Spirituality
16 Aug 10
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayBut you are still to explain why you believe a bird can adapt to water but a mammal cannot. What's stopping the mammal acquiring the birds adaptations?
A penguin could have come from creature that could fly that was as far as I was
going, for all I know it always hung out in the water. I maintain it is easy to lose
an ability or feature or form than it is to aquire new ones.
Kelly
for all I know it always hung out in the water
It hung out in the water? What on earth does that mean?
I maintain it is easy to lose an ability or feature or form than it is to aquire new ones
Any evidence or reasoning? Merely repeating a sentence doesn't give it any validity.
03 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayAnd, by an astonishing coincidence, all groups of species that are thought to be closely related have nearly all their DNA code in common just exactly as what you would expect if they are closely related!?
Since all life uses DNA I can only imagine that a lot of it will have similarities.
Kelly
And what are thought to be very distantly related species have, by an astonishing coincidence, still have most of their DNA code in common but less DNA code in common than those that are thought to be closely related; just exactly as what you would expect if they are distantly related?
Either you must conclude these are astonishing coincidences that mathematically have vanishingly small probabilities of happening by chance or all species are related (from very distantly so to closely so).
05 Sep 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper KnobSorry for the delay Proper Knob, I'm actually rethinking even entering into or
Mr Jay??????
staying in these discussions. Between Andrew and twhitehead not being able to
grasp CPU are made after sockets I don't think evolution is something that has
any hope of conclusion, outside of "they are right others are wrong" no matter
who the "they" are, myself included.
Kelly
06 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is one way of “hope of conclusion “as you put it; but, alas, it requires all sides accepting both evidence and unflawed logic.
Sorry for the delay Proper Knob, I'm actually rethinking even entering into or
staying in these discussions. Between Andrew and twhitehead not being able to
grasp CPU are made after sockets I don't think evolution is something that has
any hope of conclusion, outside of "they are right others are wrong" no matter
who the "they" are, myself included.
Kelly
06 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonI agree, so when you support your point of view by something that would never
There is one way of “hope of conclusion “as you put it; but, alas, it requires all sides accepting both evidence and unflawed logic.
happen, you are failing to use unflawed logic.
Kelly
06 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThere is nothing illogical about hypothetical examples.
I agree, so when you support your point of view by something that would never
happen, you are failing to use unflawed logic.
Kelly
If I say "suppose a CPU claims to be designed for Socket A but does not fit socket A", I am suggesting a hypothetical situation. Unless you can claim that my hypothetical situation is internally illogical, then there is nothing wrong with using it as an example.
What is illogical, is you claiming that in my example, the CPU was not designed for Socket A even though it is a premise in my example.
06 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is illogical to refuse to consider the hypothetical. Sometimes the only way to demonstrate a flaw in an argument is by considering the hypothetical and if your response to that demonstration by saying that “it never happens” does nothing to invalidate that demonstration of a flaw –what if it did happen?
I agree, so when you support your point of view by something that would never
happen, you are failing to use unflawed logic.
Kelly
Your argument has already been debunked by your silence on the question I put to you that does NOT assume anything hypothetical. Reminder:
I remember a particular occasion when I showed a computer program I created that was not working properly to a student at a university I attended and he immediately spotted and point out that, in the very first line of my program. I had inserted in the letter ‘O’ in a integer literal where I should have inserted in the numerical digit ‘0’ in it and he spotted this flaw BEFORE I had a chance to even begin to explain to him what the program is for and how it is supposed to work. So he did NOT have much knowledge of my program! And yet he instantly and correctly spotted a flaw and then I corrected the flaw and found the program then worked perfectly thus confirming this WAS a flaw!
So, here is my question:
Would you deny that this is a clear example of something (a program in this case) that was designed (by me in this case) and somebody (another student in this case) CORRECTLY and rationally spotted and identified a flaw in it (the flaw being an invalid literal in this case)?
Nothing hypothetical there! This DID happen.
Also, take a look at:
http://www.easy-computer-tech.com/cpu.html
“…each CPU is designed to fit into a specific type of motherboard socket,…”
http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1743/amd_socket_am3_arrives_the_real_phenom_ii_detailed/index3.html
“…THIS CPU is designed to fit into AM2+ boards…” (my emphasis)
http://sites.google.com/site/rooydigital/microchip/introduction
“…While a CPU is designed to fit into a motherboard and …”
07 Sep 10
Originally posted by twhitehead"If a CPU claims", CPU do not make claims the manufactures do, and even if what
There is nothing illogical about hypothetical examples.
If I say "suppose a CPU claims to be designed for Socket A but does not fit socket A", I am suggesting a hypothetical situation. Unless you can claim that my hypothetical situation is internally illogical, then there is nothing wrong with using it as an example.
What is illogical, is you claiming ...[text shortened]... n my example, the CPU was not designed for Socket A even though it is a premise in my example.
you are saying actually happen, it would NOT be a design issue, it would be a
marketing issue, because someone put out bogus information about a product
that they are supposed to be representing.
Kelly
07 Sep 10
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton“…While a CPU is designed to fit into a motherboard and …”
It is illogical to refuse to consider the hypothetical. Sometimes the only way to demonstrate a flaw in an argument is by considering the hypothetical and if your response to that demonstration by saying that “it never happens” does nothing to invalidate that demonstration of a flaw –what if it did happen?
Your argument has already been debunked b ...[text shortened]... rooydigital/microchip/introduction
“…While a CPU is designed to fit into a motherboard and …”
Yes, CPU are designed to fit on motherboards, but they design the motherboards
to operate with the CPU not the other way around. CPU are designed to work in
laptops, desktops and other devices, which is their function in the grand scheme
of things. If you want to use a CPU you must have something to plug it into to
use it PROPERLY! If you want to use a CPU you have to know its spec if you do not
you will not know how to define the pin definition; you will not know the proper
voltages, you will not know the proper operating temperatures, along with a million
other little details. This is not a unknown question of what came first the chicken
or the egg, in the case of CPU and motherboards, the CPU comes first.
Kelly
07 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJay“…but they design the motherboards
[b]“…While a CPU is designed to fit into a motherboard and …”
Yes, CPU are designed to fit on motherboards, but they design the motherboards
to operate with the CPU not the other way around. CPU are designed to work in
laptops, desktops and other devices, which is their function in the grand scheme
of things. If you want to use a CPU you must have ...[text shortened]... first the chicken
or the egg, in the case of CPU and motherboards, the CPU comes first.
Kelly[/b]
to operate with the CPU not the other way around…”
Irrelevant.
Reminder of actual (NOT hypothetical) example:
http://www.easy-computer-tech.com/cpu.html
“…each CPU is designed to fit into a specific type of motherboard socket,…”
So this proves it is NOT the case that, as you have been saying, this could not happen.
07 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJay“…"If a CPU claims", CPU do not make claims the manufactures do,…”
"If a CPU claims", CPU do not make claims the manufactures do, and even if what
you are saying actually happen, it would NOT be a design issue, it would be a
marketing issue, because someone put out bogus information about a product
that they are supposed to be representing.
Kelly
Well dir; he obviously meant "If a manufacture CPU claims".
“…even if what
you are saying actually happen, it would NOT be a design issue, it would be a
marketing issue, because someone put out BOGUS information about a product
that they are supposed to be representing….” (my emphasis)
what if it was not “BOGUS”? what if it was designed to fit into the motherboard?
then that would be a "design issue".
-or are you now just going to say “but that couldn’t happen” 😛
I have already proven that a CPU CAN be designed to fit into a motherboard by the websites that show ACTUAL examples of this.
07 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayThis is untrue, and if you really knew anything about the field you would know it. Sure, some CPUs are designed before the motherboard - though in reality socket design is taken into consideration when designing a CPU and the two are designed in tandem.
Yes, CPU are designed to fit on motherboards, but they design the motherboards
to operate with the CPU not the other way around.
But once a CPU and socket are designed, it is far from unusual for other CPUs to be designed to fit the socket. Especially when the new CPU is made by a different manufacturer.
If you had any knowledge at all of the history of Intel and AMD CPUs, you would know that in the past, AMD CPUs fitted into the same socket as Intel CPUs.
Now either your assertion is blatantly false, or the Intel CPUs and AMD CPUs were designed first without consideration for a prior socket design, and their sockets matched by random chance!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am486
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socket_3
07 Sep 10
Originally posted by KellyJayNo problem for the delay.
Sorry for the delay Proper Knob, I'm actually rethinking even entering into or
staying in these discussions. Between Andrew and twhitehead not being able to
grasp CPU are made after sockets I don't think evolution is something that has
any hope of conclusion, outside of "they are right others are wrong" no matter
who the "they" are, myself included.
Kelly
But my question still stands - if you can accept that a bird can adapt to life in water, why not a land based mammal? And what's stopping the mammal from adapting to water?