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

pittguy579 · Jun 16, 2006

Split Rock said:
Bingo!

We have a winner!!

I know. It was a great post and shows how pointless it is to do an intraspecies comparison when this whole thread has been about interspecies comparison
I am glad you agree

Edx · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
AND once again, you are comparing intraspecies which is pointless.

No Im not, Im showing why you why....

More advanced in every way",

and

"more advanced overall".

Are not the same thing.

Each car is capable of the same thing, traveling on land on 4 wheels. We are comparing different species. So it's different DUH

How about comparing a plane and a car? How about a motorbike and a car?

A plane is more superior to a car in the air

A car is more superior to a plane on a road

A bike is superior to a car when navigating traffic.

OdwinOddball · Jun 16, 2006

Edx said:
No Im not, Im showing why you why....

More advanced in every way",

and

"more advanced overall".

Are not the same thing.

How about comparing a plane and a car? How about a motorbike and a car?

A plane is more superior to a car in the air

A car is more superior to a plane on a road

A bike is superior to a car when navigating traffic.

How about comparing an apple and an orange? Thats a pretty popular one round these parts.

Split Rock · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
I know. It was a great post and shows how pointless it is to do an intraspecies comparison when this whole thread has been about interspecies comparison
I am glad you agree

Have you been taking lessons from JohnR7?

You really have no understanding of what an analogy is, do you?

pittguy579 · Jun 16, 2006

No Im not, Im showing why you why....

More advanced in every way",

and

"more advanced overall".

Are not the same thing.

We are both

How about comparing a plane and a car? How about a motorbike and a car?

A plane is more superior to a car in the air

A car is more superior to a plane on a road

A bike is superior to a car when navigating traffic

Yes, but we are doing species comparisons
You are trying to compare things humans invented to adapt to the environment to other things humans invented to adapt to the environment. Still, an apples to apples comparison

Each is a mode of travel. Each has different characterisitics, but each is still a mode of travel.

Baggins · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
And quanity doesn't equal quality

How do you measure quality in offspring.

It shows, if more proof was needed, that you don't know what you are talking about.

The only measure of quality in offspring that I can think of is survivability.

Who has more suviving offspring a rabbit or a human, a bacteria or a rabbit.

You really need to take a few basic biology courses

Adaptability comes from mutation, the more offspring the more mutation.

So perhaps quality and quantity go hand in hand.

After all if a virus comes along that has the ability to wipe out the human race you'd want quantity of offspring becaus ethat way would lie a better chance of having a mutation which would give immunity, so quantity would lead to quality.

Do you understand?

Edx · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
We are both

No saying something is the best overall doesnt mean it is the best in everything.

Its like saying in an exam, I passed in every way VS, I passed overall.

Its liek saying in the olympics, I came first in most activities VS, I came first in alll. Can you really not see the difference?

Yes, but we are doing species comparisons

So before I was wrong to use cars as a comparison becuase they all travelled on the road and had 4 wheels. Now Im still wrong to compare any forms of transport? This is what is called moving the goalposts.

You are trying to compare things humans invented to adapt to the environment to other things humans invented to adapt to the environment. Still, an apples to apples comparison

No Im not. Im trying to show you that 3 forms of transport, like a plane, boat and a car... or, humans, bacteria, dolphins... are superior to each other in different ways.

Each is a mode of travel. Each has different characterisitics, but each is still a mode of travel.

Bacteria, dolphins and humans are still forms of life. Each has different characteristics, but each is still a form of life.

JohnR7 · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
Each car is capable of the same thing, traveling on land on 4 wheels.

Some are more cost effective. Some carry more weight or cargo than others. Also some last longer and need less repairs. It depends on what you want to pay and it depends on the driving conditions: mountains, desert, country, city and so forth.

KAG · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
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

That's obviously untrue. Humns unlike bacteria, can't adapt to hostile environments like thermal vents, and IIRC, volcanoes. Also, adapting to an environment, would mean the organism in question can not only survive in that environment, but dwells in that environment. Humans as far as I know, can only temporarily (and I mean very temporarily) survive in niches other organisms effortlessly dwell.

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

I may have missed it, but what criteria for complexity are you using?

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

Could you explicitly expand on what you mean by "capable

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

Most humans don't know there's a problem to solve too, until it's too late.

And quanity doesn't equal quality

Sometimes though, quantity can out-maneuver, and overwhelm quality.

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

In my opinion we are the most intelligent organisms in existence right now, but that's about it (not that intelligence is anything to be sniffed at).

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

No actually we can't. We can emulate some things, some species can do, inefficiently and with less grace (imo).

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

No we can't adapt to all environments, and dolphins don't need to adapt to "all" environments.

JohnR7 · Jun 16, 2006

Baggins said:
How do you measure quality in offspring.

You measure it in how well they are going to take care of you in your old age.

pittguy579 · Jun 16, 2006

How do you measure quality in offspring.

Overall capabilities. Clearly we are superior to every creature.

It shows, if more proof was needed, that you don't know what you are talking about.

No, it shows I do know what I am talking about
Numbers don't equal quality

The only measure of quality in offspring that I can think of is survivability.

I can think of many others as I have indicated

Who has more suviving offspring a rabbit or a human, a bacteria or a rabbit.

Whose offspring has more overall ability?
Can a rabbit solve complex problems? Can a rabbit build a craft to fly to other worlds? Can a rabbit or bacteria study quantum physics and the origins of the universe?

You really need to take a few basic biology courses

You really need to take some courses in logic

Adaptability comes from mutation, the more offspring the more mutation.

Intelligence can trump natural selection by allowing us to resolve environmental pressures that other creatures can't. Regardless, we are more complex in a vast number of ways even if we don't "mutate" faster

After all if a virus comes along that has the ability to wipe out the human race you'd want quantity of offspring becaus ethat way would lie a better chance of having a mutation which would give immunity, so quantity would lead to quality.

Or we could use our intelligence solve it via immunization and hence it won't wipe us out which is more efficient than allowing members of a species to die out

Goatboy · Jun 16, 2006

Split Rock said:
How about we all get back to Irreducible Complexity, or has that topic basically been exhausted?

Well it all went a bit -pfffft, after post #1 went and demonstrated that it obviously can occur without ID being involved.

It picked up a bit with the James trying to claim the analogy as invalid. But we've had several other analogies (which map, one to one, with the ID movements analogies) and one actual example.

So yeah IC is dead.

Now we're trying to get some common terminology sorted out so we can try and understand the reason (if any) some pittguy won't accept all this.

I'm still up for a continuing autopsy of IC. But I can't think of much to add (it's hard trying to find any real meat to the other sides concepts).

Edx · Jun 16, 2006

JohnR7 said:
You measure it in how well they are going to take care of you in your old age.

Only on a personal level, not biologically.

Edx · Jun 16, 2006

------------

steen · Jun 16, 2006

Goatboy said:
Now we're trying to get some common terminology sorted out so we can try and understand the reason (if any) some pittguy won't accept all this.

Because he doesn't want to. Because evidence matters little to those who argue per sophistry for faith regardless of facts. It is utterly pointless to try to present evidence to a sophist.

Can we start ignoring childish posts and focus on substance, please.

pittguy579 · Jun 16, 2006

steen said:
. It is utterly pointless to try to present evidence to a sophist.

Can.

It is pointless to use logic to those who are illogicial

Tomk80 · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
So carry on your untenable position that humans aren't the most complex and most capable creatures on the planet

Now you're back to most complex, while the discussion was on most advanced. Complexity is not synonymous with advancement, just as bigger and stronger is not synonymous with more advanced and more evolved (whatever that would be) is not synonymous with more complex or more advanced. Stop mixing up terms.

pittguy579 · Jun 16, 2006

Tomk80 said:
Now you're back to most complex, while the discussion was on most advanced. Complexity is not synonymous with advancement, just as bigger and stronger is not synonymous with more advanced and more evolved (whatever that would be) is not synonymous with more complex or more advanced. Stop mixing up terms.

Well fine, whatever term you want to use
We rule and have more overall ability than any other creature on earth End of story

Tomk80 · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
Well fine, whatever term you want to use
We rule and have more overall ability than any other creature on earth End of story

You do at least realize that different terms have different meanings, do you?

Edx · Jun 16, 2006

pittguy579 said:
We rule and have more overall ability than any other creature on earth End of story

See, now you need to define what "we rule" means. Can bacteria destroy us without destroying itself? Yes. Can we destroy all bacteria without destroying ourselves? No. So how can you say we rule over bacteria?

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

pittguy579

Guest

Senior Veteran

Atheist Water Fowl

Conflation of Blathers

pittguy579

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

~ Blessed Be

Well-Known Member

pittguy579

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Lie Detector

pittguy579

Guest

Titleless

pittguy579

Guest

Titleless

Senior Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency