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

[AnEmpiricalAgnostic]

Paramecium are also at the top. All species who are still alive are at the top.

Precisely.

 

[Tomk80]

So humans have been on the planet the same amount of time as single celled organisms? I didn't know that. I must have missed that in my biology class.

It wasn't told, because it isn't true. But then again, that isn't what was said. What was said was this:

Bacteria, humans, bananas have all been evolving the same amount of time.

In other words, currently living bacteria are the result of some 3.5 billion years of evolution. Currently living humans are too, just as currently living chimps, lions, mice, ducks, crocodiles, salamanders, and Coelacanths. We have been evolving for the same amount of time as they have, only the selection pressures and direction has been different.

Fine, its a tree with humans on top.

No, it's not. The tree has all currently living creatures on top. What makes you decide humans are on top? What objective criteria do you use?

Maybe the right word isn't complex, but advanced
Either way it's still the same. Humans are more advanced than baceteria, dinosaurs, sloths, apes dogs, cats, goats, manatees, and even earthworms.

Are they? By what criteria. Sure, we have large brains, capable of complex thought processes. But our locomotion, eyes, ears etc etc all are horribly underdeveloped. Why favor one above the other? What is your standard objective measure of 'being advanced' or 'complex' and by what criteria do you use it?

 

[pittguy579]

In other words, currently living bacteria are the result of some 3.5 billion years of evolution. Currently living humans are too, just as currently living chimps, lions, mice, ducks, crocodiles, salamanders, and Coelacanths. We have been evolving for the same amount of time as they have, only the selection pressures and direction has been different.

How can something evolve if it didn't exist?
Humans haven't been around for 3.5 billion years

No, it's not. The tree has all currently living creatures on top. What makes you decide humans are on top? What objective criteria do you use?

I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.

Are they? By what criteria. Sure, we have large brains, capable of complex thought processes. But our locomotion, eyes, ears etc etc all are horribly underdeveloped. Why favor one above the other? What is your standard objective measure of 'being advanced' or 'complex' and by what criteria do you use it?

Because our intelligence enables us to be supreme without the best in locomotion, ears, eyes, etc
We are the king of the hill.

 

[Tomk80]

How can something evolve if it didn't exist?
Humans haven't been around for 3.5 billion years

Which currently living bacteria species has been around for 3.5 billion years?

I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.

Again, by what criteria? How can I tell which creature is more advanced if I don't know the criteria by which to judge that? The HIV-virus has a very high adaptablity, so much so that it can escape almost every cure we can throw at it. That's what I call advanced.

Because our intelligence enables us to be supreme without the best in locomotion, ears, eyes, etc
We are the king of the hill.

Nope, bacteria are. Really. They'll be around when we're long gone. We're only king of the hill in a very select part of the world, and only just.

 

[pittguy579]

]Which currently living bacteria species has been around for 3.5 billion years?

I was talking about bacteria in general

Again, by what criteria? How can I tell which creature is more advanced if I don't know the criteria by which to judge that? The HIV-virus has a very high adaptablity, so much so that it can escape almost every cure we can throw at it. That's what I call advanced.

Intelligence. We are talking about the animal kingdom

Nope, bacteria are. Really. They'll be around when we're long gone. We're only king of the hill in a very select part of the world, and only just.

Bacteria are not king of the animal kingdom and are not advanced by any measure.
They always said cockroaches would be the most likely candidate to survive a nuclear war
I hardly consider them to be advanced

 

[Elduran]

I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.

Put a human in a pit with an enraged bear and see how advanced we are. Put a human in the water with an angry shark, or race one against a dolphin. Try diving as low as a seal, or running as fast as a cheetah, or surviving on nothing but Eucalyptus...

All in all, we're only the best at one or two things, we just do well with those.

 

[pittguy579]

]Put a human in a pit with an enraged bear and see how advanced we are. Put a human in the water with an angry shark, or race one against a dolphin. Try diving as low as a seal, or running as fast as a cheetah, or surviving on nothing but Eucalyptus...

I never said we had the best physical traits, but we can use our intelligence to adapt to our environment

Put a human with gatling gun in a pit with a bear. who would win? Put a human on a boat with a harpoon against an angry shark or even a human with a net. Who would win.

 

[Split Rock]

How can something evolve if it didn't exist?
Humans haven't been around for 3.5 billion years

I think they mean that the lines resulting in other extant species are as old as that leading to humans.

I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.

You're logic is really the result of an elitist homo-centric attitude. We think humans are superior, because we are human. Just as every civilization on earth has thought is was "superior" to every other.

What species are more advanced than us? Plenty.

Mice and rabbits are superior because they have a superior reproductive rate and are excellent at adapting.

Roaches are superior to us in ability to survive. Ever try to exterminate them?

Eagles have far superior eyesight.

Whales have very large, complex brains like ours, but they are much better swimmers.

Because our intelligence enables us to be supreme without the best in locomotion, ears, eyes, etc
We are the king of the hill.

Why use only intelligence as as indicater of "superiority?" One other point... our intelligence may one day lead to our extinction. If that happens, those lowly insects, mice and rabbits will inherit the earth. Who will be superior then... hmmm?

 

[Split Rock]

I never said we had the best physical traits, but we can use our intelligence to adapt to our environment

Put a human with gatling gun in a pit with a bear. who would win? Put a human on a boat with a harpoon against an angry shark or even a human with a net. Who would win.

Put a human and a roach in a city and then nuke it. Who would win then?

 

[pittguy579]

]I think they mean that the lines resulting in other extant species are as old as that leading to humans.

You're logic is really the result of an elitist homo-centric attitude. We think humans are superior, because we are human. Just as every civilization on earth has thought is was "superior" to every other.

It is not elitist. It is the truth. Of course civlizations thought they were superior to one another but that is irrelelevant because they were all obviously comprised of humans

Mice and rabbits are superior because they have a superior reproductive rate and are excellent at adapting.

They are not superior than us overall. It is ludicrous to say so.

Roaches are superior to us in ability to survive. Ever try to exterminate them?

Once again, see above

Eagles have far superior eyesight.
Whales have very large, complex brains like ours, but they are much better swimmers.

See above

Why use only intelligence as as indicater of "superiority?" One other point... our intelligence may one day lead to our extinction. If that happens, those lowly insects, mice and rabbits will inherit the earth. Who will be superior then... hmmm?

Because intelligence allows us more flexibility than any other creature and enables us to do things which other creatures simply can't do.

 

[pittguy579]

Put a human and a roach in a city and then nuke it. Who would win then?

Heartiness does not equal greater complexity
Put a differential equation book or quantum mechanics book in front a roach
Which one actually comprehend it?

 

[Tomk80]

I was talking about bacteria in general

Which only shows how little you know of biology. You seem under the impression that a bacteria is a bacteria and that's all there's to it. But you're wrong. I mean, humans are just a kind of eukaryote, just as Deinococcus radiodurans is a kind of bacteria. Eukaryotes have been around for more than 3 billion years.

Intelligence. We are talking about the animal kingdom

Why choose that measure? Even when limiting it to the animal kingdom, why would that be the only measure that counts? What makes it a better measure of advancement or complexity than others?

And since when is this discussion only about the animal kingdom? Till now we've been discussing biology in general. You specificially stated to name any creature. Why suddenly shift the goalposts?

Bacteria are not king of the animal kingdom and are not advanced by any measure.
They always said cockroaches would be the most likely candidate to survive a nuclear war
I hardly consider them to be advanced

But you specifically stated to name any creature. And advanced or not, bacteria are definitely king of the world. They're more spread out then eukaryotes ever have been.

And why would you not consider cockroaches advanced? What makes you decide that? Why do you take intelligence as a measur of being advanced? Cockroaches are clearly more adaptable then humans, and their cells are just as complex (we're all eukaryotes).

 

[Tomk80]

I never said we had the best physical traits, but we can use our intelligence to adapt to our environment

Why use intelligence as a measure of advancement?

Put a human with gatling gun in a pit with a bear. who would win?

I'll put my money on the bear. But how many humans carry gatling guns around all day?

Put a human on a boat with a harpoon against an angry shark or even a human with a net. Who would win.

We're talking about just an average human against an average shark, right? The harpoon? I'll predict a draw. The net, my bet's on the shark.

 

[pittguy579]

[Which only shows how little you know of biology. You seem under the impression that a bacteria is a bacteria and that's all there's to it. But you're wrong. I mean, humans are just a kind of eukaryote, just as Deinococcus radiodurans is a kind of bacteria. Eukaryotes have been around for more than 3 billion years.

No, it shows how much you are trying to spin
Are you saying bacteria as a common definitiongeneral have not been around longer than humans? It is a yes or no question
The answer is obvious.

Why choose that measure? Even when limiting it to the animal kingdom, why would that be the only measure that counts? What makes it a better measure of advancement or complexity than others?

Because intelligence allows us to adapt to any enviroment and do complex tasks other creatures could not dream of

I want to see a cockroach or whale build nanomachines, supercomputers, cure diseases, and send people to the moon, create art, music, culture. Once you find out where that has happened, let me know

And since when is this discussion only about the animal kingdom? Till now we've been discussing biology in general. You specificially stated to name any creature. Why suddenly shift the goalposts?

No one is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing goalposts.
Hearitness does not equal complexity
If you want to say a bacteria is more intelligent than a human being, IQ wise, be my guest.

But you specifically stated to name any creature. And advanced or not, bacteria are definitely king of the world. They're more spread out then eukaryotes ever have been.

More numerous doesn't mean more advanced
I am sure there are more fish in the sea than there are humans. It doesn't mean fish are more advanced

And why would you not consider cockroaches advanced? What makes you decide that? Why do you take intelligence as a measur of being advanced? Cockroaches are clearly more adaptable then humans, and their cells are just as complex (we're all eukaryotes).

Because it is the best measure.

 

[Tomk80]

Heartiness does not equal greater complexity
Put a differential equation book or quantum mechanics book in front a roach
Which one actually comprehend it?

Put a human in the water and a dolphin in the water, who'll swim better? Again, why use intelligence as the measurement of advancement or complexity? What objective reason do you have for that?

 

[pittguy579]

]Why use intelligence as a measure of advancement?

Because it is the best measure and allows for adapability and tasks beyond any other creature

I'll put my money on the bear. But how many humans carry gatling guns around all day?

Fine, a human with an RPG and a bear
Bottom line is unencumbered and with our intelligence, we have dominion over all the animals

Put a bunch of hunters with guns in a forest. We could hunt the bear to extinction if we wanted to

We're talking about just an average human against an average shark, right? The harpoon? I'll predict a draw. The net, my bet's on the shark

Fine, a shark and a torpedo or a large naval gun

 

[pittguy579]

Put a human in the water and a dolphin in the water, who'll swim better? Again, why use intelligence as the measurement of advancement or complexity? What objective reason do you have for that?

Seriously, intelligence is lacking on this thread
That much is obvious

 

[Tomk80]

No, it shows how much you are trying to spin
Are you saying bacteria as a common definitiongeneral have not been around longer than humans? It is a yes or no question
The answer is obvious.

Yes, the answer is no. Bacteria as a common definition denotes nothing.

Because intelligence allows us to adapt to any enviroment and do complex tasks other creatures could not dream of

Like providing resistance to extreme amounts of radiation, heat or pesticides? Other creatures are king of the hill there. Even in places where humans cannot come with current technology, you'll find creatures.

I want to see a cockroach or whale build nanomachines, supercomputers, cure diseases, and send people to the moon, create art, music, culture. Once you find out where that has happened, let me know

And why is that a definite measure of advancement? Dolphins are much better swimmers then we are, even with our technology.

No one is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing goalposts.
Hearitness does not equal complexity
If you want to say a bacteria is more intelligent than a human being, IQ wise, be my guest.

I never claimed it was. I said that it wasn't necessarily more advanced, and that your measure of advanced sucks.

More numerous doesn't mean more advanced
I am sure there are more fish in the sea than there are humans. It doesn't mean fish are more advanced

I didn't state it did. My words actually mean something. When I say 'more advanced or not', I'm not telling you that bacteria are more advanced. It means I'm leaving that in the middle. I was saying that humans are not king of the hill, as a response to you stating they are.

Because it is the best measure.

Why?

 

[Tomk80]

Seriously, intelligence is lacking on this thread
That much is obvious

Yes, I know you can insult. Good boy.

 

[steen]

How many here vote that the creationist denial and shifting of the goal posts is childish?

I do, for one.