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

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

it is only important to me

>
>
> > I write the rules I will use to acheive this goal.
>
> By writing rules to achieve the goal, you are modifying the goal itself.
>
>

how so? in test design you can a goal, but you need a method to acheive it.
therefore I consider the best way to achieve them.

Man has always wanted to fly. or go to the moon. Jumping won't help, so he
sit downs and write a process or rules sets, in which to achieve his goal.
He is not modifying his objective.

> > 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?

who said, that this would not be part of the process?
but then again it could as well, that the process I devise is the best, and
more effective. there is no limitation, just rules to achieve my objective
goal, in these rules I can borrow from something else.

Bats and birds can fly. I could have borrow some design from the bird for
the bat, what would be wrong with this as long as they can fly?


>
>
> > 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?

why not?, in the end the goal would be to have a ford with a relaible cd
player, the ultimate goal of ford is make automobiles, wether they have a cd
or cassette
is irrevelant. Me as a designer of  a car, have to think will people buy
this car because of the sound system or in spite of it, but my concentration
is on the car, not the sound system.. If the car is poorly design, and
becomes a lemon, who cares about the cd player or sound system?

>
>
> > breaking these rules, would detract from achieving my goal.
>
> Your specification of these arbitrary rules can only be a hinderance in
> achieving your goal.

Not so, I don't just write rules of procedure because I like them. I write
them because it is necesarry, and it take time to do so.

same goes to designing an ecosytem. Our planet took millions of years of
terraforming to achieve the designer certain  final goals.. who really know?
this is why I don't subscribe to a 6 day literal interpreatation of Genesis.
as a designer I can modify over existing working model, as I adjust the
atmophere and other ecosytems...

consider this from Gensis so you can understand my point. To create Eve,
a totally unique lifeform was not taken from thin air, genesis indicate that
the building material was taken from something already in existence. while
we can call it creation, from a science point of view we can call it
modification on an existing model. there was no evolution from man to women,
why another branch of men remained men. In this case there was intervention,
would this not be concluded from the fossil record if used as an
alternative?
of course, but because of certain politcal agendas it would not be allowed.

ask any feminazi, that there were a modification of a man,.... they would go
ballistic...
same would occur if an alternative idea was used to interpret the fossil
record.
>
>
> > but I decide to keep to the rules or process.
>
> Then your stated goals are not your actual goals.
>
 why not? the rules I keep directed me to my ultimate goal anyway.

> > 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.

no my rules are specific. their job is not improve whay I have decided to
do.
they failed in looking closely at the test fixture in detail. a close
examination would revel to them.. I cant use this like this..

belive my part of my job is to reverse engineer many electronics devices
from extinct manufacturers. we I constantly have to ask: "why in hell did
they design this circuit in this fashion, while it should be easier this
way?".

I am sure many paleontologist feel the same way about a creator, when by
observation something could have been done better.

you would be surprised of what I find.
>
>
> > 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?


in the case of the whale, it was the formation of the ear that was
important, not the tits..
and female mammary glands are stil in debate as well :-)
is bigger better, eyc. :-)
>
>
> <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.
>
>

how would you define extinction????