Giraffe laryngeal nerve and evolution

Originally posted by KellyJay
This is what knowing why the part is laid out the way it is does for you to name a few.

You know what is there and why, or what is supposed to be there and why.
You know what is supposed to happen and not.
You know what is to be expected in all conditions.
You know what the conditions are supposed to be each time you test.
You know what the tolerances are supposed to be each time you test.

I see that as always, you are reluctant to give yes or no answers to straight forward questions and rely instead on being vague about what you really mean.

Now tell me, suppose there is a transistor, sitting all by itself in the CPU, not connected to anything. Won't all your answers above be essentially straight forward to answer even by someone as unskilled as I in the field?
I know that a transistor does not function without being connected up, so I can say straight away that it is not acting as a transistor. Of course its possible that the designer just likes to add extra transistors in a nice pattern to form his companies logo. But even the battery of tests you mention and the teams of engineers etc would be no better at picking that up than I would.

There is a lot to spotting a design flaw and all other types so your and Andrew
claims just by looking at a part you two can see a design flaw isn't something I
agree with.
Because you are making a number of obvious errors. You are assuming that all design flaws are as difficult to spot as the hardest to spot flaw (false), you are assuming that all skills and full knowledge are required to spot a flaw (false) and several others besides.
But most of all, you are just being dishonest and avoiding admitting that you are wrong. Your careful avoidance of certain questions betrays your dishonesty in the matter.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I were talking about your program, it would be a different subject. I'm not
saying you HAVE to have designer knownledge in ALL things, but at some point
it is required. If you have a program where everyone knows the code, everyone
knows what it is there for and why, that is different than something so complex
that even with designer knowledge you still need more help.
Kelly

“….If you have a program where everyone KNOWS the code, everyone
knows what it is there for and why….” (my emphasis)

But they didn’t! if you just read my example you would see that the other student knew NOTHING about what my program was for and how it is supposed to work and yet STILL he correctly spotted the flaw! The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t recognise that fact.

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
I said I wasn't finished 😛

Well you are comparing apples to oranges with your computer program example. The problem is the program was not working, so it obviously had a flaw.
We are discussing something that is already working just fine. There is a difference. I believe my point still stands that in order to know what a flaw is or is not in something that is working fine like it is, you would need a designer's input.

“….Well you are comparing apples to oranges with your computer program example. The problem is the program was not working, so it obviously had a flaw….”

Yes it was not working properly, and before I had a chance to say this or anything else to the other student, he spotted the flaw! So he did NOT know it was not working properly BEFORE he spotted the flaw. Therefore, he didn’t spot the flaw by knowing that my program was not working properly thus the fact that my program was not working properly is irrelevant here.

“…We are discussing something that is already working just fine. There is a difference….”

I don’t believe it is makes a difference for the reason I just pointed out; I knew but the other student didn’t know the program was not working properly UNTIL he spotted the design flaw! (and without looking at its functionality first).

Besides, I could point out the fact that:

There where occasions where I showed a program of mine to another student that was working just fine but, before I explained anything about how the program works, the other student correctly spotted an efficiency error of, for example, a way I could BOTH simplify a particular program loop AND make it work faster AND without changing what it does and then I checked this by making the simplification and it worked fine thus helping to vindicate his claim of spotting an efficiency error and I agreed with him that it WAS an efficiency error.

Actually this would make a better example than my previous one because it would be a better analogy to the flaw in the giraffe’s neck. I will therefore only use this example for now on.

“…I believe my point still stands that in order to know what a flaw is or is not in something that is working fine like it is, you would need a designer's input…..”

The “designer's input” in this case was not required because he spotted the flaw BEFORE I told him anything let alone that it was not working properly. –but let’s use my new better example for now on; the same applies to that new example; the “designer's input” in that case was also NOT required –right?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“….If you have a program where everyone KNOWS the code, everyone
knows what it is there for and why….” (my emphasis)

But they didn’t! if you just read my example you would see that the other student knew NOTHING about what my program was for and how it is supposed to work and yet STILL he correctly spotted the flaw! The rest of your post is flawed because it doesn’t recognise that fact.

You are telling me they had no clue what your code could do, they didn't not have
any understanding of the lanuage what you wrote you program in, and they could
still spot the flaws in your program? The basics they either had or they did not,
if they did, and if your program was something they knew why wouldn't they be
able to spot the issue? We disagree and I've aleady carried on this conversation
way beyond what I said I was going to do, feel free to live with the belief you
can do what a design engineer working on a CPU cannot.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
I see that as always, you are reluctant to give yes or no answers to straight forward questions and rely instead on being vague about what you really mean.

Now tell me, suppose there is a transistor, sitting all by itself in the CPU, not connected to anything. Won't all your answers above be essentially straight forward to answer even by someone as uns ...[text shortened]... are wrong. Your careful avoidance of certain questions betrays your dishonesty in the matter.

Fine you believe I'm lying to you, we can stop here.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fine you believe I'm lying to you, we can stop here.
Kelly

Did he say you were lying? Rather that you are vague. That's not lying, that's hiding your opinion.

Why not answer clearly first, and then motivate your opinion?

Many of us say that you are vague and evasive. Why not think about that, and make your answers clear. This is a debate, not a contest.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You are telling me they had no clue what your code could do, they didn't not have
any understanding of the lanuage what you wrote you program in, and they could
still spot the flaws in your program? The basics they either had or they did not,
if they did, and if your program was something they knew why wouldn't they be
able to spot the issue? We disagre ...[text shortened]... ee to live with the belief you
can do what a design engineer working on a CPU cannot.
Kelly

“…You are telling me they had no clue what your code could do…”

Yes, because, as I said, I didn’t get a chance to explain it to him.

“….they didn't not have
any understanding of the lanuage what you wrote you program in….”

That is not what I said; read my post again.
Of course he must have had SOME understanding of the language in order to spot the flaw!
He wouldn’t have needed understanding of all the rules of the language; just the relevant rules of the language to spot that particular flaw just as I only need to know the relevant rule of language to spot the flaw in your statement above: you misspelt “language” as “lanuage”; I only needed to know about that one spelling and that there is no such word as “lanuage” to spot that flaw, that is all!

“….and if your program was something they knew why wouldn't they be
able to spot the issue?...”

?

1, He did not “know” my program before spotting the flaw.
2, He DID spot the flaw.
3, why do you keep referring to “he” as “they”?

“…feel free to live with the belief you
can do what a design engineer working on a CPU cannot….”

That is not my “belief” and that is not what I said.
Where did I say/imply the designer is incapable of spotting a flaw that I can? –I certainly have never believed this.
And why do you suddenly change the subject from my program to the CPU?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“….Well you are comparing apples to oranges with your computer program example. The problem is the program was not working, so it obviously had a flaw….”

Yes it was not working properly, and before I had a chance to say this or anything else to the other student, he spotted the flaw! So he did NOT know it was not working properly BEFORE he spotted pplies to that new example; the “designer's input” in that case was also NOT required –right?

There is a huge difference between your computer program example and a Giraffe’s neck. With your computer program the process is
1. Spot a potential flaw.
2. Correct the flaw. Make a change.
3. Test your correction by running the program
4. Confirm and verify your conclusion was correct.
With the neck of a Giraffe, you are going by a different process:
1. Spot a potential flaw.
2. Confirming your conclusion was correct.

You are missing some steps. In other words – you do not know anything and are only making an assumption. What happened to the correction? What happened to the testing? Without these you still know nothing. You need both of these, which you are skipping.

A program can be easily tested and verified it had a flaw. A giraffe’s neck cannot and this is why you need to speak to the designer before jumping to any conclusions.

You are wrong by the way. You gave the designer's input when you informed the student was correct. Even in your example, a designer's input was used. Have you had the designer's input confirming you are correct in your assessment of a giraffe?

In your latest example regarding a program that was working, you had the ability to test the program and confirm and verify it would work better. You even said that you checked it (tested it). You have not done this with a giraffe so my point still stands.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Fine you believe I'm lying to you, we can stop here.
Kelly

I believe you are being dishonest. Its not quite the same thing.
I believe you are deliberately avoiding certain questions to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
I believe that you know perfectly well that it is conceivably possible that I, with little or no experience in the field, could correctly identify that something on a CPU was a flaw in the design, or possibly simply not a particularly good idea on the part of the designer. Whether we choose to call it a flaw, or error, or bad design, there is no fundamental law that prevents me from spotting it based on just a few relevant principles.

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
There is a huge difference between your computer program example and a Giraffe’s neck. With your computer program the process is
1. Spot a potential flaw.
2. Correct the flaw. Make a change.
3. Test your correction by running the program
4. Confirm and verify your conclusion was correct.
With the neck of a Giraffe, you are going by a different pr ...[text shortened]... t you checked it (tested it). You have not done this with a giraffe so my point still stands.

“….With your computer program the process is
1. Spot a potential flaw….”

It wasn’t merely a “potential” flaw; it could be logically deduced it definitely IS a flaw.

“…
2. Correct the flaw. Make a change.
3. Test your correction by running the program
4. Confirm and verify your conclusion was correct….”

Actually, the above is merely optional. The flaw was correctly identified and can be correctly identified without all those steps.

“….With the neck of a Giraffe, you are going by a different process:
1. Spot a potential flaw…..”

Again, it isn’t merely a “potential” flaw; it can be logically deduced it definitely IS a flaw.

“….2. Confirming your conclusion was correct….”

No. No “conformation” is not needed because it can be LOGICALLY deduced it definitely IS a flaw.

“…you do not know anything and are only making an assumption….”

Not if the conclusion was logically deduced.

“…You gave the designer's input when you informed the student was correct….”

But he didn’t need that input to know that he was correct. He correctly spotted the flaw BEFORE I told him he was correct!

“….In your latest example regarding a program that was working, you had the ability to test the program and confirm and verify it would work better….”

Again, that was just optional. He could just logically deduce that it would work without conformation of that through a test. The test only adds a nice bit of but, never-a-less, non-essential extra weight to the evidence that there was a flaw when it was already proven to be a flaw through the application of logic.

Think of it this way; it is like me trying to solve an equation but I make a mistake in my algebra.
Somebody else correctly spots my error and points it out.
So we now know it DEFINITELY was a flaw without conformation via any test.
But, I do a test anyway just to see if I can solve the equation with this error removed.
If it works, yes, this would be a nice bit of “conformation”, but the fact still remains we didn’t strictly really need confirmation. The conformation is just a non-essential bonus.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“….With your computer program the process is
1. Spot a potential flaw….”

It wasn’t merely a “potential” flaw; it could be logically deduced it definitely IS a flaw.

“…
2. Correct the flaw. Make a change.
3. Test your correction by running the program
4. Confirm and verify your conclusion was correct….”

Actually, the above is merely opti ...[text shortened]... ns we didn’t strictly really need confirmation. The conformation is just a non-essential bonus.

I believe you are incorrect. Even in your computer program example - the one that was working - you checked it (tested it). You are going to need to test your theory there is flaw in a giraffe by testing. Without that you are making an assumption. I'm willing to wager you have never created a giraffe (drawing one on paper does not count), so my point stands. You are only making an assumption my friend. Your assumption has not been tested so you do not know if it is correct or not at this time.

Testing is not an optional part of someone in the IT/programming field. It is a requirement.

Stick with the giraffe flaw. The CPU discussion is a side-track to avoid the real issue - the so called intelligent designer isn't that intelligent nor skilled after all. It's rather a proof of evolution in action. No intelligent designer is needed.

Don't let anyone fool you into discuss CPU design which is not evolutionary, but manmade.

Originally posted by gtbiking4life
I believe you are incorrect. Even in your computer program example - the one that was working - you checked it (tested it). You are going to need to test your theory there is flaw in a giraffe by testing. Without that you are making an assumption. I'm willing to wager you have never created a giraffe (drawing one on paper does not count), so my point s ...[text shortened]...

Testing is not an optional part of someone in the IT/programming field. It is a requirement.

“…Even in your computer program example - the one that was working - you checked it (tested it)…”

Yes, and that test gave conformation that we were CORRECT in knowing that there was a flaw and we were correct to call it a flaw BEFORE the test. Thus this is proof we do not always need a test to know we have correctly spotted a flaw.

“….You are going to need to test your theory there is flaw in a giraffe by testing. Without that you are making an assumption….”

Didn’t you read my post? No assumption needed thus no test needed, just logic.

“…Testing is not an optional part of someone in the IT/programming field. It is a requirement….”

That only because you have to do a test to make sure you haven’t missed any flaws.
It doesn’t logically follow from that that you cannot correctly spot a flaw without a test.
Yes, you need to test to make sure there is no flaw you have missed, but how does that stop any possibility that you may correctly spot ONE flaw (not all of them, just ONE of them ) without doing a test by simply looking at it and using logic?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Stick with the giraffe flaw. The CPU discussion is a side-track to avoid the real issue - the so called intelligent designer isn't that intelligent nor skilled after all. It's rather a proof of evolution in action. No intelligent designer is needed.

Don't let anyone fool you into discuss CPU design which is not evolutionary, but manmade.

I think you have a point. No analogy is perfect. The problem with the CPU and the PROGRAM analogies is that, as you basically said; they didn’t simply “evolve” into existence! 😛

The problem is that it is extremely had to find to use as an analogy an example of technology that was designed purely by mindless trial and error!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I believe you are being dishonest. Its not quite the same thing.
I believe you are deliberately avoiding certain questions to avoid admitting that you are wrong.
I believe that you know perfectly well that it is conceivably possible that I, with little or no experience in the field, could correctly identify that something on a CPU was a flaw in the desi ...[text shortened]... is no fundamental law that prevents me from spotting it based on just a few relevant principles.

I do not have an issue admitting I'm wrong, I've done it in this disussion. I have
told you over and over again NOT ALL flaws require a designer, but you just got
something in your head and that is that. So have a happy life.
Kelly