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

[Tomk80]

During all this back and forth about complex/capable, have we at nay point been given a new definition of Irreducible Complexity?

For instance, one that excludes the arch, but is still usable for recognising ID?

Yes. The old definition was any structure that cannot function if part of it is removed.

The new definition is any structure that cannot function if part of it is removed of which no other way of arriving at irreducible complexity is known. In other words, the new definition of IC means that any IC-structure, be it biological or non-biological, that has been shown to be able to be arrived at through small successive steps is by definition not IC.

 

[jwu]

I'm not sure what the numbers mean, but the M.H. stands for "Mod Hatted" and it means some moderation action has taken place in the thread.

The numbers are probably the page at which the moderator's intervention happened, it seems to be a note to the other mods which tells them up to where the thread has been cleansed, so they don't waste time reading dozens of pages which already have been processed.

 

[Edx]

I guess Pittguy has finished with this thread or something.

 

[pittguy579]

]No we dont agree. We are not the most advanced creature that has ever existed

Yes we are.

biologically speaking only our brains our the most advanced.

And it is so far advanced it puts us on a whole other level

Are we the most complex?

Yes, and Gould agrees

No. Are we the most capable? No.

In terms of overall capabilities, yes

You say again, complex = capable. No. It doesnt. There is no such thing as a "functional" definition of capable, thats just your opinion that the criteria you have specified is "functional". The only real meaningfull definition is biological. What is this topic about Pitt? Its about ID, and what did you say ID is about? Thats right, biology.

No, there is a common definition and we are certainly the most capable and it is because of biology we have more capablitity than any other creature
I am not talking about reproduction. I am talking about overall abilities to perform complex tasks.

 

[Baggins]

Quote

]No we dont agree. We are not the most advanced creature that has ever existed

Yes we are.


No we're not


Yes we are
'
No we're not

yes we are

no we're not

 

[Baggins]

I am not talking about reproduction. I am talking about overall abilities to perform complex tasks.

well in that case you are not talking about biological capability and this is a thread about biology and the theory of evolution.

Your point of view has been trashed a number of times, and back you come not with new evidence or arguments, but with T'is t'isnt t'is t'isnt.

It seems you are incapable of not having the last word.

 

[pittguy579]

]well in that case you are not talking about biological capability and this is a thread about biology and the theory of evolution.

I am talking about overall ability we are at the top

Your point of view has been trashed a number of times, and back you come not with new evidence or arguments, but with T'is t'isnt t'is t'isnt.

Nope, your point of view has been trashed repeatedly
Anyone who thinks humans are not the most complex creature overall on the planet lacks logic

 

[Edx]

Yes we are.

Oh wow really? Just disagreeing with me is not an argument, but you keep doing it as if its smart.

And it is so far advanced it puts us on a whole other level

Only our brains are more advanced, other animals can beat us in practically every other way, biologically.

All our inventions come from that one organ, our brains, and just serve to make us more capable despite our other failings.

1 -- So we are not more complex in every way than other creatures. Only our brains are. 2 -- And we are only more capable than most other organism, because of our brain. 3 -- And despite being the simplest form of life bacteria is still more capable a life form than we are.

Yes, and Gould agrees

No he doesnt, he said we beat bacteria, fish and trilobites. Big deal. And even if he really did say we are the most complex he still recognises that biological complexity doesnt make you the most capable life form as he says directly after the section you quoted about how bacteria still rule this planet (NOT US) just as they have for done for over 3 billion years. You quote mine very badly.

In terms of overall capabilities, yes

And irrelevant to biology.

No, there is a common definition and we are certainly the most capable and it is because of biology we have more capablitity than any other creature

It is because of our brains that make us more capable than MOST other animals. But bacteria is still the more capable life form even with our technology.

I am not talking about reproduction. I am talking about overall abilities to perform complex tasks.

Which is irrelevant to biology, which is the subejct. Rememeber what you said about ID being about biology?

You cant say we are the most biologically complex organism, so therefore we are the most capable using a non biological definition of capable! You arent comparing like for like.

I am talking about overall ability we are at the top

Again, this is irrelevant! Just like Gould says, bacteria are on top. Why else does he say this planet is a bacterial planet and that they rule?

Anyone who thinks humans are not the most complex creature overall on the planet lacks logic

"Overall" is a subjective term.

 

[jwu]

I am talking about overall ability we are at the top

Which is as irrelevant to biology as humans being the best poker players is.

 

[pittguy579]

Which is as irrelevant to biology as humans being the best poker players is.

No, its not.

 

[Edx]

No, its not.

Good reason.

 

[pittguy579]

Oh wow really? Just disagreeing with me is not an argument, but you keep doing it as if its smart.

It is smart

Only our brains are more advanced, other animals can beat us in practically every other way, biologically.

And any shortcomings we have as far as physical abilities, running, seeing, can be rectified via our intelligence and use of technology. So we beat them biologically, via intelligence.

1 -- So we are not more complex in every way than other creatures. Only our brains are.

We are more complex overall

2 -- And we are only more capable than most other organism, because of our brain.

We are the MOST CAPABLE out of all other organisms
in terms of overall capabilities

3 -- And despite being the simplest form of life bacteria is still more capable a life form than we are.

Not in the terms I am talking about

No he doesnt, he said we beat bacteria, fish and trilobites. Big deal. And even if he really did say we are the most complex he still recognises that biologoical complexity doesnt make you the most capable life form as he says directly after the section you quoted about how bacteria still rule this planet (NOT US) just as they have for done for over 3 billion years. You quote mine very badly.

I don't quote mine. He is using different definition of capable. I am talking about overall abilities. He does say we are the MOST COMPLEX. We are numero uno

It is because of our brains that make us more capable than MOST other animals. But bacteria is still the more capable life form even with our technology.

Biologically yes, but not in terms of overall capability
To say so is laughable

Which is irrelevant to biology, which is the subejct. Rememeber what you said about ID being about biology?

it is relevant to biology as I have said befiore

You cant say we are the most biologically complex organism,

I have said it and its true, It is indisputable

 

[Baggins]

I
Anyone who thinks humans are not the most complex creature overall on the planet lacks logic

You still haven't defined complex except in a circular argument with capable.

I think humans, other than their brain, are rather simple creatures.

A platypus has fur secreates milk through its skin can make poison ( the only mammal that does, and inject it via leg spurs, lays eggs, has a unique sensitive bill.

That seem rather more complex than a simple biped with a big head.

Yet all you will post when you read this is that we are more complex because we have a big brain and can do stuff.

A lot of this thread seems to have sailed right over your head because you insist on thinking like an engineer while talking about biology.

But carry on we all enjoy a bit of a chuckle now and again, and while your arguments may not be up to much they have the saving grace of being amusing.

 

[Baggins]

No, its not.

yes it is

 

[jwu]

No, its not.

Then please explain how the total number of capabilities is relevant to biology, instead of a small number of key capabilities.

 

[pittguy579]

You still haven't defined complex except in a circular argument with capable.

It is not circular. It is apparent. Greater ability equals more compelx

A platypus has fur secreates milk through its skin can make poison ( the only mammal that does, and inject it via leg spurs, lays eggs, has a unique sensitive bill.

That's great, but it still doesn't mean they are more complex than we. We don't need to have those kind of features because of our intelligence. And I like boobs better.

That seem rather more complex than a simple biped with a big head.

That can do more than any other creature on the planet

Yet all you will post when you read this is that we are more complex because we have a big brain and can do stuff.

Well yes, that is true, because we are the most capable creatures on the planet as far as completing complex tasks and being able to adapt and shape the environment

A lot of this thread seems to have sailed right over your head because you insist on thinking like an engineer while talking about biology.

Alot of this thread has sailed over your head because you lack logic

But carry on we all enjoy a bit of a chuckle now and again, and while your arguments may not be up to much they have the saving grace of being amusing.

Well your arguments have the value of the dog poop in my back yard. a first grade could destroy you in a debate

Carry on. Your lack of logic is apparent with eah additional post

 

[jwu]

It is not circular. It is apparent. Greater ability equals more compelx

So a great number of abilities equals a great complexity?

A swiss army knife has more different abilities than a particle accellerator, yet it's quite clearly less complex.

 

[Edx]

It is smart

Is it smart if I do that too, or only if you do it?

And any shortcomings we have as far as physical abilities, running, seeing, can be rectified via our intelligence and use of technology. So we beat them biologically, via intelligence.

No, we dont beat them biologically. Again, all technology comes from our brains. Thats the only organ that is more complex. Our technology only makes us more capable, not more complex.

We are more complex overall

As I said in my other reply you are apparently going to ignore...

"If you want to say that our brains are measurably more complex than all other animals in every way, in order to say we have more "complexity" points or something, go ahead. But you need to come up with a scientific way of determining that or you cant objectively state that is the case, and to do so anyway would just be stating an unsupported opinion."

We are the MOST CAPABLE out of all other organisms in terms of overall capabilities

We are one of the most capable becuase of our brains, but our intelligence and technology still cant stop us being dominated by bacteria. This is a bacterial planet, bacteria rule, just as Gould said.

Not in the terms I am talking about

The irrelevant terms, yes I know.

I don't quote mine. He is using different definition of capable. I am talking about overall abilities. He does say we are the MOST COMPLEX. We are numero uno

Of course you quote mined. You said Gould agrees with you that we are the most complex organism in every single way. But all he said was we were more complex than bacteria", "jellyfish...", "a trilobite.."..fish".

But even if we take that leap and assume he really did mean that we are more complex in every way, he still says directly after that that bacteria have ruled this planet for 3 billion years and still rule today, not us.

See, if you arent talking in terms of biological complexity, then you cant say Gould backs you up becuase he IS talking in terms of biological complexity. Its why your argument that complexity = more capable just doesnt follow.

Biologically yes, but not in terms of overall capability To say so is laughable

Even using your definition of "overall capability", it doesnt automatically mean we are the most complex organisms anyway, unless your definition of complex is also non biological. In which case your claim that we are the most advanced is completly irrelevant to this discussion on BIOLOGY.

I have said it and its true, It is indisputable

So what you're like God now, you dont have to back up the things you say? "yes it is" "It is indisputable""To say so is laughable" are not arguments.

And you missed this before, maybe you can address them this time:

I am talking about overall ability we are at the top

Overall ability is irrelevant. And just like Gould says, bacteria are on top. Why else does he say this planet is a bacterial planet and that they rule?

Anyone who thinks humans are not the most complex creature overall on the planet lacks logic

"Overall" is a subjective term.

 

[Tomk80]

It is not circular. It is apparent. Greater ability equals more compelx

Nope. I can build very complex machines that do not have any capability at all. I can make a computer program that calculates that 1 + 3 = 4 in a very complex way. It's redundant complexity, but it's still more complex. More complex =/= more capable.

That's great, but it still doesn't mean they are more complex than we. We don't need to have those kind of features because of our intelligence. And I like boobs better.

But that doesn't mean that those features are not more complex. There is a difference between a needing something, being capable of something, being more or less complex and being more or less advanced. You continue to mix up a lot of terms that do not denote the same thing.

That can do more than any other creature on the planet

Which doesn't necessarily mean it is more complex.

Well yes, that is true, because we are the most capable creatures on the planet as far as completing complex tasks and being able to adapt and shape the environment

Complex tasks, yes. Adapt to our environment and shape it to our needs? I'd say bacteria (as a single group, since you said they were) beat us at every corner.

Alot of this thread has sailed over your head because you lack logic

Redundant personal remark #1

Well your arguments have the value of the dog poop in my back yard. a first grade could destroy you in a debate

Redundant personal remark #2

Carry on. Your lack of logic is apparent with eah additional post

Redundant personal remark #3

 

[pittguy579]

]Nope. I can build very complex machines that do not have any capability at all. I can make a computer program that calculates that 1 + 3 = 4 in a very complex way. It's redundant complexity, but it's still more complex. More complex =/= more capable.

We are both

But that doesn't mean that those features are not more complex. There is a difference between a needing something, being capable of something, being more or less complex and being more or less advanced. You continue to mix up a lot of terms that do not denote the same thing.

Nothing is mixed up. It is clear we have more overall ability than any other creature. Any sense or ability that we lack physically can be made up for via intelligence and our intelligence allows us to build machines that surpass anything in the natural world and and actually put us ahead of them
Which doesn't necessarily mean it is more complex.

Complex tasks, yes. Adapt to our environment and shape it to our needs? I'd say bacteria (as a single group, since you said they were) beat us at every corner.

I disagree.