From: Rob Harris (rob@hbinternet.co.uk)
Date: Tue Nov 30 1999 - 09:17:47 MST
Rob wrote:
>> That's the way people debate - I've tried it before....
>> if people don't get their feathers ruffled a bit, they don't
>> negatively evaluate the idea and post a response.
Harvey wrote:
>I resent people who deliberately ruffle other people's feathers to get a
>response. If intelligent comments aren't good enough on their own to merit
>response, I would suggest working on the content and not the presentation.
No, No...by "ruffle feathers" I didn't mean irritate or snipe at. I mean
structure sentences "This IS the way it is..." rather than "perhaps it is
conceivable that...".... using the latter just gets "yes, that is
conceivable"...or nothing at all.
Rob wrote:
>>When resources are scarce, the "fittest" survive at the expense of the
less
>>"fit".
>>An evolutionary dead end - like homosexuality. New deviants will pop up
>>with every generation - but hardly ever are the deviations advantageous.
Harvey wrote:
>Deviations are the way that evolution tries new things. Those that are fit
>keep cropping up. Those that are unfit are weeded out. You are
>misunderstanding the theory of evolution if you think it is repeatedly
>producing the same unfit deviation with every generation.
You've missed my point. I never said that the same and only the same unfit
deviations are produced - hence "New deviants will.....". I used
homosexuality as a classic example of an evoutionary dead-end. It just so
happens that this trait is very common and repeating.
Rob wrote:
>>after all, cats leave
>>"offerings" to their human "gods" too, but I suspect that it has bases in
>>other things like fear of death, and self-glorification.
Harvey wrote:
>You are reading too much into the cats' motivation.
This is very common knowledge - I perhaps should not assume something sound
based upon its popularity as an explanation.
You cannot say whether or not those that claiming this as fact are "reading
too much in" though, as you have no data. I see it as a distinct possibility
that this "common knowledge" has a basis in scientific research, but I
wouldn't bet my life on it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:53 MST