Posted on 09/20/2006 9:51:34 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
And I see you share your fellow CR/IDers' sense of humor.
The hawk will kill the easiest prey. The prey will develop instinctive counters to the hawk's attempts. When the prey cannot adapt, it and its line will cease to exist. If the hawk cannot adapt to the change, the hawk's line will cease to exist.
The pattern makes itself clear.
That you cannot see it is of no concern to the hawk, the prey, or the educated.
I think you just made a bigoted comment - was that your plan?
If the pattern is clear - please state that pattern (seems all you have is "animals eat, therefore Natural Selection is not random")
Sounds like your position is: Animals eat what they can therefore Natural Selection is not random.
Not a very logical position.
This is pretty funny - seems freedmb2203 thinks he/she/it is the spokesmodel for "educated" people.
*** Delusions of Grandeur ***
BTW: you sure do like paining with broad brush.
So you position is basically to close your eyes, plug your ears and yell "I can hear any difficult questions"
"He" will do. And I merely speak for those who understand.
*** Delusions of Grandeur ***
Beats the heck out of illusions of Willful Ignorance.
BTW: you sure do like paining with broad brush.
Please tell me where my brush misses the corners.
So you position is basically to close your eyes, plug your ears and yell "I can hear any difficult questions"
Feel free to ask the "difficult questions." I live to serve.
A little sensitive there -- did I hit a nerve?
I was trying to use your analogy so that I could keep the discussion in a realm you can understand. If you have another analogy, I can certainly help you using your terms.
So you think you are the spokeemodel for "those who understand"
Beats the heck out of illusions of Willful Ignorance
When did you have illusions of Willful Ignorance?
Feel free to ask the "difficult questions." I live to serve. >/b>
State the pattern of Natural Selection
You did just claim a large group of people all act the same. I am not the one painting with the extremely large brush.
I see - I made you state that silly position. Gosh I am powerful.
What was stated is not an analogy (please look up the word analogy) - it was a real-world example - the hawk eating is not an analogy - hawks do eat. (and it you read the thread you would see it was not "my analogy")
Still waiting for you to state the pattern of Natural Selection.
Details, please?
In the meantime, I will venture to blow some smoke. :-)
Is your statement necessarily true...? That is, let us agree that an environment conducive to making purine and pyrimidines is incompatible with synthesis of ribose.
Could the environment *first* have been suitable for purine and pyrimidine, cranked out a bunch of them, and then changed in such a way that ribose got made?
Two sub-questions.
1) How stable are *existing* purine and pyrimidine in a ribose-making environment? (and vice versa)?
2) How hard is it to change the environment between favoring making purine/pyrimidine vs. ribose?
Cheers!
What is the definition of "instinctive" in this sentence?
What is the physical mechanism causing the instinct to form? Learned reactions, I can buy. But "instinct"...? How?
Cheers!
Please, if you could send me a tickler email in a week or so, I'd be grateful :-)
Cheers!
I was using a perturbation theory approach to the "one human, one predator" scenario.
Even if the predators can catch one person--would the sustained-high-average-speed of people work if they were in a group?
And the fire remark was meant to show that people don't need to rely solely on running away.
Nowadays, they can use a rifle.
Cheers!
You: The hawk knows nothing about Natural Selection - it eats what it can. The only pattern observed is Hawks eat - I hope you don't think the fact that Hawks eat proves natural selection is not random
I don't understand; the hawk eats what it can see, this happens to contrast with the background. Do you have a problem with that? Why isn't that a pattern?
In what sense is the hawk's meal random?
... The only pattern observed is Hawks eat ...
No, it isn't the only pattern observed; they eat what they can see, in the case of Arctic hares, that means ones that don't have white coats. Why don't the white-coated rabbits have more white-coated babies? If they do, why doesn't this count as natural selection?
Look - if Natural Selection is not random than something most be controlling
Huh? How does that follow? Are we using he words "random" and "pattern" in the same way?! What is wrong with saying that the hawk selects the dark colored rabbits against the snow? Doesn't it? So what's in control?
How important is the truth about anything?
Another possibility--different compounds were made in different areas, run-off carried some away and mixed them together.
There are some things that it is critical to know the truth about. There are something it doesn't matter hardly a whit. Where do you put knowing the age of the Earth on this spectrum?</p>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.