For Salty

Be careful Quetzal...your excellent use of emoticons might garner you another "A" from salty...and so many kudos from a quack would be a cause for worry

quote:

---

...is that I hate cats.

---

You better watch out about such statements. Rumor has it, both Percy and I are "cat people".Moose

Rumor has it, both Percy and I are "cat people".M: Wasnt cat people a movie about a group of people who could transform into black panthers? Wow if you and Percy are cat people then both salty and Lamark were right ....and if it was in a movie it must be true....and Grasse would agree with me if he was not dead

quote:

---

...people who could transform into black panthers?

---

Maybe that explains my radical social/political views. I still can't get down and get funky though.Moose

quote:

---

Wasnt cat people a movie about a group of people who could transform into black panthers?

---

There was a soft-pornish remake in the 80s as well, and it was the name of a David Bowie song.And THAT is how you derail a thread! ------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

Check out the last two posts. Even the anti-Darwinist mturner agrees that some of it is nonsense...

I am humbled by the fact that you could find that poster Is the panther in the picture semi-meoitic?

quote:

---

Is the panther in the picture semi-meoitic?

---

No... if you see the 80s version, the cat people are all about sexual reproduction... ------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

NC State | WWW4 Service End of LifeFor anyone interested in meiosis (how it really works) the above link is kind of cool.If you want a comedy version of how meiosis works read salty's manifesto on semi-meiosis

Reluctantly I have to admit I have seen the 80's version of the movie...it starred Natasha Kinski and Malcolm McDowell...about the only thing I remember about the movie was (well the semi-pornish parts I remember ) and the scene where the panther bites off the arm of one of the zoo keepers....otherwise, I don't even remember what or if the movie had a plot...the movie was a prime candidate to be satired on shows like Mystery Science Theater 3000 which did a commendable job making movies like "The Head that Would not Die" even more ridiculous...

Your comments, which are mindless, define your character. That's what one must expect from an unmoderated forum. The moderated one isn't much better. One of these days I am going to provide a concordance of the insults I receive. I will treasure it always. salty

However, without a citation from the peer-reviewed literature in support of this claim, I have no reason to take your "rumor" as anything but an unsupported assertion. Perhaps Mammuthus can dig one up... Besides, it's scientifically proven that dogs are waaay smarter than cats.Hare B, Brown M, Williamson C, Tomasello M, 2002 The Domestication of Social Cognition in Dogs, Science, 298:1634-1636.

quote:

---

Dogs are more skillful than great apes at a number of tasks in which they must read human communicative signals indicating the location of hidden food. In this study, we found that wolves who were raised by humans do not show these same skills, whereas domestic dog puppies only a few weeks old, even those that have had little human contact, do show these skills. These findings suggest that during the process of domestication, dogs have been selected for a set of social-cognitive abilities that enable them to communicate with humans in unique ways.

---

In addition, dogs provide significant benefit to their owners, unlike, for example cats:Meyer W, Pakur M, 1999, Thoughts about the domestic dog as the catalyst for relations between humans and a body contact object for humans, Schweiz Arch Tierheilkd 141(8): 351-9.

quote:

---

Based on an intensive analysis of literature, the study summarizes for the first time important but seldom realized reasons for dog keeping by humans. Firstly, the significance of the companion animal domesticated dog as catalyst of numerous different social contacts and communicative interactions of the dog keepers is emphasized. Secondly, the problem of total devotion of dog owners to the animal is discussed including its negative aspects, and the psychogram of a "typical dog owner" is described. Thirdly, the role of the domesticated dog as object of body contact (petting object) for humans is characterized, i.e., the positive effects of tactile stimuli for the emotional and physical well-being of dog owners as well as their animals are presented. All themes are finally discussed in the light of the historical dimension of dog domestication, whereby it is obvious that one of the first uses of this mammalian species was that as an object of affectional touch and hugging to serve basic human emotional needs. In this way it becomes also evident how deeply the dog depends on its owner.

---

Can't say that about a cat, now can you?

Your hypothesis defines your character as mindless
You ended up in the unmoderated forum because you could not get your posts up to snuff.One of these days I am going to provide a concordance of the supporting evidence you have provided for the semi-meiotic hypothesis...it will consist of absolutely nothing...but it will have the virtue of taking up no disk space.

I take it then Scott that you are afraid to solicit opinions from those you regard as experts. Once again, you fail to keep your word. salty

As for debate, debate has no place in science. All that matters is the truth, and that has only to be discovered. I am fed up trying to deal with a bunch of intellectual sociopaths. Go insult each other. salty