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

[pittguy579]

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.

No, really it is you who is grapsing for straws
Can a dolphin go 40 miles an hour while carrying HUNDREDS of thousands of pounds and not refuel for months and be able to dive for extended periods of times? It is superior in every respect
You lose

 

[Baggins]

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

While it is true that you are any idiot and you do see it, people with vastly more education in the biological sciences are telling you that by many measures bacteria are far move advanced that we are. When was the last time you metabolised nylon?

But do you listen? no, because, as you said, you are any idiot.

 

[Baggins]

No, really it is you who is grapsing for straws
Can a dolphin go 40 miles an hour while carrying HUNDREDS of thousands of pounds and not refuel for months and be able to dive for extended periods of times? It is superior in every respect
You lose

Can a submarine turn triple back sumersaults?

You lose.

What a pointless argument

 

[pittguy579]

Can a submarine turn triple back sumersaults?

So now you are moving goalposts when it was proven submarines are more advanced in every respect

What a pointless argument

I know, You are the one that started it. You lose
Check mate

 

[Baggins]

LOL bacteria are more advanced? Please give me a break and lay off the drugs buddy
I will let bacteria build a quantum computer and fly to the moon
Call me when that happens





Bacteria cannot build a quantum computer, you cannot metabolise nylon

 

[Tomk80]

It is obvoius

Just stating that something is obvious doesn't make it so. You'll have to learn that at some point pittguy. You seem under the impression that, just because you say something, you are also correct. This is not the case.

No, they are not by any definition

They are by the criteria you have been using so far. Bacteria (I'll be so convenient to group them as one organism, since you say that's valid) produce more destructive, more prone to dominate (if you're not aware of it, we have to continuously adapt to them, that's why we constantly need to come up with new antibiotics, new agricultural methods, etc etc, because we're under a constant threat from bacteria), they're more adaptive (it took us hundreds of years to come with some means against bacteria, it took them less than 100 to adapt to a number of those).

All the criteria you've used so far are exibited in very basic creatures. The only thing were they perform less is in complex mathematics, but that doesn't seem to hold them back much. So either they are more advanced, or your criteria don't work. Obvious, isn't it?

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

That's all just the result of a rather complex brain. How do you compare complex aerodynamics with a complex brain. How is that not comparing apples and oranges?

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

But only in a very specific situation, were we have those things ready. Most of the time we don't. If we're in the water without our precious technology, we're toast (who needs sharks, Germans drown on our beaches each year without them). What is more advanced, extremely fine-tuned aerodynamics or extremely fine-tuned brain? Since when is that not comparing apples and oranges?

 

[pittguy579]

Bacteria cannot build a quantum computer, you cannot metabolise nylon

Bottom line is we make both quantum computers and nylon
And I would hardly call "eating" an advanced function

 

[Baggins]

So now you are moving goalposts when it was proven submarines are more advanced in every respect

So you are trying to claim that submarines are better at triple back somersaults than dolphins.

Have you got any evidence for that?

What about being more advanced at hunting fish, are you really trying to suggest that submarines are better at hunting fish than dolphins?

You are strange.

I know, You are the one that started it. You lose
Check mate

I didn't start it, I just joined in because I enjoy showing up your arguments as the absurdities that they are.

I mean to say, trying to define which animal is more advanced than another based on the single criteria of intelligence is absurd, but then you are an engineer not a scientist what can we really expect you haven't had the advantage of a top notch education like we have

 

[Tomk80]

So now you are moving goalposts when it was proven submarines are more advanced in every respect

How was that proven? Dolphins are more energy efficient and more aerodynamic. You haven't brought up anything against that, other than shouting that submarinces are bigger. Big deal. Bigger=/=more advanced.

I know, You are the one that started it. You lose
Check mate

This is getting pathetic.

 

[pittguy579]

But only in a very specific situation, were we have those things ready. Most of the time we don't. If we're in the water without our precious technology, we're toast (who needs sharks, Germans drown on our beaches each year without them). What is more advanced, extremely fine-tuned aerodynamics or extremely fine-tuned brain? Since when is that not comparing apples and oranges?

Not allowing us to use tool would be like not allowing a shark to use its teeth or a bear to use it's claws and teeth. It would be hampering our greatest asset for survival, our intelligence A finely tuned brain can build things that can toast anything in nature.

 

[pittguy579]

]How was that proven? Dolphins are more energy efficient and more aerodynamic. You haven't brought up anything against that, other than shouting that submarinces are bigger. Big deal. Bigger=/=more advanced.

It was proven, unless you are too stupid to understand it
Show me a dolphin that can not eat for months at a time and can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds for months at a time and can stay submerged. It is more efficient and more powerful

 

[Tomk80]

Not allowing us to use tool would be like not allowing a shark to use its teeth or a bear to use it's claws and teeth. It would be hampering our greatest asset for survival, our intelligence A finely tuned brain can build things that can toast anything in nature.

Why, we can use sticks, bones and stones. Lying around everywhere and come in very handy when you're having an attack of intelligence. We managed thousands of years with those. Our current technology is just a lucky strike of the last 150 years or so.

 

[pittguy579]

So you are trying to claim that submarines are better at triple back somersaults than dolphins.

No, but better at EVERY SINGLE OTHER MEASURE THAN YOU CAN THINK OF

Can a dolphin carry hundreds of thousands of pounds of cargo for months at a time without refueling?

What about being more advanced at hunting fish, are you really trying to suggest that submarines are better at hunting fish than dolphins?

They could be. We could put nets and the like and troll through the deep and catch hundreds of times more fish than a single dolphin can

You are strange.

I didn't start it, I just joined in because I enjoy showing up your arguments as the absurdities that they are.

The only absurdities come from you and others that are trying to say humans aren't the most advanced creatures overll

I mean to say, trying to define which animal is more advanced than another based on the single criteria of intelligence is absurd, but then you are an engineer not a scientist what can we really expect you haven't had the advantage of a top notch educaition like we have

Tryin to say humans aren't the most advanced creatures is absurd and obviously you weren't educated in logic

 

[Baggins]

And I would hardly call "eating" an advanced function

Why is thinking a more advanced function than eating.

Is there an hierarchy of organism functions with eating near the middle and thinking at the top?

Most life on earth gets through life and propagates well enough without thinking, while humans, who think a lot, often don't propagate at all, in fact it often seems that the more they think the less they propagate.

As the only function of life is to pass on its DNA, this would seem to suggest that thinking isn't a very advanced function at all it leads to nuns and priests and celibacy, and that's not what your dna wants.

Where as even animals that think a lot continue to eat, thus showing that it is a much more advanced function than thinking

 

[pittguy579]

Why, we can use sticks, bones and stones. Lying around everywhere and come in very handy when you're having an attack of intelligence. We managed thousands of years with those. Our current technology is just a lucky strike of the last 150 years or so.

I hardly consider it lucky
Bottom line is we have the ability to do those things.
That is proven

 

[Tomk80]

It was proven, unless you are too stupid to understand it
Show me a dolphin that can not eat for months at a time and can carry hundreds of thousands of pounds for months at a time and can stay submerged. It is more efficient and more powerful

Again, being able to take along more fuel does not make it more energy-efficient. You as an engineer should be aware of that. The fact that a Humm-vee can take along more fuel than a smart does not make it more efficient either.

 

[pittguy579]

Again, being able to take along more fuel does not make it more energy-efficient. You as an engineer should be aware of that. The fact that a Humm-vee can take along more fuel than a smart does not make it more efficient either.

No, but more power, more thrust, and more carrying power makes it more efficient

Put the same amount of weight on the back of a dolphin. Lets see how far he can go

 

[Tomk80]

I hardly consider it lucky

edited to add: study the history of science and technology in different societies. You'll realize how lucky we have been. Many societies have been on the brink of similar technological breakthrough as we had. Only we had the pure luck in Europe have those breakthroughs in a time that resources were plenty and the right societal conditions had arisen. But that is a whole different topic.

Bottom line is we have the ability to do those things.
That is proven

But only a lucky few of us. That is just as proven. Whereas all sharks have teeth.

And again, it tells us little. Yes, we have a higher intelligence, but we are worse swimmers. Comparing the two characteristics is like comparing apples and oranges. The aerodynamics of fish and marine mammals are extremely advanced, and there is no measure of comparison to say that one is more advanced as the other. Just as there is no way to say whether apples are more advanced than oranges.

 

[Tomk80]

No, but more power, more thrust, and more carrying power makes it more efficient

Put the same amount of weight on the back of a dolphin. Lets see how far he can go

Not more efficient, and not more advanced. Just bigger and stronger. Bigger and stonger=/=more advanced. You stated so yourself in earlier examples.

 

[Baggins]

It was proven, unless you are too stupid to understand it
Show me a dolphin that can not eat for months at a time

Now eating is giving the body fuel and submarines need fuel as well.

As an engineer I would have thought you'd have known this.

Are you sure you are an engineer? You don't seem very well informed for someone of such a noble trade.