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

[march56]

Efficiency all depends on workload
A submarine is more efficient and more capable in a vast number of ways. Which would be more efficient at carrying hundreds of thousands of pounds, diving for extended periods, and cruising without refuelingEfficiency is relative to the task you are giving it
Try launching nuclear missiles from the back of a dolphin. It would not be very efficient




So can a submarine. I bet a nuclear submarine can go farther on a single tank of gas (food) than dolphin can. Dolphin would probably wear out or starve to death by the time it went 1000 miles if it didn't refuel



A submarine can refuel in mid ocean-just bring more uranium





Sure, there are other criteria, but intelligence trumps all because it enables us to adapt and be superior in any evironment and do things other creatures cannot even fathom.

This wouldn't be a fair argument if the terms were taken down to the simple form and not progress until basic fundamentals were answered.
-M.C.

 

[random_guy]

Efficiency all depends on workload
A submarine is more efficient and more capable in a vast number of ways. Which would be more efficient at carrying hundreds of thousands of pounds, diving for extended periods, and cruising without refuelingEfficiency is relative to the task you are giving it
Try launching nuclear missiles from the back of a dolphin. It would not be very efficient

I always though efficiency was measured by the amount of work done vs. amount of energy it took. Isn't life a whole lot more efficient than anything we can create right now? We tend to lose a lot of energy to heat. If anyone knows, let me know. I was never good at physics.

 

[Goatboy]

Okay either I slipped into a week long alcoholic coma or y’all have added 10 more pages to this thread in an evening.

Shame on you.
(Still at least we’re off the whole -IC =/= -ID “debate”).

I always though efficiency was measured by the amount of work done vs. amount of energy it took.

It is*.

Pittguy is arguing that since we can build things that do stuff Dolphins can’t we’re superior.

Which is a pretty dumb argument since, the stuff when we build does what Dolphins can do, it’s vastly less efficient and still won’t do ALL the things a Dolphin can do.

So basically, more special pleading.

Isn't life a whole lot more efficient than anything we can create right now? We tend to lose a lot of energy to heat.

Well a lever is about the most efficient machine I can think of and I’m not certain life can beat that (but then it does make use of them pretty often), our technological efficiency has pretty much been all downhill ever since.

Really it is the only thing that matters because it is the most malleable.

Special Pleading

We can use intelligence to go anywhere and do anything.

Self evidently, egregiously, wrong.
(Maybe one day, but hell, by then we’ll probably be employing dolphins to pilot ships through hyperspace for us)

We can fly farther, faster than any bird or even out of the atmosphere
We can swim farther, faster than any fish
We have the power to hunt/kill any animal

But never with their efficiency.

We can build machines that can carry thousands of times more weight than any land animal and farther and faster to boot
We can build machines that are faster than any land animal

We are capable of quantum leaps in technology and can solve almost any problem

Except Maria.

We can more efficient in more areas than any other creature
Sure a dolphin can swim better than us, but we can build machines that enable us to travel better in the water
Sure a bird can fly, but we can build machines that enable us to fly faster and farther than any bird can

Getting repetitious, isn’t it?
But maybe if we get told it three times we’ll start to think it’s true.

We can adapt to the most environments and do more things with our intelligence

Okay now this I wanted to pick up.

We don’t really adapt worth squat. We mostly use our technology to try and create an environment in which we can survive. But…

When the machine breaks down, we break down

GB

* http://www.dictionary.net/efficiency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency

 

[Tomk80]

I always though efficiency was measured by the amount of work done vs. amount of energy it took. Isn't life a whole lot more efficient than anything we can create right now? We tend to lose a lot of energy to heat. If anyone knows, let me know. I was never good at physics.

As far as I know, that is the case. I don't like dictionary definition much, but according to www.thefreedictionary.com:

n. pl. ef·fi·cien·cies 1. a. The quality or property of being efficient.
b. The degree to which this quality is exercised: The program was implemented with great efficiency and speed.

2. a. The ratio of the effective or useful output to the total input in any system.
b. The ratio of the energy delivered by a machine to the energy supplied for its operation.

3. An efficiency apartment.

According to http://www.sei.cmu.edu/str/indexes/glossary/efficiency.html:

Efficiency the degree to which a system or component performs its designated functions with minimum consumption of resources (CPU, Memory, I/O, Peripherals, Networks).

I've looked at a number of sites that are more oriented to engineering and search for terms like efficiency, and here the term seems to be used in the above sense.

 

[b*unique]

Mod hat on

Please stop calling each other names and violating CF rules:

2.1 No Flaming

You will not "flame" other members or groups of members. Flaming includes, but is not limited to:
Ridiculing, insulting, or demeaning another member or group of members; Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian; Using sarcasm to attempt any of the above; Threats of any sort.


2.2 No Baiting

You will not bait other members. "Baiting" is an attempt to anger another member. Baiting includes, but is not limited to:
Making comments designed to elicit responses that violate the rules; Asking "loaded" questions of another member in an attempt to disguise a flame; Ridiculing or insulting the beliefs of another member.

Thank you

Mod hat off

 

[Baggins]

Sure, there are other criteria, but intelligence trumps all because it enables us to adapt and be superior in any evironment and do things other creatures cannot even fathom.

Intelligence trumps all if you are an engineer because it allows you to build things. But in biological terms it doesn't make a species better adapted to its niche necessarily, which is why it is a rare adaption.

Your thinking is totally skewed by your training, you have an inability to see the larger picture, partly because you don't have much education in biological sciences, and partly because you assume that if you are a good engineer then that knowledge will suffice in other fields, well sorry but it doesn't.

You are arguing about evolutionary adaption with people who actually know what they are talking about, but it is a useful exercise for the lurkers as it shows up the fallacy of your arguments quite nicely, so carry on.

 

[pittguy579]

Intelligence trumps all if you are an engineer because it allows you to build things. But in biological terms it doesn't make a species better adapted to its niche necessarily, which is why it is a rare adaption.

No, it trumps all for a variety of reasons and makes humans the most complex creatures on the planet in terms of capabilities

Your thinking is totally skewed by your training, you have an inability to see the larger picture, partly because you don't have much education in biological sciences, and partly because you assume that if you are a good engineer then that knowledge will suffice in other fields, well sorry but it doesn't.

My thinking is just fine and is quite logical

You are arguing about evolutionary adaption with people who actually know what they are talking about, but it is a useful exercise for the lurkers as it shows up the fallacy of your arguments quite nicely, so carry on.

And it is apparent my assertions are correct and everyone else's have been blown of the water. Lurkers can plainly see people who are saying humans aren't the most complex creatures on the planet don't have a leg to stand on

So carry on your untenable position that humans aren't the most complex and most capable creatures on the planet

 

[Edx]

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

No not in every respect, thats the point. A submarine cannot do tripple back sommasaults, in that respect a dolphin is superior.

Its like with humans.

Some humans are more superior to others.

Some have superior intellect, some have superior strength.

Which human is superior to the other? The one with strength or the one with intellect? How about we throw abother in there, someone like Beethoven.... is he superior to the other two humans?

Therefore, you can only say humans are superior to other animals when you specify certian criteria.

 

[Baggins]

So carry on your untenable position that humans aren't the most complex and most capable creatures on the planet

They are self evidently not the most complex creatures on earth, think of the life cycle of a butterfly, how much more complex is that. There are worms that have more genes than us, are we more complicated than them? What about a platypus, it has fur, a leathery bill that is so sensitive it can find worms in mud, lactates, lays eggs and the males can inject poison through spurs on their legs, they sound a bit more complex than us.

We are the most capapble creatures on earth if your sole measure of capability is intelligence, but as I have said before, why do you limit yourself to one measure of utility, you wouldn't do that for a machine.

What we are trying, and failing, to explain to you is that these things don't really matter in a biological sense, what matters is adaption to environment.

You say we stand above that because we can alter our environment, and to some extent that is true but we still have to fight a daily battle against viral and bacterial diseases, we are still subject to selection pressure for which intelligence only goes some way to shelter us.

Your world view is totally biased by your training, you need to understand biological sciences more fully, and then you would see your view is very limited and just a small part of the picture.

I wouldn't presume to lecture you about engineering, I really don't think that you should presume to lecture the biologists on this board about evolutionary theory it just comes across as arrogance, if you could debate more reasonably and admit error where it is obvious you might get along better and you could actually learn something.

I don't know how old you are but your posts have the arrogance of youth about them, in which case you will grow up eventually, I did.

 

[pittguy579]

Therefore, you can only say humans are superior to other animals when you specify certian criteria.

Humans are superior overall. That is unquestionable.

 

[Garnett]

Can anyone help me: What are the agreed definitions (of "complex", and "capable" for example) and topic of debate here? I'm becoming less and less sure.

 

[Edx]

but then you are an engineer not a scientist what can we really expect

Even an engineer should understand this. A hawk has a wonderfully aerodynamic "design", it has wonderfully "designed" eyes. Thats what ID is always claiming isnt? That these animals have such wonderfully designed features? We however arent aerodynamic, and our eyes and very bad. A hawk is therefore more advanced with that criteria. Pittguy doesnt get it not because he is an engineer, but because he cant accept that he is wrong.

Ed

 

[Edx]

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.

When an asterioid comes along and destroys us all, the cockroaches and bacteria will live on. Therefore according to you THEY are far superior to us, since despite our technology their biology saved them. Right?

 

[Garnett]

Humans are superior overall. That is unquestionable.

You've been asked before, but you need to define your terms. Otherwise your posts are pointless and prove nothing. Do you understand that?

If something is unquestionable it has not mitigation. It has already been explained to you that a dolphin (in the example given) can perform triple backflips. A dolphin's superior swimming abilities contradict your statement. It raises questions.

For sure, you would argue Man's other attributes outweigh those of a dolphin's but to do this you must first define your terms and qualify your statement, for, as it stands it is incorrect.

 

[pittguy579]

They are self evidently not the most complex creatures on earth,

You are simply wrong. Humans are self evidently the most complex creatures in terms of capabilities. To say so is sheer stupidity

think of the life cycle of a butterfly, how much more complex is that.

We are talking in terms of capabilities. A butterfly is not more capable than a human in any respect other than fluttering from flower to flower, but we are superior in flight via engineering

There are worms that have more genes than us, are we more complicated than them

Are worms more capable than us overall?
Of course not

? What about a platypus, it has fur, a leathery bill that is so sensitive it can find worms in mud, lactates, lays eggs and the males can inject poison through spurs on their legs, they sound a bit more complex than us.

Nope, not more complex in terms of capabilities

We are the most capapble creatures on earth if your sole measure of capability is intelligence, but as I have said before, why do you limit yourself to one measure of utility, you wouldn't do that for a machine.

Overall capability is the key measure


You say we stand above that because we can alter our environment, and to some extent that is true but we still have to fight a daily battle against viral and bacterial diseases, we are still subject to selection pressure for which intelligence only goes some way to shelter us.

I wouldn't presume to lecture you about engineering, I really don't think that you should presume to lecture the biologists on this board about evolutionary theory it just comes across as arrogance, if you could debate more reasonably and admit error where it is obvious you might get along better and you could actually learn something

I can lecture who I want if it is apparent they are in error. To doubt humans are the most capable creatures on the planet is ludicrous. Certain creatures may be able to do more than us naturally, but our intelligence allows us to trump the natural abilities of any creature via engineering. So we are the king of the hill, whether you want to admit that or not

 

[Garnett]

I just had this bizarre image of a Creationist kid walking down the road, looking at some non-Literalist Christians - "Huh, I'm better than you", past some Muslims - "Huh, waaay better than you", and then a dog - "Huh, pur-lease!".

 

[Baggins]

But capable of what?

What are humans more capable of doing, living?

Can't you see it means nothing in biological terms.

All that matters is passing on your DNA and humans aren't very capable at that, they can only produce one offspring per litter and one litter every 9 months ( generally )

We are also destroying our own habitat, over consuming resources, and we have produced weapons that could wipe out every human on the face of the earth.

In biological terms we don't appear to be that succesful.

Do you see what I am saying?

Your definition of human caoability and complexity is worthless in a biological sense.

It may make perfect sense from an engineers point of few, but it has no utility from a biologists point of view.

From his point of view all extant life has equal utility because they are all the best fit at this time, for their niche.

We couldn't live in a dolphins niche they can't live in ours

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

I just had this bizarre image of a Creationist kid walking down the road, looking at some non-Literalist Christians - "Huh, I'm better than you", past some Muslims - "Huh, waaay better than you", and then a dog - "Huh, pur-lease!".

Which brings to my mind the guy who climbed into the cat cage and found out just how much better he was in that environment.

 

[pittguy579]

But capable of what?

Capable of complex activities and dominating in land, sea, or air

What are humans more capable of doing, living?

Creating

Can't you see it means nothing in biological terms.

Are you saying adaptability to any environment and problem solving capabilties, including shaping the environment to enable a species to not only survive but thrive do not play a role in terms of biology?

All that matters is passing on your DNA and humans aren't very capable at that, they can only produce one offspring per litter and one litter every 9 months ( generally )

If you think that is all that matters, that is fine
I am looking at the big picture

We are also destroying our own habitat, over consuming resources, and we have produced weapons that could wipe out every human on the face of the earth.

True, but I am sure we will have the ability to change course if necessary. Other creatures wouldn't even realize what they are doing.

In biological terms we don't appear to be that succesful.

In terms of making babies, maybe not. There are other creatures that can produce more, but greater numbers do not mean more advanced and more capable

Your definition of human caoability and complexity is worthless in a biological sense.

It's really not for the reasons I have stated above.

From his point of view all extant life has equal utility because they are all the best fit at this time, for their niche.

But not all life has the ability we have. We are the pinnacle of creation. No other creature before us had our ability. The only creature that will surpass us is a more capable human, if that is even possible.

We couldn't live in a dolphins niche they can't live in ours

We can travel/live on land/sea and travel in the air
Dolphins are stuck in the water

 

[Edx]

Humans are superior overall. That is unquestionable.

See, thats moving the goalposts.

Which human is more superior overall?

1. The paralysed guy in the wheelchair with a vast intellect?

2. The strongest, fastest and most athletic man in the world.

3. Or someone like Beethoven, the musical genius.

----


Cant you see that depending on what you specify, EACH of these people are superior the other in different ways.


----

Just like the above, a Hawk can see better than us. Its eyes are far more advanced than our species.

Jut like the above, a Cheetah can run much faster than any human. Its far more advanced in that respect.

The fact may be that humans are more intelligent than every other animal. But bacteria can survive an asteroid that will whipe us out. Humans cant even survive biologically without bacteria. Even with out technology, bacteria is definitely the toughest organism. So why do you say intelligence is the "best" measure? It certianly cant be survivability as bacteria win on ALL counts!