Ringer

Has anyone said you can't raise or lower your heart rate? Control and alter are two different things. Your OP specifically said control. I can close my eyes and I won't see anything, that doesn't mean I can control my vision. Lowering your heart rate is something anyone can do, there's nothing special to it.

It's something I've always wanted to dip my toes into, but I don't think I'll make a career out of it. You realize that 1.) your claim now is drastically different from your original and 2.) you aren't nearly as accurate as an ECG. Your original claim is that you can control your heart rate, now it's that you can alter your heart rate. One noone has disagreed the other is what people posted saying you cannot do. I assume you know which is which.

Don't look into bacteria, your head might explode.

It's not about if you have the ability to measure your heart rate, it's about the accuracy of measuring your heart rate. People aren't accurate at any sort of counting. If you think you're ability is high enough to be considered scientific you are wrong. I would be wrong if I thought that as well. Don't take things so personally.

I would guess that no one here would hear you.

It's true, puns of him are truly infinitesimal.

There was this magnificent mathematical horse. You could teach it virtually anything with no problems, it could even prove theorems in euclidean geometry. But when you tried to teach it analytic geometry, it would go crazy and get violent. The moral of this story is that you can't put Descartes before the horse.

Finally! I was hoping to be able to use those one day.

You couldn't hide the secret of your witchcraft from me forever! Apparently Jesus looks a lot different than I remembered.

What? This is how scientific discourse is done. At least until there are ale and whores, then things get weird.

I thought you could get a radical reaction using Na in EtOH.

And that is how you push scientific progress. Now excuse me, I've got to go figure out how to grow wings out of a human back. . . Save me some ale. . . and maybe a whore or two. [edit] What is that speech bubble sorcery?!?!?!?! A witch I say! [/edit}

No, making babies that make babies is the only criteria for evolution. If your babies make more baby making babies than the other guys babies, then, baby, your babies are moving the process of evolution along. But really, efficiency would be a criteria of ID/Creationism not evolution. Evolution works with a blindfolded buckshot method, if enough stuff comes out of the barrel somethings going to hit the target. It's not efficient, but you still hit the target.

Everyone needs to stay on topic. Now where the hell are my snacks?

Well, depending on what you actually want to focus on (HA!), the very basic physiology is similar. Photoreceptors are excited by certain wavelengths, but those wavelengths vary depending on diet and environment of the animal. Shapes and ways to focus lenses also have pretty large variation. Can you pose the question in a way that is more specific as to what you are interested in learning? There is just so much going on in any sensory organ it's difficult to compare even two types without being very specific as to what you're looking at.

You have no idea how much I wish I would have thought to do the acronym, it looks so official now.

These aren't the kind of promises I want from a candidate, what are you going to do about the snack shortages? What about the the illegal trolls strolling across our borders?

An easier way to work through these is knowing the distributions. For 30% recombination it'll be .35-.15-.15-.35. But that's only for the heterozygous parental gametes. Since you know all girls will be normal since the father is normal that is at least 50%. So the earlier distribution applies only to the males. So you have a probability of .5 for a girl who are always normal, P(g). But a probability of .35 for normal,P(n), and .5 for a boy,P(b). Since they're independent P(n*b)=.5*.35=.175. So P(nb OR g)=.5+.175=.675

That still doesn't narrow it down enough for anyone to give a good explanation that's not multiple text books.

Some species of bats have good vision (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070615093131.htm) as do cats and rats. http://www.ratbehavior.org/RatVision.htm#Color http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_senses#Sight They may not have the same type of visual ability as us, but the same goes for us vs. them. It's comparing apples and oranges to say which is better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_vision

And I find it pointless to discuss anything with someone who asks me to identify something and when I do acts like they asked a completely different question. We can replicate those things (mix different pigments to make a red color and artificial sweeteners) and we can reproduce it (Push your eyes with your hands and you can make yourself see colors and give small shocks to sweetness tastebuds and you will taste sweetness). You stating otherwise doesn't mean anything other than you don't seem to take the time to read about the things your making statements about. Saying the brain isn't the source of consciousness isn't a philosophical question, it's a scientific one. Meaning any statement you make about it doesn't mean anything without evidence.

To add to Moontanman's post, you have to realize when you involve all animals you involve an incredibly diverse groups. Compound eyes, mechanical movement of lenses, huge variety of wavelength receptors, etc. It's difficult to compare so many different kinds of eyes in a simple thread.

Color: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/42/18034.full Taste: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustatory_cortex http://www.tastescience.com/abouttaste2.html Care to try again?

The girl playing the Twi'lek looks like my friend's girlfriend.