Re: AAT Theory

David L Burkhead (
11 Oct 1995 22:35:38 GMT

In article <> (H. M. Hubey) writes:
> (David L Burkhead ) writes:
>>>Any reasons, using fundamentals of biological processes which
>>>people like must have in abundance, for the temperature of
>> It had to be something. Just like it had to be something _else_
>>for dolphins, and something _else_ for dogs, and something _else_ for
>>chimps, and something _else_ for camels.
>Just like life had to be based on something.
>So why not hydro-carbons instead of aluminum or
>titanium or something, right ?

I see. _One_ thing had a particular reason (the ability of
carbon to form long, branching chains with favorable energy balances),
must mean that _everything_ does. However, the fact that mammals have
a considerable range of body temperatures demonstrates quite clearly
that it does _not_ have to be any particular temperature. And some
animals (camels, for instance) allow considerable temperature
variation within the same individual as external conditions change.

>You're a very quarrelsome fellow, Burkhead. Any special reason?

Well, if you keep making incorrect statements and presenting
falsehoods as facts _somebody_ has to disagree with them. Since my
schedule allows me to spot-check my account throughout the day I
generally get to them first, so it's usually me.

If you'd stop making such gaffes, I'd stop disagreeing with what
you say.

David L. Burkhead

Spacecub - The Artemis Project - Artemis Magazine

Box 831
Akron, OH 44309-0831