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

[Split Rock]

Time for me to sum things up and leave this thread in pieces.

According to Creation-Engineering:

1. An arch is irreducibly complex and can be created by nature, but that makes no difference to I.D. because it has no moving parts.

2. Evolution has obviously been directed toward increasing complexity over time, even though it hasn't always.

3. Intelligence is determined by "cognitive horsepower," which there is no way of measuring.

4. Capability is equivalent to Intelligence.

5. Intelligence is equivalent to Complexity.

6. Humans are the most "Capable" organisms, since we build particle accelerators and nuclear submarines.

7. Since Humans are the most capable, they are the most intelligent and therefore the most complex organisms on Earth.

8. Therefore I.D. is right and evolution is wrong.

9. If you don't understand this or disagree, you are learning disabled, stupid and illogical.

10. And that is the cutting edge of Creation-Engineering thought. Thank you, please drive through.

 

[Dannager]

Time for me to sum things up and leave this thread in pieces.

According to Creation-Engineering:

1. An arch is irreducibly complex and can be created by nature, but that makes no difference to I.D. because it has no moving parts.

2. Evolution has obviously been directed toward increasing complexity over time, even though it hasn't always.

3. Intelligence is determined by "cognitive horsepower," which there is no way of measuring.

4. Capability is equivalent to Intelligence.

5. Intelligence is equivalent to Complexity.

6. Humans are the most "Capable" organisms, since we build particle accelerators and nuclear submarines.

7. Since Humans are the most capable, they are the most intelligent and therefore the most complex organisms on Earth.

8. Therefore I.D. is right and evolution is wrong.

9. If you don't understand this or disagree, you are learning disabled, stupid and illogical.

10. And that is the cutting edge of Creation-Engineering thought. Thank you, please drive through.

I find this to be an accurate summary of the standpoint presented in this thread.

 

[Edx]

Yes it is an objective measure. To say so shows you lack intelligence. It is the best indicator of overall problem solving abilities for humans

So are all these people stupid as well right?


"The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of the intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable*, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured"
- Alfred Binet (French Psychologist)

"Defining intelligence is highly problematic. Is there an 'intelligence' that equips us to solve all kinds of problems and answer all questions, regardless of their nature? Or are there different intelligences that help us deal with particular problems and solutions? The scientific community is divided on the issue" [i]

Is IQ a good measure of intelligence?
Whether IQ tests actually test general intelligence, or g, is debatable. Many see IQ tests as an assessment of an individual’s problem solving ability rather than general intelligence. However, they are not even a comprehensive test of someone's problem solving ability. Although they may assess analytical and verbal aptitude well, they aren't an accurate test of creativity, practical knowledge, and other skills involved in problem solving. So how can IQ tests be seen as a measure of intelligence? Some argue that they just show how good the individual is at IQ tests!
BBC Science


"The problem is that the term intelligence has never been defined adequately and therefore nobody knows what an IQ test is supposed to measure. Already in the early 1920s the journalist Walter Lippmann maintained that IQ tests were nothing but a series of stunts. “We cannot measure intelligence when we have not defined it,” he said.

The definition of IQ, as is operationalized in all IQ tests, includes virtually no skills that can be identified in terms of the definitions of intelligence. ...Siegel also points out that IQ tests measure, for the most part, what a person has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing in the future (his potential)."

"Add to the definition problem the fact that IQ tests are not very reliable, and it is understandable why IQ tests have been the focus of criticism for many years. The scores may vary as much as 15 points from one test to another, while emotional tension, anxiety, and unfamiliarity with the testing process can greatly affect test performance. In addition, [Steven J] Gould described the biasing effect that tester attitudes, qualifications, and instructions can have on testing. "
IQ-test.learninginfo.org

"Unfortunately when trying to measure intelligence most childrens IQ tests only measure overall intelligence, they do not measure different types of intelligence. "
Kids IQ - How to increase your childs IQ

Which brings me to the point, how can an IQ test be completely objective test of "intelligence" if it can change from day to day or whether the person trained himself to do well in it?

And how are you supposed to use the IQ test to measure the overall complexity? You might be able to measure the overall intelligence of a human, but that sure isnt going to be giving you data to measure the overal "complexity" in relation all other life.

best in every way", really ended up having a lot of exceptions didnt it

.Not as far as overall ability to complete complex tasks and solve compelx problems

So we beat them on some points... but not on other things... therefore we cant be the best "in every way". Its not hard logic.

"In every way", means "in every way" . I know, its crazy but thats what the words mean!

So you admit there is no way to test animals complexity using your measure of IQ. Well done.

Show me the amount of progress animals have made in the various fields of science and show me the discoveries they have made.

Somehow you have compeltely missed the point. We arent testing animals intelligence against our own, Pitt.

We are trying to test the complexity of the organism in order to scientifically state we are the most complex overall life on earth. You stated intelligence is what we can measure, and IQ is the measurment, so okay.. we are waiting for you to show us how that will show us as the most complex overall creature. Thats the important word here.

You need a mathematical measure so you can say we have more "complexity" points than any other animals organs put together. Do that and then you can say we are objectively most complex overall.

you should be able to find some scientific measure to objectively state we are overall more complex.

Intelligence

That isnt a scientific measure. As I showed you, scientists cant even decide on how to objectively define intelligence, let alone come up with an objective mathematical measure.

Analytical and problem solving abilities is what cognitive horsepower is all about and composed of

So what is the objective measure?

Reproduction, survivability, evolutionary success and biological complexity are all capabilites of an organism. Its your problem if you think they dont count, apperently "best in every way", has a lot of exceptions

And I have said ability to reproduce doesn't mean greater complexity. We are better at complex tasks

You said we were better in every way, so this also includes all biological factors doesnt it.

More advanced, more complex and more capable in every way, sure doesnt mean what it sounds like does it!

Yes it does

So when you say "every way", you shouldnt have to ignore all the ways related to biology.

They rule as far as numerosity goes but that is about it

Which is all evolution cares about yes.

I will copy and paste what you ignored on my previous posts on this:

//
Survive, reproduce, adapt to changes in climate. They do that far better as a life form than we do. In evolutionary terms, nothing else matters.

//So we are more advanced than any other life form in terms of biology and abilities. We are more capable in terms of capabilities than any other life form...

...Even though we rely on bacteria in order to do do even the basic of process' of breaking down food. Even though we and other apes are unique in our inability to synthesize Vitamin C. Even though if we ever wanted to terraform another planet we would have to take bacteria with us, because they are most durable adaptable life form and only form of life capable of existing and changing the harshest environments to suit our picky and specific needs where the sighest change results in sickness and death.

If bacteria were sentient, it wouldnt care if we all died tomorrow. Its been around for 3 billion years and it will be around for lot longer. Life on earth requires bacteria in order to survive themselves, including us. We need bacteria, bacteria doesnt need us. We walk around thinking we are the rulers of this planet, but unseen and invisible bacteria are the true rulers and dominate this world, and is evolutions most successful design..

Bacteria rule the world, not humans.

"The most outstanding feature of life's history is that through 3.5 billion years this has remained, really, a bacterial planet. Most creatures are what they've always been: They're bacteria and they rule the world."
- Steven J Gould

 

[pittguy579]

So are all these people stupid as well right?

Which brings me to the point, how can an IQ test be completely objective test of "intelligence" if it can change from day to day or whether the person trained himself to do well in it?

IQ TEST is the BESTapproximation of intelligence. Of course there isn't going to be a perfect test, but IQ tests and other standardized tests are fairly accurate as far as providing a score for a person's overall analytical and problem solving abilities. And really, alot of those quotes are written for parents of dumb kids to make them feel better if their kid doesn't score well. Why do you think colleges, the military, and graduate schools all use tests which test for "G" the generalized intelligence? Because the tests are a good measure of an individual's brightness

And how are you supposed to use the IQ test to measure the overall complexity? You might be able to measure the overall intelligence of a human, but that sure isnt going to be giving you data to measure the overal "complexity" in relation all other life.

We have the highest intelligence and problem solving abilities of any other creature and can do more than any other creature hands down. Hence, we are the most complex and capable creature in the animal kingdom. I am not talking about reproducing or making babies, but as far "complex" activites go.

So we beat them on some points... but not on other things... therefore we cant be the best "in every way". Its not hard logic.

We are the best in EVERY WAY as far as overall abilities to complete complex tasks as I have said over and over again

"In every way", means "in every way" . I know, its crazy but thats what the words mean!

Every way in the way I am talking about. I clearly said I wasn't talking about reproduction, but overall ability to complete complex tasks and solve complex problems.

We are trying to test the complexity of the organism in order to scientifically state we are the most complex overall life on earth. You stated intelligence is what we can measure, and IQ is the measurment, so okay.. we are waiting for you to show us how that will show us as the most complex overall creature. Thats the important word here.

As I have said, show me another creature that has solved as many complex problems as we have and done as much.

You need a mathematical measure so you can say we have more "complexity" points than any other animals organs put together. Do that and then you can say we are objectively most complex overall.

Fine,let the number of scientific discoveries be an appoximation...

That isnt a scientific measure. As I showed you, scientists cant even decide on how to objectively define intelligence, let alone come up with an objective mathematical measure.

It is a scientific measure. Scientists don't believe intelligence testing is a perfect science, but they do believe standardized tests are the best approximation of intelligence.

You said we were better in every way, so this also includes all biological factors doesnt it.

Every way in the way I was talking about. I hardly call the reproduction of a single celled organism complex

"The most outstanding feature of life's history is that through 3.5 billion years this has remained, really, a bacterial planet. Most creatures are what they've always been: They're bacteria and they rule the world."

They do as far as numbers go, but not as far as more complex tasks

 

[Edx]

IQ TEST is the BESTapproximation of intelligence. Of course there isn't going to be a perfect test, but IQ tests and other standardized tests are fairly accurate as far as providing a score for a person's overall analytical and problem solving abilities.

You've sure changed your tune. Previously, IQ tests were an objective test for intelligence and anyone who disagreed with you is stupid and has learning difficulties. I suppose thats why that thicky Gould also didnt agree with them.

Why do you think colleges, the military, and graduate schools all use tests which test for "G" the generalized intelligence? Because the tests are a good measure of an individual's brightness

But it is not a biological measure, and that is the only measure we can use in comparison to other organisms. The point is to say that our brain has more complexity than than all other animals put together. That means you need a measure for complexity, and why IQ cant be that measure.

We have the highest intelligence and problem solving abilities of any other creature and can do more than any other creature hands down.

Heres how your definitions go.

Advanced equals complexity which equals capability. Complexity equals intelligence, which equals capability.

To you they all mean basically the same thing right?... just not biologically, thats not the most important criteria...

Hence, we are the most complex and capable creature in the animal kingdom.

No, my cat is the most complex and capable creature in the animal kingdom. No other cat is cuter or more capable of looking so cute. But its completly irreveant to this discussion though. As you pointed out this topic, ID, is about biology. Are you ready to discuss biology again?

I am not talking about reproducing or making babies, but as far "complex" activites go.

So lets recap:

We are the most advanved, complex and capable animal in every way... exept the biological ways.

Who cares Pitt?

We are the best in EVERY WAY as far as overall abilities to complete complex tasks as I have said over and over again

And as *I* have said over and over, this does not equate to "the most complex, most advanced and most capable". It isnt even relevant to this discussion! This discussion is about biology!

As I have said, show me another creature that has solved as many complex problems as we have and done as much.

Another strawman.

Dont you read my posts? I've said I think we are the most intelligent animal like how many times now?

You need a mathematical measure so you can say we have more "complexity" points than any other animals organs put together. Do that and then you can say we are objectively most complex overall.

Fine, let the number of scientific discoveries be an appoximation...

This is another measure of intelligence, not complexity. And because you didnt specify the human brain, you said "we are the most complex overall", you are going to have to find a way to scientically access that.

It is a scientific measure.

Yet you can test someone one day and get a completly different result the next day, all because the guy had a hang over or just learnt how to approach the test better. If you take a test before you know how they work I guarantee you'll score lower than the second time becuase the first time you wont know the logic of it. You can learn how to do better at IQ tests. Does that mean you are more intelligent or that you are a good learner? Therefore how can this really be a objective scientific measure of someones intelligence?

Put simply, if IQ tests were really an objective scientific measurment of someones intelligence, there would be no way to come back and fool the test into giving you a higher intelligence rating.

Scientists don't believe intelligence testing is a perfect science, but they do believe standardized tests are the best approximation of intelligence.

Again, you cant use IQ to test for overall complexity of an organism. Thats the point, remember?

Every way in the way I was talking about. I hardly call the reproduction of a single celled organism complex

Yea, so, we're not the best in "every way" at all then.

Jeez, its what we've been trying to get you accept for pages and pages.

And I didnt say anything about complexity, I was talking about capability! Can you honestly not keep up with the discussion?! How many times do I have to tell you, bacteria are the simplest life form, yet are the most capable. Why do you keep acting like I think otherwise?!

They do as far as numbers go, but not as far as more complex tasks

*sigh* once again, you ignore my post. Nevermind. I dont think I'll ever get you to accept that bacteria dominate us and rule over us in every possible way biologically. And dont say you werent talking about biology, Im talking about you constantly playing down the significance of bacteria on earth.

 

[Mocca]

What the fawking heck does intelligence tests have to do with IC systems?

 

[pittguy579]

You've sure changed your tune. Previously, IQ tests were an objective test for intelligence and anyone who disagreed with you is stupid and has learning difficulties. I suppose thats why that thicky Gould also didnt agree with them.

I didn't change my tune. You are now being disingenuous. IQ tests are a fairly accurate indicator of intelligence and problem solving abilities. They aren't perfect, but they are as perfect as we are going to get for an intangible but very real characteristic of intelligence

I still stand by by claim that anyone who disagrees that IQ test don't give an approximation of overall level of analyical problem solving abilities probably needs an IQ booster.

But it is not a biological measure, and that is the only measure we can use in comparison to other organisms. The point is to say that our brain has more complexity than than all other animals put together. That means you need a measure for complexity, and why IQ cant be that measure.

Intelligence is a measure and IQ is an approximation.
Even if you don't believe IQ is a valid measure, I have asked a repeated number of times for you to show me a creature that even comes close to our level our planning, analyticial, and problem solving skills and has accomplished anywhere near what we have accomplished. I hear crickets chirping

We are the most advanved, complex and capable animal in every way... exept the biological ways.

Unless you consider intelligence and problem solving abilities not to be biologicially based. I have said repeated times numerosity doesn't equal complexity. The only creature you have trotted out to beat us is bacteria which is quite ludicrous

This is another measure of intelligence, not complexity. And because you didnt specify the human brain, you said "we are the most complex overall", you are going to have to find a way to scientically access that.

No other creature has been able to do 1/1000 of what we have been able to accomplish in our "relatively" short period of time here on this earth.

Yet you can test someone one day and get a completly different result the next day, all because the guy had a hang over or just learnt how to approach the test better. If you take a test before you know how they work I guarantee you'll score lower than the second time becuase the first time you wont know the logic of it. You can learn how to do better at IQ tests. Does that mean you are more intelligent or that you are a good learner? Therefore how can this really be a objective scientific measure of someones intelligence?

Actually it has shown IQ can't be learned. People can only boost it by a few points by practicing. IQ scores remain within a certain range regardless of how many times you take it unless obviously you are taking the same exact test and learn the answers. But if the questions are changed, they don't deviate by more than a few points here and there, not enough to boost you into another level.

Put simply, if IQ tests were really an objective scientific measurment of someones intelligence, there would be no way to come back and fool the test into giving you a higher intelligence rating.

You really can't fool the test, not enough to move you into a higher bracket unless you are borderline on that bracket anyways. You are looking at a couple of points at the most. And for most practical applications, they won't let you retake the test more than once in a given period and any boost is erased in the waiting period.

Again, you cant use IQ to test for overall complexity of an organism. Thats the point, remember?

You can use intelligence and IQ is a good approximator of intelligence. It used throughout our society and government to separate out the bright from the not so bright and it is usually pretty accurate. Graduate schools use them for a reason. Students who score high are usually pretty bright. Rarely does a dumb kid luck out and score high and gain admission

And I didnt say anything about complexity, I was talking about capability! Can you honestly not keep up with the discussion?! How many times do I have to tell you, bacteria are the simplest life form, yet are the most capable. Why do you keep acting like I think otherwise?!

Most capable as far as numbers. Not most capable as far as ability to complete complex tasks and solve complex problems. That is what I have been saying

 

[Mocca]

Everyone, just shut up about IQ and intelligence tests.

This thread is about a common argument for IC. Talk about the argument, not some off-topic randomness.

 

[Mocca]

In order to get us back on track, I'd like to repost some material that went unreplied to.

Basically, I have three flaws I'd like to point out with the argument that IC systems cannot have evolved.

Ah, never mind, I like examples too much.

But think of New York City. New York is dependant on electricity. If you remove electricity, New York will not function correctly. All clear so far? Agree with me on this?

So, does this mean that New York has always been this way, with electricity and what-not ever since New York was created by God?

No. New York developed a dependancy on electricity after electricity was made. We got rid of most of our kerosene lamps. We got rid of using horses to drive stuff... you know? New York City developed its current dependancy on electricity.

Basically, IC is the same thing. Behe claims that in a system where the removal of any part results in failure, the system cannot have evolved. My example with New York and electricity also works for biological dependancies. Say, for example, a symbiotic relationship, where two populations depend on the other. Group A performs Function A for Group B, and Group B performs Function B for Group A. This seems like a catch-22 for evolution. However...

A simple scenario in which this dependancy could have evolved:

Group A performs Function A and Function B. Group B performs Function B and Function A. However, Group A performs Function A better than Group B does, and vice versa. So Group B performs Function B for Group A and vice versa. Eventually, Group A doesn't need to perform Function A as Group B already performs it, and vice versa.

Voila, dependancies.

Another thing that creationists forget is the fact that the function of a system can change. I don't remember the paper or the subject very well, but there was quite a bit of buzz about it: it was shown how a certain receptor and its hormone could evolve, or summat like that.

Basically, the receptor needs the hormone to have any function, and the hormone needs the receptor to have any function. Catch-22, can't have evolved, right? No, the paper has shown otherwise. Basically, a similar hormone which was used for something else had a small change, making it useful for the new receptor or summat like that. Sorry for not having details, but this is merely an example for my point: the function of a system can change.

And the last creationist fudge concerning IC is forgetting that parts can change. The argument for IC goes: "If you take any part away, the system doesn't work." But they forget that parts can change, and instead, in the trademark black-and-white style of thinking many famous creationists are known for, assume either a part exists or it doesn't. No change. They forget the: "If you change a part by a slight amount, the system still works." This shoots a huge hole in Behe's claim.

Alright, I tried not to use examples, as apparently you didn't like them. Good enough?

No. Every step in USIncognito's mouse-trap evolution would have a use. Not necessarily a use for catching mice, but a use for something, and as shown with biological examples, the function of systems can change.

Just as in biological systems (note the analogy), the function of a system can change, as shown in biological systems. So these "early mousetraps" didn't have to be used as mousetraps.

If IC didn't apply to all systems, as you put in Behe's mouth, then why do Behe and Dembski USE non-biological examples?

Why do Behe and Dembski apply IC to non-biological cases if IC is a solely biological concept?!

If it is so clear that Behe is referring to non-biological systems, then why does he apply IC to arrowheads and mousetraps himself?
I and others have said this so many times: Behe applies IC to non-biological cases himself. Why would he do this if "it is clear that he was referring to biological systems?"

I'll say it again, just for the emphasis: Why would Behe apply IC to non-biological cases such as mousetraps if "it is clear Behe was referring to biological examples?"

 

[Garnett]

Wow. Just thought I'd catch up on this thread and found I had about 200 posts to get through.

I agree with Mocca that this thread was taken well off course, which was a shame on one hand because the original idea was a good one and I was looking forward to a substantive Creationist reply to what appears to be a decent rebuttal of their IC concept.

On the other hand, however, this complexity debate has been quite interesting.

I'd like to see a separate thread started to discuss it, but I'm not sure I'm the one to start it since I've had so little imput here.

I have struggled to follow the logic sometimes (haven't we all? - must be because we lack one poster's complexity, er, I mean intelligence) but as I see it this thread, once sidetracked, went something like:

INTELLIGENT DESIGN ARGUMENT

(Obviously paraphrased - Can anyone correct any errors)

• Somethings are irreducibly complex (IC).
• An arch is not IC because it was formed by reduction, not addition (this is from inference because the posts are hard to decypher)
• Evolution is a process of addition - things undergoing evolution go from simple to more complex. *
• Intelligence is an appropriate measure of complexity in terms of the evolution of living things. (here)
• Humans are more advanced than any other living thing. (here)
• Humans are more capable than all other animals
• Capability equates to complexity.

I am tempted to challenge James/Pitguy to a formal debate, but I'm not sure I will have time. James/Pitguy do you have time for this?

I don't think I'm the right guy for the job though.

Perhaps we could start another thread to debate this less formally, but without the requirement to back anything up I fear it might resort to "I'm right, you're dumb, I rule." comments.

I would suggest the title of the debate be something along the lines of "Humans are more advanced than all other organisms".

And I'd want a definition for "advanced" pretty much straightaway.

*(I think this idea was introduced here which is an interesting post where James posts as Pitguy and uses his apples and oranges phrase)

Edx gets a prize for being first to guess correctly that Pitguy was another username being used by James.

And my favourite post:

I would glad to be on the same level as James. He appears to be smarter than most others on this board.

Awwwwww! Isn't that sweet? (Just so everyone can see what he actually sat and typed out? - )

 

[Edx]

You've sure changed your tune. Previously, IQ tests were an objective test for intelligence and anyone who disagreed with you is stupid and has learning difficulties. I suppose thats why that thicky Gould also didnt agree with them.

I didn't change my tune. You are now being disingenuous. IQ tests are a fairly accurate indicator of intelligence and problem solving abilities. They aren't perfect, but they are as perfect as we are going to get for an intangible but very real characteristic of intelligence

You said they were an objective measure and anyone that disagreed with you was stupid and had learning difficulties. Im not being disingenuous, thats just what you said.

I still stand by by claim that anyone who disagrees that IQ test don't give an approximation of overall level of analyical problem solving abilities probably needs an IQ booster.

I would love to argue more about intelligence and the validity of IQ to test it, but that would detract from the point. IQ tests cannot measure the overall compexity of an organism, not even in humans.

I have asked a repeated number of times for you to show me a creature that even comes close to our level our planning, analyticial, and problem solving skills and has accomplished anywhere near what we have accomplished. I hear crickets chirping

And I have told you repeatedly that that is a misrepresentation of my position. Humans I believe are the smartest animal. Humans I believe are the smartest animal. Humans I believe are the smartest animal. Got that? Can you stop arguing against what Im not saying now? How many times do I have to tell you that?

What I am saying that that the ability to measure intelligence cant give us a scientific objective measurement of the overall complexity of an organism.

To be intelligent the brain will necessarily have to be somewhat complex, but to measure "overall" complexity you also have to take all the other forms of complexity into account. Therefore to say humans are "overall" the most complex life form, you must have a mathematical measure so you can say humans have more of these "complexity points", otherwise you just cant state that is an objective fact.

(on a side note, you still couldnt state it is an objective fact anyway without demonstrating that it is the "best" measure of complexity. And that wil be subjective distinction, so in the end we are still back to the critera you specify. )

We are the most advanved, complex and capable animal in every way... exept the biological ways

Unless you consider intelligence and problem solving abilities not to be biologicially based.

Exactly! They are! Intelligence and problem solving abilities ARE biologicially based. But they only stem from the complexity of our BRAIN.

You said we are more complex than any other life form.

So this is the point. If you want to say "overall" then you need to come up with an objective measurement in order to say our brains intelligence is sufficiently and measurably more complex, that it outweighs all other animals complexities of their own organs. Intelligence cant be that measure because just because something isnt intelligent doesnt mean it isnt very complex, therefore, complexity doesnt equal intelligence.

I have said repeated times numerosity doesn't equal complexity.

And as I keep telling you, bacteria beat us in terms of capability, but not in terms if complexity. How many times do I have to tell you that? Whats so difficult to understand? Bacteria, simplest life, yet the most evolutionary capable organism. Got that? "best in every way" must take into consideration "every way", I know it sucks you said it but you did and biology is the entire point of this topic.

The only creature you have trotted out to beat us is bacteria which is quite ludicrous

Not in terms of complexity, in terms of capability. I know to you all these terms mean exactly the same thing but they dont and thats not how Im using them.

This is another measure of intelligence, not complexity. And because you didnt specify the human brain, you said "we are the most complex overall", you are going to have to find a way to scientically access that.

No other creature has been able to do 1/1000 of what we have been able to accomplish in our "relatively" short period of time here on this earth.

Accomplishments are a measure of the capability of an organism, but is not a measure of the complexity of an organism.

Bacteria are very good at survival and adapting to their environment, they've done it for over 3 billion years and this is still a bacterial planet today. Seeing as how humans have hardly even been around a million years, thats quite an accomplishment. But that doesnt mean their accomplishment means they are more complex, it indicates their capability of their form of life.

Actually it has shown IQ can't be learned. People can only boost it by a few points by practicing. IQ scores remain within a certain range regardless of how many times you take it unless obviously you are taking the same exact test and learn the answers. But if the questions are changed, they don't deviate by more than a few points here and there, not enough to boost you into another level.

If this were relevant I'd ask you what IQ test you are talking about, even those that agree that IQ tests are a good indicator of someones intelligence, they still arent that sure what it is actually testing. Many think there are different forms of intelligence.

Is a severely autistic child intelligent just because he can do mathematics instinctively, even though he hasnt got the abstract reasoning or logical abilities of someone that doesnt do well in mathematics? The answer is that there are clearly different forms of intelligence.

You can use intelligence and IQ is a good approximator of intelligence.

But intelligence doesnt equal complexity, and it cant test other forms of complexity. If you werent trying to prove we were most complex "overall" and "in every way", you wouldnt have these problems.

I hardly call the reproduction of a single celled organism complex

I didnt say anything about complexity, I was talking about capability! Can you honestly not keep up with the discussion?! How many times do I have to tell you, bacteria are the simplest life form, yet are the most capable. Why do you keep acting like I think otherwise?!

Most capable as far as numbers.

There you go again, constantly playing down the significance of bacteria in the planet.

'All they can do better than us is kill us, all they can do better is live on thermal vents, all they can do better is reproduce, all they can do better than us is survive a nuclear holocaust'....Aside from the added comedy value of remembering what you said about humans being "best in every way", why do you have to play down their significance and ignore what I said about them?

Not most capable as far as ability to complete complex tasks and solve complex problems. That is what I have been saying

Let me just ask you to clarify, your definition of "complex" is not biological is it?

 

[Edx]

What the fawking heck does intelligence tests have to do with IC systems?

Because Pitt says Intelligence is a objective scientific measurement of the complexity of an organism, and that the mathematial measurement of intelligence is IQ.

 

[pittguy579]

You said they were an objective measure and anyone that disagreed with you was stupid and had learning difficulties. Im not being disingenuous, thats just what you said.

Nope, that is not what I said. You are being disingenuous

I would love to argue more about intelligence and the validity of IQ to test it, but that would detract from the point. IQ tests cannot measure the overall compexity of an organism, not even in humans.

There is nothing really to argue with regards to the validity of the test.It is a valid test of mental acumen.
No, it's not perfect, but to say it doesn't measure anything or has no value is absolutely wrong.

And I am not in favor of giving dogs IQ test. And that is why I said we could use other means to assess the intelligence of organisms such as abillity to analyze and solve complex problems

And I have told you repeatedly that that is a misrepresentation of my position. Humans I believe are the smartest animal. Humans I believe are the smartest animal. Humans I believe are the smartest animal. Got that? Can you stop arguing against what Im not saying now? How many times do I have to tell you that?

Ok fine then. We agree. We have the most complex

What I am saying that that the ability to measure intelligence cant give us a scientific objective measurement of the overall complexity of an organism.

Yes it can because overall intelligence enables a creature to have a greater overall functionality than any other creature and allows a creature greater adapative potential than any other creature. Clearly we win on both of those measures. We are speaking of multicellular organisms, not organims such as bacteri

To be intelligent the brain will necessarily have to be somewhat complex, but to measure "overall" complexity you also have to take all the other forms of complexity into account. Therefore to say humans are "overall" the most complex life form, you must have a mathematical measure so you can say humans have more of these "complexity points", otherwise you just cant state that is an objective fact.

Overall ability to solve complex problems and adapt to multiple environments. That would be a valid measure. Intelligence is more malleable and therefore gives us greater ability as far as complex functions

Exactly! They are! Intelligence and problem solving abilities ARE biologicially based. But they only stem from the complexity of our BRAIN.

Which is the most functionally complex organism on the planet

So this is the point. If you want to say "overall" then you need to come up with an objective measurement in order to say our brains intelligence is sufficiently and measurably more complex, that it outweighs all other animals complexities of their own organs. Intelligence cant be that measure because just because something isnt intelligent doesnt mean it isnt very complex, therefore, complexity doesnt equal intelligence.

See above

And as I keep telling you, bacteria beat us in terms of capability, but not in terms if complexity. How many times do I have to tell you that? Whats so difficult to understand? Bacteria, simplest life, yet the most evolutionary capable organism. Got that? "best in every way" must take into consideration "every way", I know it sucks you said it but you did and biology is the entire point of this topic.

Best in every way functionally, which is what I have said all along. And you are comparing apples and oranges, multicelluar to single celled organisms Of course they are heartier. They are less complex and hence there is less "to break" It doesn't mean they are more complex, more functional, and have more overall capability.

Not in terms of complexity, in terms of capability. I know to you all these terms mean exactly the same thing but they dont and thats not how Im using them.

They do mean the same thing as far as my argument goes

Accomplishments are a measure of the capability of an organism, but is not a measure of the complexity of an organism.

Yes it is because complexity is measured in a wholistic approach. Evolution is all about functionality and adapation. Intelligence increases both of those areas

If this were relevant I'd ask you what IQ test you are talking about, even those that agree that IQ tests are a good indicator of someones intelligence, they still arent that sure what it is actually testing. Many think there are different forms of intelligence.

Many think evolution is a good theory. Many don't.
Bottom line is psychologists, my mother is one, believe the test is a valid psychometric measure of problem solving ability

Is a severely autistic child intelligent just because he can do mathematics instinctively, even though he hasnt got the abstract reasoning or logical abilities of someone that doesnt do well in mathematics? The answer is that there are clearly different forms of intelligence.

No, tests wouldn't be valid for someone with a disability, but usually they wouldn't be considered for such positions in which an IQ test would be necessary. You are using an extreme example. For persons without disabilities, an IQ test is a valid measure of overall analytical and problem solving skills.

But intelligence doesnt equal complexity, and it cant test other forms of complexity. If you werent trying to prove we were most complex "overall" and "in every way", you wouldnt have these problems.

Intelligence does equal complexity as far as functionality goes which is what I have been saying the other time. Creatures that have greater intelligence can solve problems better, figure out solutions etc. Just like in humans, someone with a low IQ probably can't solve problems very well and hence aren't as functional overall with someone with a High IQ

There you go again, constantly playing down the significance of bacteria in the planet.

No, in terms of this argument, they are irrelevant

 

[Mocca]

Okay. If you're going to contend that IQ is an objective measure of intelligence and intelligence is synonymous with complexity, go start a new thread.

But, anyway, in order to get us back on track, I'd like to repost some material that went unreplied to.

Basically, I have three flaws I'd like to point out with the argument that IC systems cannot have evolved.

Ah, never mind, I like examples too much.

But think of New York City. New York is dependant on electricity. If you remove electricity, New York will not function correctly. All clear so far? Agree with me on this?

So, does this mean that New York has always been this way, with electricity and what-not ever since New York was created by God?

No. New York developed a dependancy on electricity after electricity was made. We got rid of most of our kerosene lamps. We got rid of using horses to drive stuff... you know? New York City developed its current dependancy on electricity.

Basically, IC is the same thing. Behe claims that in a system where the removal of any part results in failure, the system cannot have evolved. My example with New York and electricity also works for biological dependancies. Say, for example, a symbiotic relationship, where two populations depend on the other. Group A performs Function A for Group B, and Group B performs Function B for Group A. This seems like a catch-22 for evolution. However...

A simple scenario in which this dependancy could have evolved:

Group A performs Function A and Function B. Group B performs Function B and Function A. However, Group A performs Function A better than Group B does, and vice versa. So Group B performs Function B for Group A and vice versa. Eventually, Group A doesn't need to perform Function A as Group B already performs it, and vice versa.

Voila, dependancies.

Another thing that creationists forget is the fact that the function of a system can change. I don't remember the paper or the subject very well, but there was quite a bit of buzz about it: it was shown how a certain receptor and its hormone could evolve, or summat like that.

Basically, the receptor needs the hormone to have any function, and the hormone needs the receptor to have any function. Catch-22, can't have evolved, right? No, the paper has shown otherwise. Basically, a similar hormone which was used for something else had a small change, making it useful for the new receptor or summat like that. Sorry for not having details, but this is merely an example for my point: the function of a system can change.

And the last creationist fudge concerning IC is forgetting that parts can change. The argument for IC goes: "If you take any part away, the system doesn't work." But they forget that parts can change, and instead, in the trademark black-and-white style of thinking many famous creationists are known for, assume either a part exists or it doesn't. No change. They forget the: "If you change a part by a slight amount, the system still works." This shoots a huge hole in Behe's claim.

Alright, I tried not to use examples, as apparently you didn't like them. Good enough?

No. Every step in USIncognito's mouse-trap evolution would have a use. Not necessarily a use for catching mice, but a use for something, and as shown with biological examples, the function of systems can change.

Just as in biological systems (note the analogy), the function of a system can change, as shown in biological systems. So these "early mousetraps" didn't have to be used as mousetraps.

If IC didn't apply to all systems, as you put in Behe's mouth, then why do Behe and Dembski USE non-biological examples?

Why do Behe and Dembski apply IC to non-biological cases if IC is a solely biological concept?!

If it is so clear that Behe is referring to non-biological systems, then why does he apply IC to arrowheads and mousetraps himself?
I and others have said this so many times: Behe applies IC to non-biological cases himself. Why would he do this if "it is clear that he was referring to biological systems?"

I'll say it again, just for the emphasis: Why would Behe apply IC to non-biological cases such as mousetraps if "it is clear Behe was referring to biological examples?"