>> 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.
>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.
>>When resources are scarce, the "fittest" survive at the expense of the
>>An evolutionary dead end - like homosexuality. New deviants will pop up
>>with every generation - but hardly ever are the deviations advantageous.
>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.
>>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.
>You are reading too much into the cats' motivation.