard for equal rights according to article 1 from the United Nations Global Declaration of Human Rights and Equality.
The definition of what a natural person is under law, has been defined as being an individual who is endowed with the ability to reason from their conscience. So the proper legal definition of what a human is under law has been defined by the endowed conscience. Which means that without a conscience, you are not a human being, but only an animal or a thing.

An animal or thing has been legally defined as property under the law. But because slavery is unlawful, as it deprives people of their equality, it will mean that there is no legal obligation for anyone to regard them self or others as being from an animal, because an animal is without a conscience, and a conscience is required before the law in order to make a case.

What is the first liberty?
Freedom of thought (also called freedom of conscience or ideas) is the freedom of an individual to hold or consider a fact, viewpoint, or thought, independent of others' viewpoints.

What do we mean by freedom of conscience?
Freedom of conscience – sometimes called “freedom of worship” or “religious freedom” – means simply the freedom to worship in one's own way, including the right not to worship.

Psalm 41:1-3
1 Blessed is the one who considers the poor!
In the day of trouble the Lord delivers him;
2 the Lord protects him and keeps him alive;
he is called blessed in the land;
you do not give him up to the will of his enemies.
3 The Lord sustains him on his sickbed;
in his illness you restore him to full health.

Hi, Adrian. Welcome aboard. I just found this thread. Which is quite interesting and provocative. But how did it veer off-topic into thermodynamics?

So getting back to human equality: the modern concept of equality is more a product of the Enlightenment than of any religious doctrine. Women were not equal to men in the OT. If a man thinks his wife was indecent, or he's just tired of her, he can divorce her simply by writing a letter. A woman who gives birth to a daughter is ritually "unclean" for 2 weeks. But if a son is born, she's unclean for 1 week. Bias against women carries over into the NT. Paul can't get over that OT Hebrew misogyny when he writes that a woman should be quiet, submissive, and not have authority over a man:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2.11-13

It can't be denied that the established church in Europe was virulently anti-Semitic for centuries. In most of Europe, there was no equality for Jews. They were blamed for poisoning wells and for perpetrating the bubonic plague epidemic of the 14th century. They were forced to live in squalid ghettos, were forbidden to own land, couldn't join guilds or work in certain professions, and were subject to periodic pogroms in some places. Do you think the Holocaust would have occurred to the monstrous degree that it did if Jews had not been smeared for centuries with the blame for Jesus's death? There wasn't much social equality even for Christians under the feudal system which was supported by the RCC and the European nobility. Not to mention the atrocities that Christians inflicted on each other. Maybe 100-200,000 Cathars were killed in the early 13th century Albigensian crusades. (Partly over such nonsense as whether children or adults should be baptized.) Possibly 20,000,000 people died during the Catholic/Protestant wars in the 16th and 17th centuries. It wasn't really until the early 18th century, when the Enlightenment ideas of people like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Diderot began to change Western culture.

I'll grant that the wars, persecutions, and other misdeeds were in the past. But it tells me that religion--not just Christianity, but any religion--isn't necessarily a place to find moral rectitude. To me, the truest test for the righteousness of any religion is to examine its attitude toward non-believers.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Hi, Adrian. Welcome aboard. I just found this thread. Which is quite interesting and provocative. But how did it veer off-topic into thermodynamics?

So getting back to human equality: the modern concept of equality is more a product of the Enlightenment than of any religious doctrine. Women were not equal to men in the OT. If a man thinks his wife was indecent, or he's just tired of her, he can divorce her simply by writing a letter. A woman who gives birth to a daughter is ritually "unclean" for 2 weeks. But if a son is born, she's unclean for 1 week. Bias against women carries over into the NT. Paul can't get over that OT Hebrew misogyny when he writes that a woman should be quiet, submissive, and not have authority over a man:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.

1 Timothy 2.11-13

It can't be denied that the established church in Europe was virulently anti-Semitic for centuries. In most of Europe, there was no equality for Jews. They were blamed for poisoning wells and for perpetrating the bubonic plague epidemic of the 14th century. They were forced to live in squalid ghettos, were forbidden to own land, couldn't join guilds or work in certain professions, and were subject to periodic pogroms in some places. Do you think the Holocaust would have occurred to the monstrous degree that it did if Jews had not been smeared for centuries with the blame for Jesus's death? There wasn't much social equality even for Christians under the feudal system which was supported by the RCC and the European nobility. Not to mention the atrocities that Christians inflicted on each other. Maybe 100-200,000 Cathars were killed in the early 13th century Albigensian crusades. (Partly over such nonsense as whether children or adults should be baptized.) Possibly 20,000,000 people died during the Catholic/Protestant wars in the 16th and 17th centuries. It wasn't really until the early 18th century, when the Enlightenment ideas of people like Voltaire, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Diderot began to change Western culture.

I'll grant that the wars, persecutions, and other misdeeds were in the past. But it tells me that religion--not just Christianity, but any religion--isn't necessarily a place to find moral rectitude. To me, the truest test for the righteousness of any religion is to examine its attitude toward non-believers.

Adam and Eve were not equal in size but yet they were one in flesh according to scripture, and this is also a universal aspect of equality for all of mankind from the first chapter of Genesis.

The denial of equality is what causes inequality, and we do not argue about the physical consequences of equality because of the physical benefits of having freedoms that are directly associated with equality are endless in scope.

But the fact that people will always argue from a perspective of inequality, which is a real occurrence and not just a "religious" concept, it will mean that human equality is a physical reality and not just a form of enlightement.

Thank you and have a good day.


Dictionary
repercussion
/riːpəˈkʌʃ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
an unintended consequence of an event or action, especially an unwelcome one.
"the move would have grave repercussions for the entire region"

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If the mind can organize then what organized the brain...Think!

This does not answer the question. The issue here is what is the source of wealth. You say it's creativity. I asked what is the source of creativity? Does it involve thinking? Now why in the world would you evade a question with such an obvious answer? I will not deal with evasive people.

But to answer your question of what organized the brain, the answer is nature. See how I answer your question directly? Try to model me.

 

[Bradskii]

Adam and Eve were not equal in size but yet they were one in flesh according to scripture, and this is also a universal aspect of equality for all of mankind from the first chapter of Genesis.

The denial of equality is what causes inequality, and we do not argue about the physical consequences of equality because of the physical benefits of having freedoms that are directly associated with equality are endless in scope.

But the fact that people will always argue from a perspective of inequality, which is a real occurrence and not just a "religious" concept, it will mean that human equality is a physical reality and not just a form of enlightement.

Thank you and have a good day.


Dictionary
repercussion
/riːpəˈkʌʃ(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
an unintended consequence of an event or action, especially an unwelcome one.
"the move would have grave repercussions for the entire region"

What's with all the definitions?

all
/ɔːl/
predeterminer · determiner · pronoun

1. used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
   "all the people I met"

definition
/dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
   "a dictionary definition of the verb"

 

[Adrian Moir]

This does not answer the question. The issue here is what is the source of wealth. You say it's creativity. I asked what is the source of creativity? Does it involve thinking? Now why in the world would you evade a question with such an obvious answer? I will not deal with evasive people.

But to answer your question of what organized the brain, the answer is nature. See how I answer your question directly? Try to model me.

If you believe that time, space and matter can cause instructions to come into existence, then please, give examples, because instructions are rules, and rules automatically implies there is intent.
Because there is nothing to cause time, space and matter to have intentions, because, spacetime cannot organize matter into an instruction sequence over time.
And because the brain is governed by genetic instructions and not the other way around, it will mean that genetic instructions were before the brain, which is self-explanatory.

What is meant by genetic code?
The genetic code is a set of rules defining how the four-letter code of DNA is translated into the 20-letter code of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. ... There are 64 possible permutations, or combinations, of three-letter nucleotide sequences that can be made from the four nucleotides.

What are genetic instructions?
Your genes contain instructions that tell your cells to make molecules called proteins. Proteins perform various functions in your body to keep you healthy. Each gene carries instructions that determine your features, such as eye colour, hair colour and height.

 

[partinobodycular]

If you believe that time, space and matter can cause instructions to come into existence, then please, give examples, because instructions are rules, and rules automatically implies there is intent.

Sorry, that dog won't hunt anymore, because you've already agreed to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that's all you need. If entropy must increase then complexity must increase, and if complexity must increase then order must increase. The rest is inevitable.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If you believe that time, space and matter can cause instructions to come into existence, then please, give examples, because instructions are rules, and rules automatically implies there is intent.
And there is nothing to cause time, space and matter to have intentions, because, spacetime cannot organize matter into an instruction sequence over time.
And because the brain is governed by genetic instructions and not the other way around, it will mean that genetic instructions were before the brain, which is self-explanatory.

What is meant by genetic code?
The genetic code is a set of rules defining how the four-letter code of DNA is translated into the 20-letter code of amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins. ... There are 64 possible permutations, or combinations, of three-letter nucleotide sequences that can be made from the four nucleotides.

What are genetic instructions?
Your genes contain instructions that tell your cells to make molecules called proteins. Proteins perform various functions in your body to keep you healthy. Each gene carries instructions that determine your features, such as eye colour, hair colour and height.

Asking more questions is not an answer to my question. I Asked if creativity involves the mind. Yes or no.
Why the hesitation to give an answer? I'm simply pointing out that you hold to two contradictory values: freedom of thought and "collective distribution" which is a euphemism for theft. You can't have both. Pick one or the other. If one is free to think and act but not free to keep the product of that thought and action then we have a contradiction.

 

[Adrian Moir]

What's with all the definitions?

all
/ɔːl/
predeterminer · determiner · pronoun

1. used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.
   "all the people I met"

definition
/dɛfɪˈnɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   a statement of the exact meaning of a word, especially in a dictionary.
   "a dictionary definition of the verb"

Words are base instructions and the proper definition of a word is what's authoritative and not the opinions behind it.
Words must be arranged according to a set of rules and the only law which governs every rule on languages is that the inventor of a word will retain the right to define it, and only then can a word be used as a derogatory term, and then later as a metaphor.
Which is an obvious downward spiral progression, and not an upward one of improvement because words are invented which means automatically that they're not natural.

So the only way to predetermine the outcome of any event is to understand the set rules in place that are in accordance with physical laws, and it is the physical laws that we base our predictions upon from science which is called theory.

But the final proof that genetic instructions were made is based upon the law first law of linguistics. Because, for a DNA sequence to stop there must be an instruction do carry out the command, and as a rule, when a DNA sequence is finished it will then be instructed to stop the sequence by the addition of uracil, which is not even in DNA, because it has been imposed on the DNA as a rule.
Which is no different to a stop sign, because the meaning of "stop" is not found in the spelling, or the colour or the shape, as the rule came from outside of the physical components.

And I predict that if you keep running stop fines there will be someone who will enforce the meaning on you...Like the law for example.

And the idea of laws mutating into existence is nonsensical, because if a DNA sequence does not stop at the right intervals then you end up with severe abnormalities as a result of mutations that do not increase the over all survivability of any organism over time due to a loss of instructions, which is why we do not actively go about mutating ourselves intentionally.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Words are base instructions and the proper definition of a word is what's authoritative and not the opinions behind it.
Words must be arranged according to a set of rules and the only law which governs every rule on languages is that the inventor of a word will retain the right to define it, and only then can a word be used as a derogatory term, and then later as a metaphor.
Which is an obvious downward spiral progression, and not an upward one of improvement because words are invented which means automatically that they're not natural.

So the only way to predetermine the outcome of any event is to understand the set rules in place that are in accordance with physical laws, and it is the physical laws that we base our predictions upon from science which is called theory.

But the final proof that genetic instructions were made is based upon the law first law of linguistics. Because, for a DNA sequence to stop there must be an instruction do carry out the command, and as a rule, when a DNA sequence is finished it will then be instructed to stop the sequence by the addition of uracil, which is not even in DNA, because it has been imposed on the DNA as a rule.
Which is no different to a stop sign, because the meaning of "stop" is not found in the spelling, or the colour or the shape, as he rule came from outside of the physical components.

And I predict that if you keep running stop fines there will be someone who will enforce the meaning on you...Like the law for example.

And the idea of laws mutating into existence is nonsensical, because if a DNA sequence does not stop at the right intervals then you end up with severe abnormalities as a result of mutations that do not increase the over all survivability of any organism over time due to a loss of instructions, which is why we do not actively go about mutating ourselves intentionally.

Definition is the final step in concept formation and the rules of proper definition are part of a theory of concepts. What theory of concepts are you using? Is it a Christian theory of concepts and where can I find it? In the Bible?

 

[Bradskii]

And the idea of laws mutating into existence is nonsensical, because if a DNA sequence does not stop at the right intervals then you end up with severe abnormalities as a result of mutations that do not increase the over all survivability of any organism over time due to a loss of instructions, which is why we do not actively go about mutating ourselves intentionally.

You are assuming that there is a 'right interval'. That there is an end game in sight. There is no winner in evolution. The only aim is to stay in the game. So if a genetic change means an 'abnormality' (essentially, in the way you are using it, a feature that lessens the chance of survivability), then the organism doesn't survive. Those without it maintain their ability to survive. And others with a different 'abnormality' may find that it's beneficial to survival.

For example, is growing more hair beneficial or detrimental? We wouldn't know unless we looked at what the environment was doing.

I think you have the wrong idea about the process.

 

[Adrian Moir]

Sorry, that dog won't hunt anymore, because you've already agreed to the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that's all you need. If entropy must increase then complexity must increase, and if complexity must increase then order must increase. The rest is inevitable.

Complexity, is not defined as disorder as you would have it from your belief in muationism.
Complexity is defined as having purpose, and there is no purpose in creating a mess unless you have a system in place to deal with the mess.

If I wrote a sequence out as follows: nhjbchojasdgfyhuargfoyuesrgfyuoq
It will look complex, but in reality, it was completely random. And the one thing about instructions that is irrefutable is that instructions are not random.

Entropy is a constant and the only thing which can cause entropy to reach a zero point or decrease is for a mutation (mistake) to be reversed.
And that is exactly what the body does through the use of repair proteins, which are coded to cut out any mistakes from the DNA sequence and splice in a correct copy of the sequence.
And the proteins do not instruct the DNA, only the DNA can instruct the proteins, because proteins are made from DNA, but DNA cannot replicate to form a protein without the need for existing protein, which means automatically that DNA and proteins came into existence simultaneously.

And when the rate of accumulative mutations begins to increase at a certain age the body's ability to maintain and repair itself will begin to diminish more rapidly, and this is called ageing.
Which is why the older you are the more susceptible you become to mutagenics like UV radiation.

Why does cancer rate increase with age?
One view is that cancer develops in older people simply because of their prolonged exposure to carcinogens such as sunlight, radiation, environmental chemicals, and substances in the food we eat. Mutations also occur as a result of random errors when a cell's DNA is copied before it divides.

How can the damage of UV light be reversed?
UV rays can alter your DNA, and this type of sun damage is not reversible. While you can treat the aesthetic effects of sun damage, you unfortunately can't reduce or reverse DNA damage caused by the sun, Dr. Bard says. "Once DNA mutation has occurred due to UV irradiation, there is no way to undo that.

 

[partinobodycular]

Complexity is defined as having purpose,

I couldn't help but notice that you didn't support that with your characteristic dictionary definition. No doubt an oversight on your part. Let me fix that for you.

com·plex·i·ty
/kəmˈpleksədē/

noun

the state or quality of being intricate or complicated.


Hmmm, somehow your definition doesn't seem to quite match. So I guess I'll have to stick with by my original premise...if the 2nd law of thermodynamics is correct, then complexity must increase out of sheer necessity, no intent required.

 

[partinobodycular]

If I wrote a sequence out as follows: nhjbchojasdgfyhuargfoyuesrgfyuoq
It will look complex, but in reality, it was completely random.

Okay, excellent.

Now I want you to increase the entropy in that random set of letters.