Giraffe laryngeal nerve and evolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm saying it is hard to take critizism from someone who cannot do the thing
they are complaining about, since they don't know how to do it themselves.

And hard as it may be to take such criticism, it is still sometimes best to do so as such criticism is often valid. It is simply not true that I need to know how to do something myself for me to criticize it. I would probably make a terrible president, yet I criticize presidents all the time. You seem to be telling us that only former presidents may ever criticize presidents.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And hard as it may be to take such criticism, it is still sometimes best to do so as such criticism is often valid. It is simply not true that I need to know how to do something myself for me to criticize it. I would probably make a terrible president, yet I criticize presidents all the time. You seem to be telling us that only former presidents may ever criticize presidents.

I did just give you examples where you and everyone else can and should also
give criticism. You think I'm in error saying if you really don't know enough to
do it yourself, you basically shouldn't bad mouth something that is working as
it is currently designed? That baisically is the bottom line, does it do what it is
supposed to do? If the answer is yes, why are you complaining, since you cannot
do better?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I did just give you examples where you and everyone else can and should also
give criticism.

So you admit that the overall concept that one cannot criticize what one cannot design is flawed.

You think I'm in error saying if you really don't know enough to
do it yourself, you basically shouldn't bad mouth something that is working as
it is currently designed?
Yes, I think you are in error. The fact that something is working as designed, does not make it perfect, nor make it the best design possible. And we do not need to be able to design something equivalent to spot such design flaws.

That baisically is the bottom line, does it do what it is supposed to do? If the answer is yes, why are you complaining, since you cannot do better?
Kelly
I am complaining because it is flawed. Whether or not I can do better is irrelevant to whether or not I can see a design flaw.
Interestingly though in this case, I can do better. The OP itself suggests that a shorter route would be a better design. Whether or not, we have actually created giraffes with the shorter route is again, not reason enough to exclude us from suggesting better designs or criticizing the current one.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So you admit that the overall concept that one cannot criticize what one cannot design is flawed.

[b]You think I'm in error saying if you really don't know enough to
do it yourself, you basically shouldn't bad mouth something that is working as
it is currently designed?
Yes, I think you are in error. The fact that something is working as designe ...[text shortened]... ot reason enough to exclude us from suggesting better designs or criticizing the current one.[/b]

I admit it isn't a one size fits all type of thing as I thought I had pointed out.
Yet at the same time, if you don't know how to do something that is working,
how would you know there is a flaw in it? For all you know, the way it is done
is fixing issues you are not aware of.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I admit it isn't a one size fits all type of thing as I thought I had pointed out.
Yet at the same time, if you don't know how to do something that is working,
how would you know there is a flaw in it? For all you know, the way it is done
is fixing issues you are not aware of.
Kelly

And the fact that I have not designed and built something does not mean I do not know how it works. Additionally I can see flaws in things even when I don't know fully how they work.
I fully accept that there may be a weak argument that there is some hidden design reason for some perceived design flaw, but I still say that your argument that I must be a designer of equivalent skill to recognize flaws in a design is totally invalid. Its not that its not a one size fits all argument, its an invalid argument.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Suppose I tell you that you don't know anything about evolution until you learnt something about it.
Suppose I tell you that if you only rely on other ignorant peole, how can you learn anything.
Suppose I tell you that you don't want to believe anything else than your preast want you to believe.

...would you believe me?

You didn't reply to my question

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Sometimes you rely on lab science, when it suits you.
When it doesn't suit you, then you say that all science is rubbish.

I agree with lab science when it's not twisted into false ideas and theories, I never said all science is rubbish, science is useful, to a certain extent but when people try to make it into a religion that's going to far

Originally posted by daniel58
I agree with lab science when it's not twisted into false ideas and theories, I never said all science is rubbish, science is useful, to a certain extent but when people try to make it into a religion that's going to far

“…I agree with lab science when it's not twisted into FALSE ideas and theories,…” (my emphasis)

Ideas and theories generally come from the lab by means of scientific method:
-so what criteria/standard do you use to determine when such scientific method leads to “FALSE” ideas and theories?
Is the criteria is when it conflicts with your religion?

Originally posted by galveston75
Hey Daniel...How's it going? I know you want to fight these guys but you know your waisting your time. They only believe what they can see even if it is something you can't really see as with evolution. There is no proof of it so instead all they know to do is attack us personally. Same old song...

You're a funny old chap.

Evolution makes up a significant proportion of biology, as the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky once stated 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution', and bare in mind he's a Russian Orthodox Christian, not an atheist. He has faith.

Evolutionary sciences are taught in every University in the world (i think), even in Washington State University they specialise in evolution research.

The School of Biological Sciences offers MS and Ph.D. degree programs in Botany and Zoology with a non-thesis MS option in Biology. We provide research specialties in ecology and evolution, physiology, systematics, and molecular biology for plant and animal systems.

http://sbs.wsu.edu/grad-studies/

If there's is no proof for evolution, as you claim, what do you think is taught to students of evolutionary biology?

And if it's all made up as you claim, why not pop down to the Uni and have a word with Dr. John Bishop who is the Associate Professor School of Biological Sciences and Associate Director of Science Programs. I'm sure he would love you to explain to him how there is no proof for something he has probably studied most of his life.

Let me know how it goes.

Originally posted by daniel58
You didn't reply to my question

Do I have to? You answered for me. "Of course not."

Your turn. What's your answer?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And the fact that I have not designed and built something does not mean I do not know how it works. Additionally I can see flaws in things even when I don't know fully how they work.
I fully accept that there may be a weak argument that there is some hidden design reason for some perceived design flaw, but I still say that your argument that I must be a ...[text shortened]... is totally invalid. Its not that its not a one size fits all argument, its an invalid argument.

So going back to the Intel and AMD CPU design flaw, exactly how would know
what is and isn't a design flaw? I'm amazed you think it is a weak argument that
you don't know why things are done they way they are, so you can tell when there
is an issue with the design.
Kelly

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Suppose I tell you that you don't know anything about evolution until you learnt something about it.
Suppose I tell you that if you only rely on other ignorant peole, how can you learn anything.
Suppose I tell you that you don't want to believe anything else than your preast want you to believe.

...would you believe me?

1. I do know about it, but I wouldn't have to if it wasn't invented and in this context it would be "learn" not "learnt"

2. that's why I don't rely on you

3. First of all it's priest, second I don't want to believe anything else that is dogmatic related, but when it comes to opinions I am open if it's reasonable related to what I already know

Originally posted by daniel58
1. I do know about it, but I wouldn't have to if it wasn't invented and in this context it would be "learn" not "learnt"

2. that's why I don't rely on you

3. First of all it's priest, second I don't want to believe anything else that is dogmatic related, but when it comes to opinions I am open if it's reasonable related to what I already know

Fair enough.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So going back to the Intel and AMD CPU design flaw, exactly how would know
what is and isn't a design flaw? I'm amazed you think it is a weak argument that
you don't know why things are done they way they are, so you can tell when there
is an issue with the design.
Kelly

I do not know of any design flaws in Intel and AMD CPUs. But I still maintain that I would not need to be a successful CPU designer to spot any such flaws, nor would I need to know and understand the whole design of the CPU.
How I would spot a flaw? If I saw something that a) doesn't work as it should or b) I can think of a better way of doing, then I would say it is a design flaw. You have already admitted a) is a valid argument ie if something fails to perform its desired function then we can usually declare a design flaw regardless of our knowledge of the design.

If God had designed Intel CPU's I could point out that next year, Intel and AMD will have newer and better CPUs, and thus the current design is not the best possible, and thus 'flawed'.

Originally posted by KellyJay
So going back to the Intel and AMD CPU design flaw, exactly how would know
what is and isn't a design flaw? I'm amazed you think it is a weak argument that
you don't know why things are done they way they are, so you can tell when there
is an issue with the design.
Kelly

“…So going back to the Intel and AMD CPU design flaw, exactly how would know
what is and isn't a design flaw?...”

Without complete understanding of how the CPU design works, we would not have a reliable method of spotting EVERY kind of design flaw.

However, and this is the critical point here, we do NOT NEED to have COMPLETE understanding of how the CPU design works to spot a very silly and obvious design flaw.

For example, suppose we look at its design and we see a wire going from one transistor to another that takes a totally unnecessary long route when we can see an obvious shortcut complete with adequate space for that shortcut route; how could that NOT be a design flaw?
–we don’t know everything BUT one of the things we DO know that the longer the route the slower and less energy efficiently the signal will be sent down that wire. So we can deduce that that really is a design flaw and we can deduce this WITHOUT the vast mountain of irrelevant knowledge about other aspects of the CPU’s design such as the number of transistors it has and where are its registers etc.