- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe new cellphones are designed to be multi-functional, and with an increase in complexity, e.g 3 mega-pixel camera, etc, the better the cellphones are at accomplishing that for which they were designed.
Cellphones were designed to be portable telephones. Has their increased complexity, with cameras, Blue Tooth, Internet, etc, made them more efficient at performing their original function?
Originally posted by dj2beckerGo further back. That;s important. We have to look at the divergence of groups of organisms, like dinosaurs diverging from older reptiles.
I was speaking of the fossil record in general and you know that.
Still, what makes you think that the dinosaurs and the whale in an Italian vineyard are simple if you only have their bones?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOf course imagination is essential in Science. The only problem arises when the dogmatic scientist announces that his vivid imaginative genius is an undeniable fact of life.
Imagination is essential in science. In that case, the scientist's imagination ran away with him, no doubt. However, the mistake was corrected soon enough. All human activity is subject to error, wouldn't you agree? Some scientists are disagreeably dogmatic, of course.
Can't you find more up-to-date examples of the errors made by "desperate evoluti ...[text shortened]... s desperate as poor old Philip Henry Gosse? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Henry_Gosse
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow do you go further back from the fossil of a dinosaur? Do you just use your imagination?
Go further back. That;s important. We have to look at the divergence of groups of organisms, like dinosaurs diverging from older reptiles.
How exactly does a fossil of a dinosaur, for example, tell you that dinosaurs diverge from older reptiles?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerEver heard of the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"?
The new cellphones are designed to be multi-functional, and with an increase in complexity, e.g 3 mega-pixel camera, etc, the better the cellphones are at accomplishing that for which they were designed.
The latest mobile phones are complicated devices certainly, with camera's, picture messaging, web-browsers, java games, GPS Satellite Navigation etc.
But they are less functional at playing games than a dedicated console, less functional at taking photographs than a dedicated camera, less functional at browsing web-pages than a PC, less functional at satellite navigation than a dedicated TomTom device and less functional at making phone calls due to their more complicated user interface that has to control all these other extraneous functions.
Likwise, would you say that a club hammer is more complicated than a wooden malett? Which one is best at knocking fenceposts in and which is best for tent pegs? Are their relative degrees of functionality related to their complexity?
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadObviously complexity is not the only determinant of functionality, as functionality is a lot more complex than that. 😉
Is that a yes answer? You can be rather vague sometimes.
Its just that you don't seem particularly stupid, so I just can't understand how you could possibly not see that complexity and functionality are not equivalent.
But it would be silly to say that complexity and functionality are totally inequivalent.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by PenguinThe modern cell phone is more functional at the function of being multi-functional than the first cell phone that came out, wouldn't you say?
Ever heard of the phrase "jack of all trades, master of none"?
The latest mobile phones are complicated devices certainly, with camera's, picture messaging, web-browsers, java games, GPS Satellite Navigation etc.
But they are less functional at playing games than a dedicated console, less functional at taking photographs than a dedicated camera, less ...[text shortened]... egs? Are their relative degrees of functionality related to their complexity?
--- Penguin.
Obviously the context I was referring to can be blown out of proportions.
The context is abiogenesis theory. Would you agree for example that the amoeba is more complex and functional than the primordial soup out of which it supposedly evolved, for example?
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf its function is to be primordial soup then the soup wins hands down.
The modern cell phone is more functional at the function of being multi-functional than the first cell phone that came out, wouldn't you say?
Obviously the context I was referring to can be blown out of proportions.
The context is abiogenesis theory. Would you agree for example that the amoeba is more complex and functional than the primordial soup out of which it supposedly evolved, for example?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
4 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadSimply being what you are is not necessarily being more functional.
If its function is to be primordial soup then the soup wins hands down.
It's like saying Twithead is a twit, dj is not, therefore Twithead wins hands down at being a twit, and is therefore more functional than dj.