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

[Edx]

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".

 

[Edx]

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??

 

[pittguy579]

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

 

[pittguy579]

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

Yes, that is clear.
This is getting ridiculous. I am getting dumber by the moment reading these posts where people are trying to say bacteria are more complex creatures than humans in terms of capabablities
I have entered the no logic zone

 

[pittguy579]

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

And you don't understand those two meanings are interchangeable for all intents and purposes.
We are both

 

[Edx]

Yes, that is clear.
This is getting ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is you thinking we can survive better than bacteria.

 

[pittguy579]

What is ridiculous is you thinking we can survive better than bacteria.

And survivability doesn't equal more complex in terms of capabilities

 

[Edx]

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.

 

[Edx]

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?

 

[Edx]

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.

 

[Baggins]

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

Creating

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.

 

[pittguy579]

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

 

[pittguy579]

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.

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

 

[pittguy579]

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.

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.

 

[OdwinOddball]

We are comparing apples to apples in that comparison.

Hi James!

 

[Split Rock]

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?

 

[pittguy579]

Once again you are equating capability with complexity which is a fallacy.

No it's not.

 

[Split Rock]

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.

Bingo!

We have a winner!!

 

[Edx]

Basically are the same thing and the differences are merely subjective for all intents and purposes. .

Exactly!!

 

[Split Rock]

No it's not.

Yes it is

No it's not

Yes it is

no it's not

The definition of Pointless!

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