> I understand that I am splitting hairs, but words are containers and it seems impossible to know what to fill "Evolution" with!

What I am trying to get here, is a transition from an initial unmutated state, to an adaptation of the maximal adaptation for a given species. The biggest tree cannot have off-shoots that are bigger than the maximum. This isn't anti-evolution, it's just the limitation put on trees by physics. Identifying that your young aren't going to be bigger than you are, gives a certain selection advantage, because you can devote more physical resources to attractive flair. You are more likely to get a mate, if your flair beats the next guy and you have him in a corner if you know he can't develop young bigger than the biggest either. The problem is there needs to be an incentive, to get from an unmutated state, to something that reaches the benefits of being able to trust the maximum. If returning to a selection pressure produced speed or developing immunity produced strength, then there would be something to identify what reaching the maximum was. Waiting for a mutation to tell you what a maximal adaptation was, tells you nothing about what differentiates one maximum from another. You can see there is a problem of uptake here. AGI for example, will never be achievable if we don't work this problem out, systemically. Help me trust your judgment, tell me that knowing there is a physical limit improves Evolution, or that rejecting one maximum encourages adaptations of other maximums - if that makes sense?

Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.

Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
Women and offspring die during the birth
process. The human skull has evolved to be
squashed during birth to get out without too
much damage, but that isn't enough.

Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
but evolution can't fix it.

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 2:07:09 AM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.
>
> Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
> Women and offspring die during the birth
> process. The human skull has evolved to be
> squashed during birth to get out without too
> much damage, but that isn't enough.
>
> Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
> but evolution can't fix it.

The whole premise is that you are pumping enough variation in, to catch the necessary difference (for some of the species).

The problem is that you need to define some of that variation as "relevant" (or instinct will fail to nurture adaptations enough).

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Chris Lowland
<gottservant@gmail.com>:

>On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 2:07:09?AM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.
>>
>> Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
>> Women and offspring die during the birth
>> process. The human skull has evolved to be
>> squashed during birth to get out without too
>> much damage, but that isn't enough.
>>
>> Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
>> but evolution can't fix it.
>
>The whole premise is that you are pumping enough variation in, to catch the necessary difference (for some of the species).
>
>The problem is that you need to define some of that variation as "relevant" (or instinct will fail to nurture adaptations enough).
>
Perhaps a clear translation of that, and a clear explanation
of its relevance to Robert's post, would be appropriate,
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 07:05:07 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:

>Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.
>
>Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
>Women and offspring die during the birth
>process. The human skull has evolved to be
>squashed during birth to get out without too
>much damage, but that isn't enough.
>
>Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
>but evolution can't fix it.

What you describe above is a case of competing evolutionary pressures,
complicated by our cultural ability to surgically deliver babies with
too large heads from mothers with too small birth canals, an ability
which resulted in part from our large heads. So evolution did fix it.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 21:11:13 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:29:07 -0800 (PST), the following
>appeared in talk.origins, posted by Chris Lowland
><gottservant@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 2:07:09?AM UTC+11, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> Your latest post breaks my newsreader program.
>>>
>>> Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
>>> Women and offspring die during the birth
>>> process. The human skull has evolved to be
>>> squashed during birth to get out without too
>>> much damage, but that isn't enough.
>>>
>>> Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
>>> but evolution can't fix it.
>>
>>The whole premise is that you are pumping enough variation in, to catch the necessary difference (for some of the species).
>>
>>The problem is that you need to define some of that variation as "relevant" (or instinct will fail to nurture adaptations enough).
>>
>Perhaps a clear translation of that, and a clear explanation
>of its relevance to Robert's post, would be appropriate,
>>
....or not.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:22:10 PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 07:05:07 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
> >Women and offspring die during the birth
> >process. The human skull has evolved to be
> >squashed during birth to get out without too
> >much damage, but that isn't enough.
> >
> >Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
> >but evolution can't fix it.
> What you describe above is a case of competing evolutionary pressures,
> complicated by our cultural ability to surgically deliver babies with
> too large heads from mothers with too small birth canals, an ability
> which resulted in part from our large heads. So evolution did fix it.
> --

The problem is you say "death sorts it out", but there is no guarantee mutation will start where death ends - what mutation lead to Darwin discovering that death ensures the weaker will yield to the strong?

What we need is a model that sorts out a relevance one way, with commitment on the basis of it another way.

If I heed warnings about a particular poisonous plant and I know how to interpret the warning, then I can avoid all sorts of poisonous plants.

> The problem is you say "death sorts it out", but there is no guarantee mutation will start where death ends - what mutation lead to Darwin discovering that death ensures the weaker will yield to the strong?
>
> What we need is a model that sorts out a relevance one way, with commitment on the basis of it another way.
>
> If I heed warnings about a particular poisonous plant and I know how to interpret the warning, then I can avoid all sorts of poisonous plants.

I am just saying that the whole point of "mutation", is that "we should resist the notion that death is the end" - collectively seeking to avoid the end through mutation leads to adaptation - isn't that what we say? Ok so if that makes sense, then the more familiar a selection pressure is, the easier it is for that process to work. I'm not imagining that it works *for a reason*

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 16:52:03 -0800 (PST), Chris Lowland
<gottservant@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, December 16, 2023 at 8:22:10?PM UTC+11, jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Dec 2023 07:05:07 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >Consider these facts. Human heads are too big.
>> >Women and offspring die during the birth
>> >process. The human skull has evolved to be
>> >squashed during birth to get out without too
>> >much damage, but that isn't enough.
>> >
>> >Our heads are too big, and evolution knows it,
>> >but evolution can't fix it.
>> What you describe above is a case of competing evolutionary pressures,
>> complicated by our cultural ability to surgically deliver babies with
>> too large heads from mothers with too small birth canals, an ability
>> which resulted in part from our large heads. So evolution did fix it.
>> --
>
>The problem is you say "death sorts it out", but there is no guarantee mutation will start where death ends - what mutation lead to Darwin discovering that death ensures the weaker will yield to the strong?
>
>What we need is a model that sorts out a relevance one way, with commitment on the basis of it another way.
>
>If I heed warnings about a particular poisonous plant and I know how to interpret the warning, then I can avoid all sorts of poisonous plants.

I have several criticisms of your comments above:

1. Evolution can offer no guarantees, nor should you expect it to.

2. Evolution is not a case of weak vs. strong, but of relative degrees
of fitness relative to an extant environment.

3. If you live in a culture capable of communicating knowledge, then
by definition that culture learns, which by definition requires memory
and logical comparisons, abilities which are known to evolve.

4. Warnings based on culture might be incorrect or incomplete. If so,
mindlessly heeding such warnings might prevent you from benefits, and
might still allow you to suffer from poisonous plants not previously
identified.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.

To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
the same. A difference is that you would eat
the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
to eat you - whether that's practical or not.

On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>
> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
> the same. A difference is that you would eat
> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>
It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>
>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>
>It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>
And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>
>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>
>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>
> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>
I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>
>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>
>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>
>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>
>I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
>without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>
Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
Neither is pleasant.

I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>
>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>
>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>
>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>
>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>
> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
> Neither is pleasant.
>
> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>
Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
Every other year or some local dies of it.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>>>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>
>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>
>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>
>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>
>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>> Neither is pleasant.
>>
>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>
>Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>Every other year or some local dies of it.
>
"bott"?
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>
>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>
>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>
>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>
>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>
>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>
> "bott"?
>>
No, I've just got lousy typing skills. It's "both", and every other
year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
oh my. Well, not tigers.

On 2023-12-20 23:19:38 +0000, erik simpson said:

> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>
>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>
> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.

Yes, but it's not wise to keep a python as a pet, non-poisonous though
it be. I heard of someone once who took her python to a vet as it had
stopped eating. The vet said "that's quite normal; he's waiting until
he's hungry enough to eat you".

> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.

--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
in England until 1987.

On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:

> On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
>>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>>
>>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>>
>>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>>
>>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>>
>> "bott"?
>>>
> No, I've just got lousy typing skills. It's "both", and every other
> year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
> oh my. Well, not tigers.

You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
(south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one),
but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't
usually attack people.

--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016

On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 21:49:22 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>>> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>>> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>>> the same. A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
>>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to warn
>>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent control,
>>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert environment
>>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up Shiprock
>>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>>
>>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>>
>>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>>
>>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>>
>> "bott"?
>>>
>No, I've just got lousy typing skills. It's "both", and every other
>year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
>oh my. Well, not tigers.
>
:-)

OK, goth it.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 12/21/23 12:38 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:
>
>> On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts.  I am on
>>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>>>> are not subtle.  Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>>>> nevertheless.  And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>>>> the same.  A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about
>>>>>>>> eating you.
>>>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to
>>>>>>>> warn
>>>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent
>>>>>>>> control,
>>>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert
>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up
>>>>>> Shiprock
>>>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>>>
>>>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>>>
>>> "bott"?
>>>>
>> No, I've just got lousy typing skills.  It's "both", and every other
>> year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
>> oh my.  Well, not tigers.
>
> You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
> (south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one),
> but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't usually
> attack people.
>
The lions and bears don't normally attack people either.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 08:59:31 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 12/21/23 12:38 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:
>>
>>> On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts.  I am on
>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>>>>> are not subtle.  Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless.  And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>>>>> the same.  A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about
>>>>>>>>> eating you.
>>>>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to
>>>>>>>>> warn
>>>>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent
>>>>>>>>> control,
>>>>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert
>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up
>>>>>>> Shiprock
>>>>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>>>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>>>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>>>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>>>>
>>>>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>>>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>>>>
>>>> "bott"?
>>>>>
>>> No, I've just got lousy typing skills.  It's "both", and every other
>>> year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
>>> oh my.  Well, not tigers.
>>
>> You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
>> (south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one),
>> but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't usually
>> attack people.
>>
>The lions and bears don't normally attack people either.
>
You might want to clarify that the lions aren't 500 lb with
a mane, living in prides, but 200 lb with none, living
solitary. Similar color, though... :-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On 12/21/23 9:37 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 08:59:31 -0800, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 12/21/23 12:38 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:
>>>
>>>> On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts.  I am on
>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>>>>>> are not subtle.  Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless.  And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>>>>>> the same.  A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about
>>>>>>>>>> eating you.
>>>>>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to
>>>>>>>>>> warn
>>>>>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent
>>>>>>>>>> control,
>>>>>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert
>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up
>>>>>>>> Shiprock
>>>>>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>>>>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>>>>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>>>>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>>>>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> "bott"?
>>>>>>
>>>> No, I've just got lousy typing skills.  It's "both", and every other
>>>> year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
>>>> oh my.  Well, not tigers.
>>>
>>> You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
>>> (south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one),
>>> but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't usually
>>> attack people.
>>>
>> The lions and bears don't normally attack people either.
>>
> You might want to clarify that the lions aren't 500 lb with
> a mane, living in prides, but 200 lb with none, living
> solitary. Similar color, though... :-)
>>
All true. Our lions are mountain lions, and our bears North American
black bears (200-500 lbs). Not very scary unless they come in the
automatic doors in the market.

On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 12:59:46 -0800, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

>On 12/21/23 9:37 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Dec 2023 08:59:31 -0800, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 12/21/23 12:38 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>> On 2023-12-21 05:49:22 +0000, erik simpson said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/20/23 9:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 17:17:50 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 5:10 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:42:09 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 3:27 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:19:38 -0800, the following appeared
>>>>>>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
>>>>>>>>>> <eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts.  I am on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
>>>>>>>>>>>> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
>>>>>>>>>>>> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
>>>>>>>>>>>> are not subtle.  Children keep eating them,
>>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless.  And as for snakes, most of us
>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
>>>>>>>>>>>> the same.  A difference is that you would eat
>>>>>>>>>>>> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
>>>>>>>>>>>> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about
>>>>>>>>>>> eating you.
>>>>>>>>>>> Many snake bites are defensive (rattlers actually are trying to
>>>>>>>>>>> warn
>>>>>>>>>>> you). Non-poisonous snakes are good to have around for rodent
>>>>>>>>>>> control,
>>>>>>>>>>> and they're all beautiful animals. I live in a high desert
>>>>>>>>>>> environment
>>>>>>>>>>> and I'm surrounded by reptiles and rodents.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And if you're anywhere near the Four Corners area, you're
>>>>>>>>>> arguably in more danger from the rodents than from the
>>>>>>>>>> reptiles, even including the rattlers. Rattlers will
>>>>>>>>>> generally try to avoid you; Arsenia pestis, not so much.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I've been in the Four Corners several times, even sneaking up
>>>>>>>>> Shiprock
>>>>>>>>> without official permission. (It turns out the local Indians don't
>>>>>>>>> actually care that much.) No problems with snakes, but there were
>>>>>>>>> packrat middens in some crevices in the rock.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be *damned* careful; you can contract Hantavirus from
>>>>>>>> droppings, and bubonic plague from fleas on the rodents.
>>>>>>>> Neither is pleasant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm near Phoenix, with no problems from either (for the
>>>>>>>> moment, anyway), but both are well-known issues.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deer mice spread hantavirus, but packrats don't. We've goth bott, too.
>>>>>>> Every other year or some local dies of it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "bott"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>> No, I've just got lousy typing skills.  It's "both", and every other
>>>>> year or so some local... Oh, and we've got lions and tigers and bears,
>>>>> oh my.  Well, not tigers.
>>>>
>>>> You live in exciting places. We don't have any of those around here
>>>> (south of France). Tiger mosquitoes, yes (though I've never seen one),
>>>> but tigers, no. We do have wild boar in the city, but they don't usually
>>>> attack people.
>>>>
>>> The lions and bears don't normally attack people either.
>>>
>> You might want to clarify that the lions aren't 500 lb with
>> a mane, living in prides, but 200 lb with none, living
>> solitary. Similar color, though... :-)
>>>
>All true. Our lions are mountain lions, and our bears North American
>black bears (200-500 lbs). Not very scary unless they come in the
>automatic doors in the market.
>
....or break into a delivery truck and eat every donut they
can reach (Krispy Kremes, IIRC; no accounting for taste...).
And then there's the black(?) bear that ate several pounds
of cocaine; the comment I saw was that "for about 5 minutes,
until it killed him, he was the most lethal apex predator on
the planet".

A-a-a-nd I think we've beaten this OT subthread to death;
enjoy the holidays! :-)
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

On Thursday 21 December 2023 at 08:32:15 UTC, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-20 23:19:38 +0000, erik simpson said:
>
> > On 12/20/23 12:14 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >> Again I have trouble replying to Chris's posts. I am on
> >> Google Groups which is soon going to be disconnected,
> >> but for now, I'd ask for wrapped lines, at around 70
> >> characters, or whatever it is thst I'm doing here myself.
> >>
> >> To put it wrongly, many poisonous plants want you
> >> to know that they're poisonous, and their signals
> >> are not subtle. Children keep eating them,
> >> nevertheless. And as for snakes, most of us
> >> don't like them - either venomous or not, it's
> >> the same. A difference is that you would eat
> >> the plant and kill it, whereas the snake wants
> >> to eat you - whether that's practical or not.
> >>
> > It would have to be a big snake that would have ideas about eating you.
> Yes, but it's not wise to keep a python as a pet, non-poisonous though
> it be. I heard of someone once who took her python to a vet as it had
> stopped eating. The vet said "that's quite normal; he's waiting until
> he's hungry enough to eat you".

Eek. Hilaire Belloc mentioned drawbacks
(doubtful) of keeping a python, but
not that one - not in so many words.
<https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27176>
Perhaps it's implied. (This is volume two
of alarming verses for children, about animals.)