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]
> >
> > "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,

I think I understand the problem here. You are using "rule" in a
non-standard way here. When speaking of building something, we don't often
refer to the assembly instruction as "rules."


> in which to achieve his goal.
> He is not modifying his objective.

You may want to get a better grip on your vocabulary, and rephrase this
idea. I think you mean you devise a solution, and the rules could be the
known laws of nature. But I'm just guessing. Please clarify this. (Is
English your first language?)


<snip>
>
> 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?

Excellent example. Why didn't the designer borrow the bird wing? Birds have
wings made of feathers, but bats use skin stretched across modified fingers.
As you should now be able to see, the bat was an evolved mammal. It has
tits, hair, three ear-bones, but no feathers.


>
>
> >
> >
> > > 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?

Exactly. They would and they do. And so the nested hierarchy of electronic
design and the nested hierarchy of car design is broken. Cars and CD-players
are designed. As such designers can integrate features across different
schools of design. This does not happen with (the vast majority of) life.


<snip>
> 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...

You are positing a designer who created the ecosystem over a long period
time. But that wouldn't account for the fact that the ecosystem is observed
to be still evolving.


> 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?

Just don't begin to think that your beliefs have scientific merit. You would
hate to become one who falsely accuses honest scientists.


> of course, but because of certain politcal agendas it would not be
allowed.
>
> ask any feminazi,

A term like that only conotes hate.



> 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.

Biology is not an issue to be decided politically. Science is determined
with the scientific method.


> > > 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.

By "rule", do you mean observation or conclusion?


<snip>
> >
> > 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.
<snip>

You haven't explained why they are always found together. Common descent
provides an elegant explanation and has the advantage of matching the fossil
record, not to mention modern genetics.