Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<snip>

> > Point to any example of a violation of the nested hierarchy, or you are
> just
> > babbling.
> >
>
>
> no.. what I am saying is this.. I use myself as an example when I have to
> design test apparatus.
>
> I have goal.

But you have not stated your goal.


> I write the rules I will use to acheive this goal.

By writing rules to achieve the goal, you are modifying the goal itself.


> I follow thes rules to acheive my goal.

Why would you limit yourself in achieving your goal? Why would you limit
yourself to a mechanical solution when borrowing technology from the
electrical department might work better?


> sometimes I could mess around with my design, but to do so Im ust break
the
> rules I have established.

So? Change the rule. What is the source of these arbitrary rules? Why
shouldn't Ford import and modify the CD-player from the electronics
industry?


> breaking these rules, would detract from achieving my goal.

Your specification of these arbitrary rules can only be a hinderance in
achieving your goal.


> but I decide to keep to the rules or process.

Then your stated goals are not your actual goals.


> I have developed may different apparatus  or test fixtures, and some in
> appeareance look the same. and have had tech confused them, and use them
> incorrectly, even though to the tech it seems that certain fixture would
> work.
> there mistake are not based on physical appeareance alone. Techs have
about
> the same knowledge I do. so in principle they make  acceptable error. What
> they do not have, is the reasons I have in developing similar test
fixtures,
> because they do not know the rules that I have decide to follow.

Your rules appear to be arbitrary and ill-defined.


> same applies to nested hierchies, one can mess around with them, but would
> violate rules established as you pinted out, having a griffith or centaure
> would violate those rules eh?

The observation is that when you examine life, it forms a nested hierarchy,
clearly indicating common ancestry. For instance, all mammals, including
whales, have three ear-bones. What does heck does having tits got to do with
ear-bones?


<snip>

> > Extant monotremes are not the same species as the actual common
ancestor,
> > but yes, extant monotremes do show intermediate characteristics.
> >
> >
>
> but then as I've mention before arent we all transitionals?
>
>

Only if we don't go extinct.