• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

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

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Garnett said:
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.

Pittguy has been making them up as he goes along. "More advanced in every way", has now become "more advanced overall".
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
pittguy579 said:
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?

Are you saying that bacteria arent better at this than we are??
 
Upvote 0
P

pittguy579

Guest
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.

We are comparing species overall. No one is moving goalposts. Intraspecies comparisons are pointless, especially in terms of human, because the survival of each of them is not dependent on their capabilities.


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

I agree, but the comparison is pointless in terms of our discussion.


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

Yes, but we can build machines that enable us to see many thousands of times better than a hawk


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

But our intelligence allows us to build machines that can travel on land many times faster and farther than a cheetah.

The fact may be that humans are more intelligent than every other animal. But bacteria can survive an asteroid that will whipe us out

Heartiness doesn't equal overall capablities
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
pittguy579 said:
And you don't understand those two meanings are interchangeable for all intents and purposes.
We are both

This is what you are doing...

Honda brings out a new car that runs on water, claims its "more advanced in every way".

Then someone responds, "actually theres a car from Ford has a better sound system, theres a car from Jaguar can go 0-60 in 3 seconds, and theres even one called "SkyCar" which can FLY!!"

Honda reply, well, yes... but our car is more advanced in the BEST way! Its the most advanced OVERALL!

No, they arent the same thing.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
pittguy579 said:
And survivability doesn't equal more complex in terms of capabilities

Yet according to you the T-Rex was less superior to us becuase they died out, and we are still around. So why are you allowed to equate survability to success but we arent?

And what will our technology matter if we all die from an asteroid?
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
And you never answered the question:

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.

---
Dont dodge it like before. Just say 1, 2 or 3.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
pittguy579 said:
Capable of complex activities and dominating in land, sea, or air

But in biological terms that is utterly pointless, it doesn't help you procreate


The only thing worth creating, biologically, are offspring

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?
No, I'm saying they aren't as important as you think and they don't make humans better organisms than a bacteria or a fish


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

You are looking at the human picture. But that is understandable as you are ( probably ) a human and you aren't a biologist.


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.

Doesn't make them less adapted than we are


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

If you define capability as spreading your DNA it does, and what is life here for, it's not here to build submarines, it's here to pass on its DNA to the greatest number of offspring.



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 are the pinnacle of creation in human terms, but we are just another extant species that has to adapt to survive.


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

It doesn't matter, we are here to reproduce and building airplanes won't help you do that ( unless you have a weird fetish ).

We can't live and reproduce in the dolphins niche and they can't in ours. In biological terms we are both succesful species well adapted to our environments.

Nature or our own caprice will decide which is the more succesful in absolute terms.
 
Upvote 0
P

pittguy579

Guest
But in biological terms that is utterly pointless, it doesn't help you procreate

It just illustrates that we can adapt and dominate in any environment. It can help the species survive by allowing transportation of food, medicine and evacuating people out of dangerous areas

The only thing worth creating, biologically, are offspring

Once again you are equating raw numbers to complexity which is a fallacy

No, I'm saying they aren't as important as you think and they don't make humans better organisms than a bacteria or a fish

They are as important as I think. Humans are qualititaively more capable than any other creature. Than is indisputable



You are looking at the human picture. But that is understandable as you are ( probably ) a human and you aren't a biologist.


I am looking at the overall picture.

Doesn't make them less adapted than we are

Makes us more able to adapt i.e. long term planning and problem solving. Other creatures don't even know there is a problem to solve until it's too late


If you define capability as spreading your DNA it does, and what is life here for, it's not here to build submarines, it's here to pass on its DNA to the greatest number of offspring.

And quanity doesn't equal quality

We are the pinnacle of creation in human terms, but we are just another extant species that has to adapt to survive.

We are the pinnacle in any qualititivative term as far as capabilities

It doesn't matter, we are here to reproduce and building airplanes won't help you do that ( unless you have a weird fetish ).

It does matter. Dolphins don't have
You know you are cooked in terms of arguing capabilities. That has been proven. Now you are arguing" numbers"

So fine, other species can produce more offpsring, but we can do anything any other species can do naturally and do it hundreds of times better and are capable of feats not even fathomable by even our closest hominid relatives let alone dolphins or bacteria

I will be happy with that



We can't live and reproduce in the dolphins niche and they can't in ours. In biological terms we are both succesful species well adapted to our environments.

And we can adapt to all environments, something a dolphin cannot do
 
Upvote 0
P

pittguy579

Guest

AND once again, you are comparing intraspecies which is pointless. Each car is capable of the same thing, traveling on land on 4 wheels. We are comparing different species. So it's different DUH
 
Upvote 0
P

pittguy579

Guest

No one dodged it. It is a POINTLESS and IRRELEVANT comparison. We are comparing apples to apples in that comparison. It's like saying what apple do you like better , a red one or a yellow one. Basically are the same thing and the differences are merely subjective for all intents and purposes.

I addressed the pointless nature of the comparison already.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
pittguy579 said:
Once again you are equating raw numbers to complexity which is a fallacy


They are as important as I think. Humans are qualititaively more capable than any other creature. Than is indisputable
Once again you are equating capability with complexity which is a fallacy.

I think this discussion has gone way off course... How does this any of this fit in with Irreducible Complexity?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Bingo!

We have a winner!!
 
Upvote 0