Giraffe laryngeal nerve and evolution

Originally posted by Proper Knob
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 Univers ...[text shortened]... proof for something he has probably studied most of his life.

Let me know how it goes.

Isa 40:13,14.

" Who has understood the mind of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?
Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?"


46:9-11. " Remember the former things, those of long ago;
I am God, and there is no other;
I am God, and there is none like me.
I make known the end from the beginning,
from ancient times, what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand,
and I will do all that I please.
From the east I summon a bird of prey;
from a far-off land, a man to fulfill my purpose.
What I have said, that will I bring about;
what I have planned, that will I do."

55: 8-11. "For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,"
declares the LORD.
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
As the rain and the snow
come down from heaven,
and do not return to it
without watering the earth
and making it bud and flourish,
so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
so is my word that goes out from my mouth:
It will not return to me empty,
but will accomplish what I desire
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

This is the authority I follow.

Originally posted by galveston75
Isa 40:13,14.

" Who has understood the mind of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?
Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?"


46:9-11. " Remember the former things, those of long a ...[text shortened]...
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

This is the authority I follow.

You have no authority of your own?

I'm really sick of christians flaking out when it comes to the big questions and saying "God did it".
Do you realize how easily it would be to manipulate man if everyone followed the authority of an interpretation of a 2000 year old book?
Actually, it seems they have nearly succeeded. 🙄
Really man, I dont see why you post so much, given you have no opinions of your own. Its just ads and more ads for your God. And WE GET IT. Do you think repeating it ad nauseum, will change anything in this forum?

Originally posted by galveston75
Isa 40:13,14.

" Who has understood the mind of the LORD,
or instructed him as his counselor?
Whom did the LORD consult to enlighten him,
and who taught him the right way?
Who was it that taught him knowledge
or showed him the path of understanding?"


46:9-11. " Remember the former things, those of long a ...[text shortened]...
and achieve the purpose for which I sent it."

This is the authority I follow.

I know all this, but you haven't answered my question.

If evolution is false, as you claim, what do you think is taught in evolutionary biology lectures at universities worldwide?

Surely they don't just sit around all day twiddling their thumbs?!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I know all this, but you haven't answered my question.

If evolution is false, as you claim, what do you think is taught in evolutionary biology lectures at universities worldwide?

Surely they don't just sit around all day twiddling their thumbs?!

Man has done some great things but for all the good it seems they 've done there are countless things they've done wrong. Even when you pick a field of science such as evolution, hardly does anyone ever agree.
And each time they dig up a bone then they all run back to the black board to change it all again. And that's the way it will always be because they will never find the answers to something that they all confidently say "it is a fact."


What is the origin of human philosophies?
They come from people who have limitations: The Bible informs us: “It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.” (Jer. 10:23) History testifies that trying to ignore that limitation has not produced good results. On one occasion, “Jehovah proceeded to answer Job out of the windstorm and say: ‘Who is this that is obscuring counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins, please, like an able-bodied man, and let me question you, and you inform me. Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding.’” (Job 38:1-4) (Humans by nature have limitations. Additionally, their experience in life is relatively brief and is usually confined to one culture or one environment. The knowledge they possess is thus restricted, and everything is interconnected to such an extent that they constantly find aspects that they had not adequately considered. Any philosophy that they originate will reflect these limitations.)
They are developed by humans who are imperfect: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23) “There exists a way that is upright before a man, but the ways of death are the end of it afterward.” (Prov. 14:12) (Because of such imperfection, human philosophies often reflect a basic selfishness that leads perhaps to momentary pleasure but also to frustration and much unhappiness.)
They are influenced by demonic spirits: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) “The one called Devil and Satan . . . is misleading the entire inhabited earth.” (Rev. 12:9) “You at one time walked according to the system of things of this world, according to the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit that now operates in the sons of disobedience.” (Eph. 2:2) (Philosophies that encourage people to disobey God’s wholesome and upright requirements reflect such an influence. No wonder that, as history testifies, human philosophies and schemes have often brought grief to large segments of humankind.)

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…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?

Yes, and when I say "idea" I don't mean in the general sense of the word but more like belief, and when it comes from a false root (namely they already thought that then tried to make science fit their beliefs)

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]

Flawed how, because it isn't doing the job it is supposed to do, or that you think
your way is better? Since you cannot do it at all, I'm not sure what you think is
a better way would be better. Your way may give issues you have not the skill
sets to foresee.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
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 wo ...[text shortened]... er and better CPUs, and thus the current design is not the best possible, and thus 'flawed'.

That is my point you don't have a clue what is a design flaw unless you are a
design engineer and one working on the CPU itself more than liklely. It takes
teams of experts looking at tons of data to find the flaws, your looking at
something that does not work does not mean the CPU had a design flaw in it. Your
operating system could have flaws, your motherboard could have flaws, your
power supply could have flaws all of which could cause issues and finding the
root cause of those issues takes time and effort.

Debugging to the root cause is a lot of work the more complex the device your
working the harder it is. So I again don't think you simply thinking you'd do it
a little differently shows a design flaw in life, it just shows you'd do it a little
differently and your way again may be filled with issues you don't have the skills
sets to see. Your removing what you call a flaw may open the flood gates of all
kinds of issues.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Flawed how, because it isn't doing the job it is supposed to do, or that you think
your way is better? Since you cannot do it at all, I'm not sure what you think is
a better way would be better. Your way may give issues you have not the skill
sets to foresee.
Kelly

I don't even have to have a better way. All I need it enough knowledge to see a flaw.
It is true that having greater skill means a higher likelihood of correctly identifying flaws, but it is totally untrue that it is a definite requirement. I also realize that you are more likely to believe me when I claim to have identified a flaw if I have relevant qualifications, or past works to demonstrate my skills, but again, it is totally untrue to claim that because I lack provable experience then I am therefore incapable of identifying flaws or that you must necessarily mistrust my identification of such.
It is also untrue that someone with relevant qualifications or proven design skills is therefore correct when he claim to have identified a flaw. Intel may claim to have identified a flaw in AMD CPUs, but be incorrect in their assessment.
Skill and qualifications are only indicators of ability, they are not definitive requirements, nor guarantees.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I don't even have to have a better way. All I need it enough knowledge to see a flaw.
It is true that having greater skill means a higher likelihood of correctly identifying flaws, but it is totally untrue that it is a definite requirement. I also realize that you are more likely to believe me when I claim to have identified a flaw if I have relevant qua ...[text shortened]... fications are only indicators of ability, they are not definitive requirements, nor guarantees.

That has been my point, since you don't have the knowledge to do it yourself,
understand the process to do it yourself, AND IT WORKS how do you think
you can ID a flaw? With CPU the pain and suffering that does into finding flaws
again requires several teams working together whose only purpose is to find
them and they require tons of data, you claim you do it by seeing something
not work. I don't believe you I'm sorry!

We could put one of those teams at home working on their computers and if
something didn't work, they would not be able to tell you or anyone else if it was
a design flaw or something else, without proper debug. Root causing flaws or
bugs are a big deal, and you telling me just seeing something not work is
enough....no it isn't.

I doubt we have a clue about living systems enough to really know what would
happen if we were able to make all the changes we think would be better.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That has been my point, since you don't have the knowledge to do it yourself,
understand the process to do it yourself, AND IT WORKS how do you think
you can ID a flaw?

Several obvious examples have been given. Why do you keep repeating the question when it has been answered?

With CPU the pain and suffering that does into finding flaws
again requires several teams working together whose only purpose is to find
them and they require tons of data, you claim you do it by seeing something
not work. I don't believe you I'm sorry!
Well thats up to you. But you certainly haven't proven me wrong. All you can do is remain skeptical. I also dispute your claim that finding flaws requires several teams working together whose only purpose is to find
them. Just because such teams exist, does not prove that they are required to find such flaws.
I still maintain that if I had access to the design of an Intel CPU, it is conceivably possible that I could correctly spot a flaw without any knowledge that I do not currently possess.

We could put one of those teams at home working on their computers and if
something didn't work, they would not be able to tell you or anyone else if it was
a design flaw or something else, without proper debug. Root causing flaws or
bugs are a big deal, and you telling me just seeing something not work is
enough....no it isn't.
I didn't say it was always enough, but in many cases it is. If something fails to do what it is designed to do, then we can often say it was a design flaw.
If a levee is designed to withstand a certain height of water, and breaks before that hight is reached, we could guess at terrorists, earthquakes etc, but the most likely cause is a design flaw. Certainly, identifying that design flaw does not necessarily require someone with proven levee making skills.

I doubt we have a clue about living systems enough to really know what would
happen if we were able to make all the changes we think would be better.
Kelly
And I disagree. I think we know a lot about living systems and do have a clue about what would happen. We are not as totally ignorant as you claim.
But regardless of how knowledgeable we are, your claim that we would have to have designed a living thing before being able to know whether such changes would be beneficial remains a bad argument.
The fact that I have not designed a life form does not therefore make me completely ignorant of how life works as you would want us to believe.

Originally posted by daniel58
Yes, and when I say "idea" I don't mean in the general sense of the word but more like belief, and when it comes from a false root (namely they already thought that then tried to make science fit their beliefs)

can you give an example?

Originally posted by galveston75
Man has done some great things but for all the good it seems they 've done there are countless things they've done wrong. Even when you pick a field of science such as evolution, hardly does anyone ever agree.
And each time they dig up a bone then they all run back to the black board to change it all again. And that's the way it will always be because ...[text shortened]... s, human philosophies and schemes have often brought grief to large segments of humankind.)

Even when you pick a field of science such as evolution, hardly does anyone ever agree.

This is silly. Every scientist working in the field of evolution agrees that evolution occurs. There maybe disagreements on 'how' evolution occurs, but they all agree on the fact it occurs.

And each time they dig up a bone then they all run back to the black board to change it all again.

They don't 'change it all again'. Show me an example, this is nonsense.

They may find something that modifies their current views, but scientists don't repeatedly find something and then have to change everything all over again. Darwin proposed evolution by natrual selection 150yrs ago and nothing has even come close to proving it false. Despite the protestations of creationists.

Now back to my question, which you still haven't answered, if evolution is patently false as you claim, what is taught on an evolutionary biology degree?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Several obvious examples have been given. Why do you keep repeating the question when it has been answered?

[b]With CPU the pain and suffering that does into finding flaws
again requires several teams working together whose only purpose is to find
them and they require tons of data, you claim you do it by seeing something
not work. I don't believe y t therefore make me completely ignorant of how life works as you would want us to believe.

[/b]Well we disagree.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
can you give an example?

yeah like evolution. see people hide behind "science" when it's really contrary to science, or opposite of science, it goes against science, basically people make stuff up and try to prove it's right, they make a religion out of science when it's not supposed to be a religion

Originally posted by daniel58
yeah like evolution. see people hide behind "science" when it's really contrary to science, or opposite of science, it goes against science, basically people make stuff up and try to prove it's right, they make a religion out of science when it's not supposed to be a religion

The original comment of yours that I responded to was:

“…I agree with lab science when it's not twisted into false ideas and theories,…”

Can you give me a specific example of either a lab result or some other empirical observation that is “twisted into false ideas and theories” about evolution?

-I certainly cannot recall a single incident that I would describe as this.