(M.H-35)"Standard" Argument for Irreducible Complexity

[Tomk80]

Because it is the best measure and allows for adapability and tasks beyond any other creature

In what way? How do you define that?

Fine, a human with an RPG and a bear
Bottom line is unencumbered and with our intelligence, we have dominion over all the animals

Put a bunch of hunters with guns in a forest. We could hunt the bear to extinction if we wanted to

Since when does dominian over other things denote advancement. An ape is more intelligent than a t-rex, but I'm quite sure who'll dominate.

Fine, a shark and a torpedo or a large naval gun

With the average person? Again, a draw.

 

[pittguy579]

In what way? How do you define that?

I am not staying the obvious.

Since when does dominian over other things denote advancement. An ape is more intelligent than a t-rex, but I'm quite sure who'll dominate.

Obviously apes do because they are still around.
Ability to dominate is one factor. Ability to adapt is another.

With the average person? Again, a draw

LOL this is ridiculous
A torpedo or a large naval gun couldn't kill a shark?
A standard rifle could kill one

 

[Baggins]

They always said cockroaches would be the most likely candidate to survive a nuclear war
I hardly consider them to be advanced

When human beings are extinct and cockroaches are still around.

Who would you consider to be advanced then?

You have a very childish way of thinking about evolutionary sucess, you see it only in terms of what you're good at, big brains etc.

In evolutionary terms the sucessful organisms are ones that don't become extinct; like cockroaches and bacteria, not ones that are a flash in the pan, which humans could easily become if they are not careful.

 

[Split Rock]

It is not elitist. It is the truth. Of course civlizations thought they were superior to one another but that is irrelelevant because they were all obviously comprised of humans

Why is it irrelevant? If we use your criteria the Spanish were superior to the Aztecs...they could build ships that could travel across the Atlantic ocean, they could make firearms, they had superior metal-working skills, etc. Yet the Aztecs considered themselves to be superior to everyone else. Why? Were the Chinese superior to the Europeans during the times of the Opium Wars? Or were the European powers superior? They all thought they were superior.

As far as they all being human is concerned, I am comparing different civilizations, just as you were comparing different species. My point was that just as every human civilization thinks it is superior to others, humans in general see themselves as superior to all other species.

They are not superior than us overall. It is ludicrous to say so.

It is not ludicrous ar all. In Biology, no species is considered "superior" to another, since they is no objective criteria to make such a comparison. Our cells are just as complex as a mouse's, or a pine tree's. Our DNA is not any more complex than an ant's or a tulip's.

Because intelligence allows us more flexibility than any other creature and enables us to do things which other creatures simply can't do.

I think we are getting away from the original point. Even if we agree that humans are "superior," we are not the endgame of evolution. There are other species that evolved after us, and with us but they are according to your critera, inferior. If that is the case, then where is the direction toward complexity you are claiming exists?

 

[pittguy579]

]Yes, the answer is no. Bacteria as a common definition denotes nothing.

The answer is yes

Like providing resistance to extreme amounts of radiation, heat or pesticides? Other creatures are king of the hill there. Even in places where humans cannot come with current technology, you'll find creatures.

Of course extreme examples, but humans can do things no other animal can. To deny it is stupidity, plain and simple. Heartiness doesn't equal complexity or being more advanced. Sea s

And why is that a definite measure of advancement? Dolphins are much better swimmers then we are, even with our technology.

No they are not. Submarines can go farther and deeper and faster than any dolphin. Our speed boats can go 90 miles an hour. We can kill dolphins. Dolphins are not more advanced

I never claimed it was. I said that it wasn't necessarily more advanced, and that your measure of advanced sucks.

No it doesn't. Yours does

I didn't state it did. My words actually mean something. When I say 'more advanced or not', I'm not telling you that bacteria are more advanced. It means I'm leaving that in the middle. I was saying that humans are not king of the hill, as a response to you stating they are.

Yes they are by any reasonable definition.

 

[Tomk80]

I am not staying the obvious.

No, you're not stating the obvious. That's why I keep asking.

Obviously apes do because they are still around.
Ability to dominate is one factor. Ability to adapt is another.

Dinosaurs were wiped out because of an asteroid strike 65 million years ago. An asteroid strike that, if it would occur tomorrow, would probably leave us just as extinct.

And less intelligent creatures can often adapt better than more intelligent ones. And they'll dominate as a result of that. Are those more advanced then?

LOL this is ridiculous
A torpedo or a large naval gun couldn't kill a shark?
A standard rifle could kill one

Not if you miss. Again, give an average person a gun, and he'll shoot. But he'll have to hit and on the right spot. It's gonna be a draw. The average person is not adapted to accounting for the light refraction of the water, will miss and the shark will swim away.

 

[michabo]

Obviously apes do because they are still around.
Ability to dominate is one factor. Ability to adapt is another.

So, let me get this straight.

Are you saying that the animal which is able to survive in the widest range of environments and to survive beside (or kill if necessary) the largest number of other animals should be the most advanced?

Is that about right?

 

[michabo]

Not if you miss. Again, give an average person a gun, and he'll shoot. But he'll have to hit and on the right spot. It's gonna be a draw. The average person is not adapted to accounting for the light refraction of the water, will miss and the shark will swim away.

C'mon, if you're going to be that fussy, you might as well say that humans have only had these weapons for a few hundred years and the vast majority of humanity does not have access to these weapons. I don't, and I doubt that many of the others on this board do, either. While I know that there exist weapons capable of killing bears, I know I couldn't create one.

All of this talk about weapons is good testomony to our society, but poor testimony to any individuals. If this were the standard, then we should judge whole populations. And I don't think James wants that.

 

[Tomk80]

The answer is yes

No, the answer is no. The evolutionary history of currently living bacteria is just as long as that of humans. They are in many ways different then their predecessors, if only because many of them adapted especially to us (so the new species arose after us).

Of course extreme examples, but humans can do things no other animal can. To deny it is stupidity, plain and simple. Heartiness doesn't equal complexity or being more advanced. Sea s

First you say that heartiness does not equal complexity.

No they are not. Submarines can go farther and deeper and faster than any dolphin. Our speed boats can go 90 miles an hour. We can kill dolphins. Dolphins are not more advanced

And then you turn around. Dolphins swim with a higher efficiency than any submarince can. Deeper, faster, it's all a matter of stronger materials and stronger engines. Dolphins use the turbulence of the water in a way that makes our submarines positively primitive. Sure, we can kill dolphins. So can a number of other creatures. That gives us no insight in how advanced we are.

No it doesn't. Yours does

How can it? I haven't defined any.

Yes they are by any reasonable definition.

And that reasonable definition is?

 

[Tomk80]

C'mon, if you're going to be that fussy, you might as well say that humans have only had these weapons for a few hundred years and the vast majority of humanity does not have access to these weapons. I don't, and I doubt that many of the others on this board do, either. While I know that there exist weapons capable of killing bears, I know I couldn't create one.

All of this talk about weapons is good testomony to our society, but poor testimony to any individuals. If this were the standard, then we should judge whole populations. And I don't think James wants that.

Yeah, you're right.

More general, the idea that us being able to kill a certain animal using weapons is a bad measure of advancement. It's a bad example in any respect.

More in general, I don't see intelligence as the only way to measure whether something is advanced. I think adaptability and dominance aren't very good measures either. Marine mammals and fish use the currents in the water in a way that we cannot even mimick at this point, or are only just starting to find out. I see no reason why that is less advanced than a high intelligence, it's just different. Same with the way eagles etc use air currents. The life cycle of a malaria parasite is quite complex, using many intermediate hosts. Is it less or more advanced than our high intelligence? How do you decide that?

I think the societies example is a very good one. Sure, Europe's technological advancement together with it's societal currents allowed it to dominate many parts of the world. But does technological superiority necessarily mean more advanced? Chinese culture was very advanced in many ways, just not technological because the cultural backdrop wasn't right. How do you compare the two and say that one is more advanced than the other.

How, in James' favorite adagium, do you go beyond comparing apples and oranges?

 

[Split Rock]

How, in James' favorite adagium, do you go beyond comparing apples and oranges?

Maybe an engineering example would work?

pittguy579:

As an engineer, which would you say is superior, or more advanced?

A top-of-the-line Maytag dishwasher, or a top-of-the-line Hoover vacuum cleaner?

 

[michabo]

More in general, I don't see intelligence as the only way to measure whether something is advanced. I think adaptability and dominance aren't very good measures either.

Of course not. But James seems unaware that, no matter how you slice it, humans can't win this one. Bacteria (hey, he lumps them all together, just as he lumps all humans together) are the most diverse, most successful organisms on the planet. They live in the greatest environmental ranges, places that we couldn't hope to survive - at the bottom of the ocean, in boiling water, deep inside rocks, and inside every animal. They kill huge numbers of animals, and have devastated human populations in the past, and are still killing many of us every year. They have overcome our best antibiotics.

Bacteria also dominate through carrots and not just sticks. Without bacteria, we wouldn't be able to digest anything and would quickly die. They provide vital oxygen and food for the food chains.

No number of harpoons, knives, bombs, acids, or nuclear devices can make a dent in their numbers.

By James's cherry picked criteria, we are still beaten out by bacteria. Guess those hundreds of millions of years of evolution did something for them after all, huh?

I think the societies example is a very good one.

Until James realizes that ants and bacteria form colonies, and then you'll just hear a whoosh of air as the goalposts move again

 

[michabo]

A top-of-the-line Maytag dishwasher, or a top-of-the-line Hoover vacuum cleaner?

Dishwashers let women out of the kitchen, so that's no good. But vacuums suck.

Is it a draw?

 

[Split Rock]

No they are not. Submarines can go farther and deeper and faster than any dolphin. Our speed boats can go 90 miles an hour. We can kill dolphins. Dolphins are not more advanced.

Wouldn't you agree as an engineer that efficiency is a good indicator of superiority? Which is more efficient at moving through the water.. a dolphin or a submarine?

 

[pittguy579]

No, you're not stating the obvious. That's why I keep asking.

It is obvoius

And less intelligent creatures can often adapt better than more intelligent ones. And they'll dominate as a result of that. Are those more advanced then?

No, they are not by any definition
Show me a creature that can do even 1/10 the amount of things a human can. Show me a cockroach than can build a particle accelerator or fly to the moon

Not if you miss. Again, give an average person a gun, and he'll shoot. But he'll have to hit and on the right spot. It's gonna be a draw. The average person is not adapted to accounting for the light refraction of the water, will miss and the shark will swim away.

Simple BS. We would wait for the shark to surface and then boom
Better yet, use a depth charge and it won't matter. Blow everything out of the water within a 20 yard radius or a 100 megaton bomb in the middle of the ocean. We could wipe out a few thousand
Bottom line is we win

 

[pittguy579]

Wouldn't you agree as an engineer that efficiency is a good indicator of superiority? Which is more efficient at moving through the water.. a dolphin or a submarine?

Who can swim faster and farther without refueling?

 

[pittguy579]

Until James realizes that ants and bacteria form colonies, and then you'll just hear a whoosh of air as the goalposts move again

No goalposts needed
Bacteria are not more advanced than we
Any idiot can see that

 

[pittguy579]

Why is it irrelevant? If we use your criteria the Spanish were superior to the Aztecs...they could build ships that could travel across the Atlantic ocean, they could make firearms, they had superior metal-working skills, etc. Yet the Aztecs considered themselves to be superior to everyone else. Why? Were the Chinese superior to the Europeans during the times of the Opium Wars? Or were the European powers superior? They all thought they were superior.

Irrelevant once again
Comparing apples and oranges

It is not ludicrous ar all. In Biology, no species is considered "superior" to another, since they is no objective criteria to make such a comparison. Our cells are just as complex as a mouse's, or a pine tree's. Our DNA is not any more complex than an ant's or a tulip's.

A person with any logic would see humans are superior for a number of reasons.

 

[Tomk80]

Who can swim faster and farther without refueling?

But does that mean more advanced or more efficient? Just because the fuel reserves are larger, doesn't mean it's more advanced. At this point, it is you who is grasping for straws.

 

[Tomk80]

Irrelevant once again
Comparing apples and oranges

Just as much as comparing a large brain with good aerodynamics is comparing apples and oranges.

A person with any logic would see humans are superior for a number of reasons.[/quote]
Only from a very limited point of view. Many creatures are superior to humans in many ways, it just depends on the criterion.

More complex, more advanced and more superior are not synonyms.