Caught you being self-contradictory too many times, didn't I? These contradictions are imagined.
you didn't seem too interested in holding up your end of the debate Simply put, you started investing so much time in your posts that to answer each point would take more time than I have to spare.
Your first inaccuracy is in claiming that food availability does not impact the size of a species Maybe I have lost some of my skill with the written language, but I still can't see where in my post I said this.
There have been plenty of studies that show how species can adjust their own numbers based on availability of food but where are the studies that show an increase or decrease in size of a species? I don't think your two paragraphs of homespun rhetoric really cut the mustard.
We aren't distinct from the natural world, we are a part of a natural world that now includes humanity's production of technology. To claim that human-induced deforestation or skyscrapers aren't natural is akin to claiming that a beaver's dam or a falcon's nest isn't natural.
Do me a favour. This argument is always getting trotted out by those who dislike the prospect of being inconvenienced by reducing the environmental impact of their behaviour. While ostensibly you're being highly scientific and hard-nosed, in fact you're just conveniently ignoring the obvious differences between man and other animals that build structures e.g. the scale of our endeavours, the fact that we have a choice and animals do not.
You scoffed at the notion that birds could evolve the sense to avoid glass buildings, but I don't understand why that shouldn't be the case...why is it so hard to believe that these animals will survive to pass on their genes while those that unceremoniously break their beaks and necks on the surface will not?
Well, it could happen but there are quite a few pre-requistites. There would have to be some distinct genetic reason for the "wheelers" to wheel when the "neck breakers" flew straight on (a mutation that led to improved eyesight, say), and then there would have to be enough risk of this kind of death throughout the populations of the species affected to favour the difference.
Disregarding your post's minor inaccuracies for the moment I do try to be accurate, so let me know where you think these inaccuracies lie - I can handle it. what is your point? To refute your examples.
Of course environmental pressures impact on the evolutionary development of species, but in order to be useful, the word evolution should be reserved to describe modification of species to become more or less fit for their environment.
I don't think that you could use the word evolution to describe a successful act of genocide, for instance.
Plenty of food? Species get bigger. Not much food? Species get smaller. This is more true of individuals than species.
Those that adapt quickly do well (common pigeons). As far as the rock dove is concerned, it did not have to adapt in order to live in cities because it was already well suited to the environment; these birds like buildings because they resemble cliffs and they will readily nest on the abundant ledges thereon.
By your rather heavy-handed definition, the extinctions of the Dodo, the Moa and the passenger pigeon are all the result of evolution. After all, the stupid birds should have just evolved kevlar feathers.
Putting glass in the flight path of birds is not going to make birds evolve because (one can safely assume) none of them have the advantage of being able to identify and steer clear of glass.
Yes, cats do kill birds. In fact, they are much more of a threat to birds than glass is.
Many of us will have seen several, if not dozens of birds killed by cats. How many have you seen killed by glass? Personally, I have seen maybe 1 or 2 in my lifetime.
Evolution in action? If several whole species get completely wiped out from an ecosystem, then I wouldn't call that evolution.
I have a Garmin GPS12 and it suits me fine. You can pick them up in the UK for under 100 (~$250). This, like most handheld GPS units, has a serial port that you can use to interface the unit to a PDA (I have personally connected mine to a Handspring Visor, again, a very cheap option) or a laptop. There is some excellent freeware out there that will let you do all kinds of stuff that the device doesn't natively support e.g. tracking altitude.
I use my GPS for dicking around with when out hiking but I mainly keep it just for safety's sake and it lives at the bottom of my rucksack until I really need it (like the fog rolls in or I need to call the mountain rescue team).
Before you tick other people off about their use of language, try not posting anonymously. Or are you afraid of the backlash for being a gutless pedant, karma-whore?
"When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace."
Surely this just equates to "If thou shalt guardeth thine shit with weapons and shit, dude, it shall verily not get ripped off"?
You've certainly looked out a few (mostly) pertinent quotes there, but the fact remains (and at the risk of sounding like Michael Moore) that the US has the highest per-capita murder rate in the world. This does not seem to be a direct result of the number of weapons owned, so what *is* the cause, and what should be done about it?
Slashdot Mirror
Caught you being self-contradictory too many times, didn't I?
These contradictions are imagined.
you didn't seem too interested in holding up your end of the debate
Simply put, you started investing so much time in your posts that to answer each point would take more time than I have to spare.
...a fanny magnet?
Trust me, I'm not in quite so much of a diametrically opposed position to your own as you seem to think.
I haven't got time to respond to all this paranoid, bunker-mentality poo, though.
Your first inaccuracy is in claiming that food availability does not impact the size of a species
Maybe I have lost some of my skill with the written language, but I still can't see where in my post I said this.
There have been plenty of studies that show how species can adjust their own numbers based on availability of food but where are the studies that show an increase or decrease in size of a species? I don't think your two paragraphs of homespun rhetoric really cut the mustard.
We aren't distinct from the natural world, we are a part of a natural world that now includes humanity's production of technology. To claim that human-induced deforestation or skyscrapers aren't natural is akin to claiming that a beaver's dam or a falcon's nest isn't natural.
Do me a favour. This argument is always getting trotted out by those who dislike the prospect of being inconvenienced by reducing the environmental impact of their behaviour.
While ostensibly you're being highly scientific and hard-nosed, in fact you're just conveniently ignoring the obvious differences between man and other animals that build structures e.g. the scale of our endeavours, the fact that we have a choice and animals do not.
You scoffed at the notion that birds could evolve the sense to avoid glass buildings, but I don't understand why that shouldn't be the case...why is it so hard to believe that these animals will survive to pass on their genes while those that unceremoniously break their beaks and necks on the surface will not?
Well, it could happen but there are quite a few pre-requistites. There would have to be some distinct genetic reason for the "wheelers" to wheel when the "neck breakers" flew straight on (a mutation that led to improved eyesight, say), and then there would have to be enough risk of this kind of death throughout the populations of the species affected to favour the difference.
Basically, it's just not going to happen.
Disregarding your post's minor inaccuracies for the moment
I do try to be accurate, so let me know where you think these inaccuracies lie - I can handle it.
what is your point?
To refute your examples.
Of course environmental pressures impact on the evolutionary development of species, but in order to be useful, the word evolution should be reserved to describe modification of species to become more or less fit for their environment.
I don't think that you could use the word evolution to describe a successful act of genocide, for instance.
Plenty of food? Species get bigger. Not much food? Species get smaller.
This is more true of individuals than species.
Those that adapt quickly do well (common pigeons).
As far as the rock dove is concerned, it did not have to adapt in order to live in cities because it was already well suited to the environment; these birds like buildings because they resemble cliffs and they will readily nest on the abundant ledges thereon.
By your rather heavy-handed definition, the extinctions of the Dodo, the Moa and the passenger pigeon are all the result of evolution.
After all, the stupid birds should have just evolved kevlar feathers.
Putting glass in the flight path of birds is not going to make birds evolve because (one can safely assume) none of them have the advantage of being able to identify and steer clear of glass.
Yes, cats do kill birds. In fact, they are much more of a threat to birds than glass is.
Many of us will have seen several, if not dozens of birds killed by cats. How many have you seen killed by glass? Personally, I have seen maybe 1 or 2 in my lifetime.
Evolution in action? If several whole species get completely wiped out from an ecosystem, then I wouldn't call that evolution.
1. Loss of short term memory.
2. Confusion.
3. Short term memory loss.
Robot army - do my bidding, eeh bah gum!
If you dont like karma whoring, mod down karma whores - theres no need to fall on your sword.
All modern train locomotives use a similar setup
Except the electric-only ones.
I have a Garmin GPS12 and it suits me fine. You can pick them up in the UK for under 100 (~$250).
This, like most handheld GPS units, has a serial port that you can use to interface the unit to a PDA (I have personally connected mine to a Handspring Visor, again, a very cheap option) or a laptop. There is some excellent freeware out there that will let you do all kinds of stuff that the device doesn't natively support e.g. tracking altitude.
I use my GPS for dicking around with when out hiking but I mainly keep it just for safety's sake and it lives at the bottom of my rucksack until I really need it (like the fog rolls in or I need to call the mountain rescue team).
...without having to nip back to the lab for a cigarette.
Dickhead motorcyclists 0, Rest of the World 1
...then I would be trying to get out of it, too.
Yeah - I have a use for that milking action of theirs!
Before you tick other people off about their use of language, try not posting anonymously. Or are you afraid of the backlash for being a gutless pedant, karma-whore?
"a usually liberal Censor's Office"
They ban one game and their not liberal any more?
"When the strong man fully armed guardeth his own court, his goods are in peace."
Surely this just equates to "If thou shalt guardeth thine shit with weapons and shit, dude, it shall verily not get ripped off"?
You've certainly looked out a few (mostly) pertinent quotes there, but the fact remains (and at the risk of sounding like Michael Moore) that the US has the highest per-capita murder rate in the world.
This does not seem to be a direct result of the number of weapons owned, so what *is* the cause, and what should be done about it?
(ok, so you had to open the window to reach out to open the door at a station, but the trains themselves were much smoother running...)
I still have to lean out of the window to open the door. I kid you not.
Right. Try typing on the trains I use and you'll get an elbow in the ribcage.
Do railguns have recoil?
PayPal me.
Speaking as a non-Canadian, they should pay me for having to endure that Celine fucking Dion at all hours of the day and night.