Are Animals Intelligent?

dis...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

NATURE
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/index.html

Are Animals Intelligent?
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/intelligence.html

Birds may have a reputation for being
less than geniuses, but researchers are
discovering that some are remarkably smart.
Ravens, for instance, have the ability
to solve difficult puzzles, such as
untangling a knotted string to free up
a tasty treat or figuring out how to
steal fish by hauling in an angler's
untended line. And, as shown in
"Are Animals Intelligent?," the first
part of NATURE's INSIDE THE ANIMAL MIND,
crows on the remote Pacific island of New
Caledonia have learned a skill that people
once thought only primates could master:
the use of tools. The birds use long,
specially chosen twigs to spear the plump
grubs that hide deep beneath the bark of
rotting logs.

Raven antics and New Caledonia's clever crows
have helped make people much more willing to
admit that many animals, including birds, are
quite intelligent. Dolphins can follow complex
instructions, for instance, while orangutans
learn complex tasks, such as washing clothes
by hand, after just a few tries. And even
pigeons and parrots have shown an extraordinary
capacity to recognize, count, or name different
objects.

Listen to Dr. Jane Goodall discuss animal intelligence.
You will need Flash 4 to hear this presentation.

But no bird has done more to give a whole new
meaning to the phrase "birdbrain" than Alex the
African Grey parrot. More than 20 years ago,
researcher Dr. Irene Pepperberg of the University
of Arizona began systematically studying Alex and
several other African Greys, parrots that are
remarkable mimics, to understand avian intelligence.
"Before I began my studies, I knew that parrots could
reproduce the sounds of human speech, but that the
general belief was that such vocalizations could not
be meaningful," Pepperberg has written. Today, her work
with Alex has challenged that notion. For instance,
Alex can name more than 40 objects and understands
the concepts of "same" and "different," "absence,"
"quantity," and "size." Alex, Pepperberg says "has
mastered tasks once thought to be beyond the capacity
of all but humans or certain non-human primates."

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Thomas Becker

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

Animals get intelligent just like humans in Paradise, the second dimension.
I know this from revelations I received.

For more revelations: http://space.tin.it/clubnet/thbecker/

Thomas Becker

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:58:26 +0200, "Thomas Becker"
<tbe...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:

>Animals get intelligent just like humans in Paradise, the second dimension.
>I know this from revelations I received.
>

A fairly horrible thought, actually. Animals have the level of
inteligence they need for their lifestyle. Imagine how boring the life
of a quadruped would be to a human level intelect.

jan sand

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

The post of Mr Becker throws a good deal of doubt of the existence of
intellect in any species...most particularly Homo Sapiens.

Jan Sand

On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:58:26 +0200, "Thomas Becker"
<tbe...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:

>Animals get intelligent just like humans in Paradise, the second dimension.
>I know this from revelations I received.
>

justthis

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

<dis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qkis6$6ee$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> PBS Online
> www.pbs.org
>
> NATURE
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/index.html
>
>
> Are Animals Intelligent?
> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animalmind/intelligence.html
>

.....Thankyou so very much for putting up these posts.

The question as to Animal ability with regard to
Intelligents,Emotions,or Feeling has for many
years indeed posed real question.

Two experiences Ive personally had,
have lingered in my mind for years.

The first being related to a great fear of spiders
that indeed demonstrated they [are] like us,
therefore deserve the same respect and rights
we do.

On a an exotic bird breeding farm where I lived and worked, my
next door neigbor had found a medum size turantula in her kitchen sink
and proceeded to put it outside in her backyard which was
right next to my living quarters. I watched her do this while
that phobia to spiders swiftly began to escalate and come to the
fearful conclusion that if she doesnt kill it, it might find its way
way into [my] house to freak out over. I indicated this to her and
said it has to be killed! She picked up a small bolder and threw it
down
to crush it. The rock rolled away and I could see that it cleverly
skiddered itself under some smaller rocks escaping death, then
came out of hiding.

Once again my fear loomed larger generating me to pick up
a larger bolder to once again try to kill it.
As I raised up that bolder in hands to firmly make sure it
would crash right down upon it, it reared up onto its back hind legs
and raised its front legs up in the air directly toward that
rock in what looked like fear and almost a pleading not to do so,
from the rock that was about to come down and crush it,
which indeed was the result. The memory of that defenseless
creatures arms raised up to protect itself against that bolder
about to crash down upon it brought me to tears at what I had
just committed!
To not give other living beings the same rights we have when
they indeed possess the same consciousness and awareness
we have regarding self preservation is not only wrong,
its dispicable. Simply pick the thing up and puts its right
to life in your backyard! How is it that they intelligently
manage to keep balance in thier own paticular specie
domains and have for millions of years yet humans worry
about them taking over or getting out of control
when it hasnt even occured yet in all those years?

With regard to birds, employment at the time consisted of keeping large
open areas clean where they resided, with daily feeding and fresh
water. A paticular species of bird cared for were a couple of imported
rare geese, very large, with dangerous looking sharp huge three pronged
talons on its feet.
They were not happy about this human entering their
domain which resulted in carrying a stick and running waterhose to keep
them
at bay. But soon enough they began to outwit me by waiting until
my attention was focused on filling their water trough. Very quietly
one would keep its presents in front of me, while the other slowly
circled around behind me 'while I wasnt looking' and proceeded to
attack from behind with a hard bite to my legs. That these
animals payed strict attention between each other as to where
or what my attention was on, in order to sneak up from behind while I
wasnt looking, is an astounding bit of intelligents. Might I say that
humans are 'fools' to think that animals arnt worthy of respect
with regard to their obvious awareness and intelligents!

In a Nature Series on TV several years ago, the program
included one of several educational programs on insects.
Though the program was simply educational, it definitley
brings one to really wonder.

There is a paticular spider in the jungles, that catches its prey,
by weaving into its web a small pouch that simulates the smell
of the female hormone that attracts the male moth.
How in the world did a "spider" figure out that a male moth
is attracted to the female moth hormones in the first place?
How did it figure out what the chemicals are that simulate the female
hormone?
How did it figure out to cleverly construct this entire sceme in
in the creation and building of its web trap?
How in the world do human beings think that 'only' scientists
know chemical composition mathmatics and constructions
that are suppose to prove that humans are smarter?

The Nature Series on TV and both experiences prove to me that a whole
lot of more regard and respect for animals is do from human beings.

So again here,I thankyou for bringing these importent studys to public
awareness
and attention. The very hot debate on the subject of animal rights is
indeed
growing swiftly and by god these other living creatures will indeed be
addressed
with regard to the respect they should be given for their presence on
this
planet too.
Does anyone suppose that when we begin to give respect for their lives
too,
that maybe, just maybe, we might begin to respect one anothers lives to
the point where nuclear bombs wont be constructed anymore?

God Bless all you people out their fighting for the [Repect] of those
creatures on this planet that not only have the right, but 'deserve'
that same regard and repect we want from each other.

Renoncer

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

In article <eonrsss75e1lk3ggn...@4ax.com>,

Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 12:58:26 +0200, "Thomas Becker"
> <tbe...@tiscalinet.it> wrote:
>
> >Animals get intelligent just like humans in Paradise, the second
dimension.
> >I know this from revelations I received.
> >
>

> A fairly horrible thought, actually. Animals have the level of
> inteligence they need for their lifestyle. Imagine how boring the life
> of a quadruped would be to a human level intelect.
>
>

Of course, if a quadruped had a human level intellect
they might also have a lifestyle like yours, and
perhaps your job as well. ;-) R

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

Be difficult to work a keyboard with paws.

But then again if the fundies are anything like right about the nature
of heaven, existence will be even more boring than that of the average
quadruped and it would probably be a mercy if, rather than animals
gaining human level inteligence humans were reduced to an appropriate
level for the environment. About that of the sheep they're always
comparing us with, for example.

jazmyn

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

What about people born with no arms who work keyboards with their feet?

Thing is, there is NO WAY you are going to teach an animal to read
English. Even the best they have done with apes is the simplest of
signs and picture languages. Anything more complex then asking for food,
affection or the basics is too complex for them to understand. Even the
smartest of non-human primates could never grasp the concept of verbs,
adverbs, adjectives, etc. well enough to even understand the average
book.

Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> >
>
> Be difficult to work a keyboard with paws.
>
> But then again if the fundies are anything like right about the nature
> of heaven, existence will be even more boring than that of the average
> quadruped and it would probably be a mercy if, rather than animals
> gaining human level inteligence humans were reduced to an appropriate
> level for the environment. About that of the sheep they're always
> comparing us with, for example.

--

Unsolicited email not accepted and will be reported.
NO SPAM!!

Rat & Swan

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/24/00

to

justthis wrote:

<snip>

> Does anyone suppose that when we begin to give respect for their lives
> too,
> that maybe, just maybe, we might begin to respect one anothers lives to
> the point where nuclear bombs wont be constructed anymore?

I think you have voiced here the hope and
understanding that is at the center of the
AR movement. The respect for other
animals and recognition of their rights is
part of a way of looking at the rest of the
world and our relationship with the non-human
and our fellow humans alike. I do think that
coming to believe in animals' rights must change
the way we see humans and human rights also.

<snip>

Rat

The world depends on US Heath Care

unread,

Sep 24, 2000, 9:07:31 PM9/24/00

to

In article <8qll7p$l2q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,

"justthis" <just...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> <dis...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qkis6

> To not give other living beings the same rights we have when

> they indeed possess the same consciousness and awareness
> we have regarding self preservation is not only wrong,
> its dispicable.

Hmmmm. You realize that by simply living, you kill microbial life at
an alarming rate, right? You also live in a house or apartment which
sits upon some area of land which used to provide habitat for millions
of living organisms...including spiders. You also eat. Now let's just
assume that you are a vegan to avoid the obvious. You eat vegetables
which are grown by farmers. The farmers take many steps to kill all
the poor helpless lifeforms that attempt to eat their crops.

By simply living, you have infringed on the rights of countless
lifeforms and killed millions. Many of them were even cute and had
faces!

> In a Nature Series on TV several years ago, the program
> included one of several educational programs on insects.
> Though the program was simply educational, it definitley
> brings one to really wonder.
>
> There is a paticular spider in the jungles, that catches its prey,
> by weaving into its web a small pouch that simulates the smell
> of the female hormone that attracts the male moth.
> How in the world did a "spider" figure out that a male moth
> is attracted to the female moth hormones in the first place?

You are kidding, right? You think that the spider goes back to its lab
and starts mixing chemicals together in order to produce that smell? I
have two words for you:

Natural selection

> How did it figure out what the chemicals are that simulate the
female
> hormone?

It didn't.

> How did it figure out to cleverly construct this entire sceme in
> in the creation and building of its web trap?

It was lucky enough to be the descendent of the spiders who were lucky
enough to have a genetic mutation which encouraged a new behavior.
They run a program. That program has evolved for anywhere between 3.7
and over 4 billion years.

> How in the world do human beings think that 'only' scientists
> know chemical composition mathmatics and constructions
> that are suppose to prove that humans are smarter?

This is the intellect of PETA.

> The very hot debate on the subject of animal rights is
> indeed
> growing swiftly and by god these other living creatures will
indeed be
> addressed
> with regard to the respect they should be given for their presence
on
> this
> planet too.

'Animal rights' is an issue of convenience. Once humans have
production processes efficient enough to provide the kind of wealth
that we enjoy in the US and other developed nations, then people like
you can afford to spend your free time crying for all the animals we
had to kill to give you all of your free time.

> Does anyone suppose that when we begin to give respect for their
lives
> too,
> that maybe, just maybe, we might begin to respect one anothers
lives to
> the point where nuclear bombs wont be constructed anymore?

Change human nature?

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/25/00

to

On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 21:30:15 -0500, jazmyn <jaz...@firstlight.net>
wrote:

>What about people born with no arms who work keyboards with their feet?
>
>Thing is, there is NO WAY you are going to teach an animal to read
>English.

Nah, you missed the context. We were talking out some kind of religious
paradise where animals are raised to human levels of inteligence.

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 25, 2000, 9:06:52 PM9/25/00

to

In article <39CEC1...@pacbell.net>,
lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> justthis wrote:
>
> <snip>

> > Does anyone suppose that when we begin to give respect for their
lives
> > too,
> > that maybe, just maybe, we might begin to respect one anothers
lives to
> > the point where nuclear bombs wont be constructed anymore?
>

> I think you have voiced here the hope and
> understanding that is at the center of the
> AR movement. The respect for other
> animals and recognition of their rights is
> part of a way of looking at the rest of the
> world and our relationship with the non-human
> and our fellow humans alike. I do think that
> coming to believe in animals' rights must change
> the way we see humans and human rights also.
>
> <snip>
>
> Rat

I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However, the
fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators. Where
humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find a
different prey: other humans.
Kevin

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
(...)

.> I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
.> realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However,
the
.> fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators. Where
.> humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
.> possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find a
.> different prey: other humans.
.> Kevin

I think that you are confusing the primate (among other species)
drive to form heirarchies with predatory instincts. It seems more
likely that, at our worst/most basic, we are opportunists who want
to be at the top of the pecking order, not predators seeking prey.

--

"Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

On Sun, 24 Sep 2000 20:09:46 -0700, Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net>
wrote:

> I do think that
> coming to believe in animals' rights must change
> the way we see humans and human rights also.
>

It might, for the worse. People that blur the ethical line between
humans and animals are likely to treat the former like the latter.

genein

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

"jazmyn" <jaz...@firstlight.net> wrote in message
news:39CEB8B7...@firstlight.net...

> What about people born with no arms who work keyboards with their feet?
>
> Thing is, there is NO WAY you are going to teach an animal to read

> English. Even the best they have done with apes is the simplest of
> signs and picture languages. Anything more complex then asking for food,
> affection or the basics is too complex for them to understand. Even the
> smartest of non-human primates could never grasp the concept of verbs,
> adverbs, adjectives, etc. well enough to even understand the average
> book.

i guess you are not aware of koko the gorrilla....a language base of 300 words
and who also chose here mate by a video she herself put in the vcr....and
waited impatiently for his arrival....and recognized him....who also morned all
night for a cat she befriended but lossed through an accident....by use of her
vocabulary some of her past was recalled by her and do keep in mind that
mankind at one time had less than a 300 word vocabulary...and did not grasp the
concept of verbs etc....you set too high a standard....and ignore the growth
potentials, much like looking at an acorn and not realizing that one day it
could be a tree....koko is not your average gorrilla but neither was the first
thinking man average....man need not be the only life form capable of evolving
into a thinking machine.....

g.

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

In article <39D085...@albany.net>,
mj...@albany.net wrote:
> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> (...)
>
> .> I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
> .> realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However,
> the
> .> fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators.
Where
> .> humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those
who
> .> possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often
find a

> .> different prey: other humans.
> .> Kevin
>
> I think that you are confusing the primate (among other species)
> drive to form heirarchies with predatory instincts. It seems more
> likely that, at our worst/most basic, we are opportunists who want
> to be at the top of the pecking order, not predators seeking prey.

Do you have any verifiable evidence to support this contention? Can
you offer anything that contradicts the following biological facts?:

1) Humans are primates.

2) Primates are omnivores

3) Omnivores are predators and/or scavengers for approximately 50% of
their dietary intake.

4) The most advanced class of primates, the apes, are predators, not
scavenfers.

5) Man belongs to the class of primates along with chimpanzees,
gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

6) Therefore, man is a predator by nature.

In fact, if you've ever watched any nature shows on television, you
would see that the other apes are among the most barbaric of all
predators. Chimpanzees are savages int heir treatment of the monkeys
they kill.
Kevin

>
> --
>
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>

sunnyj...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

In article <8qll7p$l2q$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
"justthis" <just...@mindspring.com> wrote:

Pray tell how this spam found its unwanted way into the can.politics NG.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.>
.> In article <39D085...@albany.net>,
.> mj...@albany.net wrote:
.> > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.> > (...)
.> >
.> > .> I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope
you
.> > .> realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion.
However,
.> > the
.> > .> fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators.
.> Where
.> > .> humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those
.> who
.> > .> possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often
.> find a
.> > .> different prey: other humans.
.> > .> Kevin
.> >
.> > I think that you are confusing the primate (among other species)
.> > drive to form heirarchies with predatory instincts. It seems more
.> > likely that, at our worst/most basic, we are opportunists who want
.> > to be at the top of the pecking order, not predators seeking prey.
.>
.> Do you have any verifiable evidence to support this contention?
Can
.> you offer anything that contradicts the following biological facts?:
.>
.> 1) Humans are primates.

That's correct.

.>
.> 2) Primates are omnivores

That's *generally* correct. Gorillas, however, are vegetarian.

.>
.> 3) Omnivores are predators and/or scavengers for approximately 50%
of
.> their dietary intake.

I don't know where you get the 50% figure, and your inclusion
of scavenging pretty much rebuts your theory that we *must* be
'natural predators'. Sure, we often behave as predators - and
as scavengers or herbivores. That doesn't give us predatory instincts.

.>
.> 4) The most advanced class of primates, the apes, are predators, not
.> scavenfers.

You seem to have overlooked at least most of the gorillas, and
you have yet to establish that the rest, chimps excepted, are
predators as opposed to opportunists. "Omnivore" does not equal
"predator".

.>
.> 5) Man belongs to the class of primates along with chimpanzees,
.> gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.

Correct.

.>
.> 6) Therefore, man is a predator by nature.

Nope. Your conclusion is not fully supported by the facts.
You assume too much, and are mistaken about gorillas.

.>
.> In fact, if you've ever watched any nature shows on television, you
.> would see that the other apes are among the most barbaric of all
.> predators. Chimpanzees are savages int heir treatment of the monkeys
.> they kill.
.> Kevin

Ah yes, nature shows...

Rat & Swan

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/26/00

to

Malcolm McMahon wrote:

<snip>

> People that blur the ethical line between
> humans and animals are likely to treat the former like the latter.

Why? Isn't it just as likely that they will
treat the latter like the former? There is
considerable evidence of both.

Rat

Ward M. Clark

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 9:12:11 PM9/26/00

to

"Michael Cerkowski" <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
news:39D163...@albany.net...
<snip>

> .> 2) Primates are omnivores
>
> That's *generally* correct. Gorillas, however, are vegetarian.
>
> .>
> .> 3) Omnivores are predators and/or scavengers for approximately 50%
> of
> .> their dietary intake.
>
> I don't know where you get the 50% figure, and your inclusion
> of scavenging pretty much rebuts your theory that we *must* be
> 'natural predators'. Sure, we often behave as predators - and
> as scavengers or herbivores. That doesn't give us predatory instincts.
>
> .>
> .> 4) The most advanced class of primates, the apes, are predators, not
> .> scavenfers.
>
> You seem to have overlooked at least most of the gorillas, and
> you have yet to establish that the rest, chimps excepted, are
> predators as opposed to opportunists. "Omnivore" does not equal
> "predator".

<snip>

Of course, genetics will tell the tale; genome analysis reveals that humans
are in fact more closely to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. By quite a
margin, actually. Read Jerrold Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" for
details.

So, pointing out that gorillas are vegetarians (when in fact they do engage
in small rodents and insects on occasion) is quite irrelevant.

And, like our close cousins the chimps, we are opportunistic predators and
omnivorous by nature.

--
Ward M. Clark
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 9:44:08 PM9/26/00

to

In article <39D163...@albany.net>,

mj...@albany.net wrote:
> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> .>
> .> In article <39D085...@albany.net>,
> .> mj...@albany.net wrote:
> .> > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> .> > (...)
> .> >

> .> > .> I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I
hope
> you
> .> > .> realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion.
> However,
> .> > the
> .> > .> fact remains that biology proves that we are natural
predators.
> .> Where
> .> > .> humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas,
those

> .> who
> .> > .> possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often
> .> find a
> .> > .> different prey: other humans.
> .> > .> Kevin
> .> >
> .> > I think that you are confusing the primate (among other
species)
> .> > drive to form heirarchies with predatory instincts. It seems more
> .> > likely that, at our worst/most basic, we are opportunists who
want
> .> > to be at the top of the pecking order, not predators seeking
prey.
> .>
> .> Do you have any verifiable evidence to support this contention?
> Can
> .> you offer anything that contradicts the following biological
facts?:
> .>
> .> 1) Humans are primates.
>
> That's correct.
>
> .>

> .> 2) Primates are omnivores
>
> That's *generally* correct. Gorillas, however, are vegetarian.
>
> .>
> .> 3) Omnivores are predators and/or scavengers for approximately 50%
> of
> .> their dietary intake.
>
> I don't know where you get the 50% figure, and your inclusion
> of scavenging pretty much rebuts your theory that we *must* be
> 'natural predators'. Sure, we often behave as predators - and
> as scavengers or herbivores. That doesn't give us predatory instincts.
>
> .>
> .> 4) The most advanced class of primates, the apes, are predators,
not
> .> scavenfers.
>
> You seem to have overlooked at least most of the gorillas, and
> you have yet to establish that the rest, chimps excepted, are
> predators as opposed to opportunists. "Omnivore" does not equal
> "predator".

"Chimps excepted"? Which are we most closely related to? Do you
actually try to debate a topic by trying to ignore the most relevant
points?

>
> .>
> .> 5) Man belongs to the class of primates along with chimpanzees,
> .> gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
>
> Correct.
>
> .>
> .> 6) Therefore, man is a predator by nature.
>
> Nope. Your conclusion is not fully supported by the facts.

Nope, the conclusion is completely supported by the facts, you
just ignore the facts with irrelevant information and half-truths.

> You assume too much,

Not a single assumption, you call biological facts that you don't
like assumptions.

and are mistaken about gorillas.

We are more closely related to chimpanzees, which you have already
conceded are predators, than to gorillas. Also, gorillas are not pure
herbivores, although their diet is mostly herbivorous.

>
> .>
> .> In fact, if you've ever watched any nature shows on television,
you
> .> would see that the other apes are among the most barbaric of all
> .> predators. Chimpanzees are savages int heir treatment of the
monkeys
> .> they kill.
> .> Kevin
>
> Ah yes, nature shows...

Soyour problem is with shows that actually show animals in their
native habitats, living their lives naturally. Then what do you have to
base your opinions on, PETA news releases?
Kevin

>
> --
>
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 11:48:24 PM9/26/00

to

Ward M. Clark wrote:

You really should give the poster to whom I'm
responding here attribution. You're denying
author credit to your own comrades...

.> "Michael Cerkowski" <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
.> news:39D163...@albany.net...
.> <snip>
.> > .> 2) Primates are omnivores
.> >
.> > That's *generally* correct. Gorillas, however, are vegetarian.
.> >
.> > .>

.> > .> 3) Omnivores are predators and/or scavengers for approximately
50%

.> > of
.> > .> their dietary intake.
.> >
.> > I don't know where you get the 50% figure, and your inclusion
.> > of scavenging pretty much rebuts your theory that we *must* be
.> > 'natural predators'. Sure, we often behave as predators - and
.> > as scavengers or herbivores. That doesn't give us predatory
instincts.
.> >
.> > .>

.> > .> 4) The most advanced class of primates, the apes, are
predators, not

.> > .> scavenfers.
.> >
.> > You seem to have overlooked at least most of the gorillas, and
.> > you have yet to establish that the rest, chimps excepted, are
.> > predators as opposed to opportunists. "Omnivore" does not equal
.> > "predator".
.> <snip>
.>
.> Of course, genetics will tell the tale; genome analysis reveals that
humans
.> are in fact more closely to chimps than chimps are to gorillas. By
quite a
.> margin, actually. Read Jerrold Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" for
.> details.

I know perfectly well that chimps are closer genetically
to humans than are gorillas; bonobos are closer still. It
was...Brandon?... who was making the categorical 'primate
argument', not me.

.>
.> So, pointing out that gorillas are vegetarians (when in fact they do
engage
.> in small rodents and insects on occasion) is quite irrelevant.

It's quite relevant as a response to the post that you
snipped up. BTW, many animals classified as "herbivores"
will occasionally eat insects and/or small animals. Deer
will even eat fish. That doesn't make *them* "predators"
either.

.>
.> And, like our close cousins the chimps, we are opportunistic
predators and
.> omnivorous by nature.

The argument being made - which you seem to have lost on the
cutting room floor - was that humans have some sort of predatory
instinct, based on our status as primates. This is clearly not
supported. Actually the opposite is supported, as hunting is
declining as a human sport; if it truly were instinctual and
not just opportunistic, there would be no significant decline,
and most people would engage in some sort of hunting. I went
around this track with swamp already - a search on "hunting
instinct" will yield the thread.

(...)

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 26, 2000, 11:50:47 PM9/26/00

to

Brandon, see my response to Ward. The only thing I'd
like to add here is that chimps are *not* our closest
relatives - you're mistaken on that point as well. If
you want to talk about "chimps", then don't write
"primates".

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:23:24 -0400, "Richard Bishop"
<bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>Try looking at human activities from a sociological/anthropological view.
>All sorts of human behavior are merely substitutes for hunting. Watch a
>group
>of children playing tag or hide and seek. Watch adults play tennis or
>baseball.
>Throwing or hitting a ball (rock) hard and accurately is essential. All
>sorts of
>war/kill games abound on computers. Gangs roam out inner cities, staking
>out
>territories and defending them with violence.

That's about teratorial aggression which is something that animals do
quite independant of whether they hunt or not.

In fact if you think about the construction of games like hide and seek
or tag the hunter is the _outsider_, the role that each child tries to
avoid. These games appear to be about _being hunted_. The hunter is
really just serving a duty necessary to create the experience, looking
forward to his or her turn to be among the hunted.

Some primates actively hunt, others do not so being primates says little
about the subject.

It's suggestive that groups that hunt seem all to have initiation
rituals, typified by "blooding". Would such a ritual be necessary if
hunting were actually an instincive behaviour? Rituals exist to impress
leasons on people, to change people.

jazmyn

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

As smart an ANIMAL Koko is, she is STILL an animal. Not a human. She
cannot grasp any concept more complex then food, companionship, mating
and the very basics. She cannot reason in the same way as even the
average mentally retarded human. 300 words is really not much and it
took many, many years of training to get her that far.

As for evolving, she's not evolved to our level yet.. When an animal is
able to fully communicate on an EQUAL level with anyone, not just a
scientist who taught the animal sign language and is able to fully grasp
any concept presented, then I would be impressed enough to feel that
THAT animal, but not the whole species, might be given the same rights
as a human. However, with rights come responsibilities and that animal
would have to fully understand those responsibilities. The animal
should of course be ASKED at that pint weither it would prefer to live
as a human or 'in the wild'. Though any creature with half a brain
would not care to live 'in the wild'. Too much chance of starvation,
disease, parasites, exposure to violent weather, poachers, predators,
etc.

However, if a species did rise to that level, many high government
officials would view it as a threat and we might end up with the species
being wiped out by our elected officials as a matter of 'national
security'. I pity any alien who might contact this planet, due to the
paranoia of many factions of the government(s).

genein wrote:
>
>
> i guess you are not aware of koko the gorrilla....a language base of 300 words
> and who also chose here mate by a video she herself put in the vcr....and
> waited impatiently for his arrival....and recognized him....who also morned all
> night for a cat she befriended but lossed through an accident....by use of her
> vocabulary some of her past was recalled by her and do keep in mind that
> mankind at one time had less than a 300 word vocabulary...and did not grasp the
> concept of verbs etc....you set too high a standard....and ignore the growth
> potentials, much like looking at an acorn and not realizing that one day it
> could be a tree....koko is not your average gorrilla but neither was the first
> thinking man average....man need not be the only life form capable of evolving
> into a thinking machine.....
>
> g.

--

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

In article <39D19A...@albany.net>,

mj...@albany.net wrote:
> Brandon, see my response to Ward. The only thing I'd
> like to add here is that chimps are *not* our closest
> relatives - you're mistaken on that point as well. If
> you want to talk about "chimps", then don't write
> "primates".

Let's see, now your claim is chimpanzees are not our closest
relatives because there is disagreement in the scientific community
over whether man's closest relative is the common chimpanzee or the
pygmy chimpanzee(bonobo). Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? Now
exactly what am I mistaken about? If you want to talk about
"chimpanzees", then don't try to argue that because our closest living
relatives are one of the two species of chimpanzee, they are not our
closest relatives. Talk straight, it's hard to follow the language of
someone who goes in circles.
Kevin

> --
>
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>

Richard Bishop

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:h1u3ts878b4histca...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:23:24 -0400, "Richard Bishop"
> <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Try looking at human activities from a sociological/anthropological view.
> >All sorts of human behavior are merely substitutes for hunting. Watch a
> >group
> >of children playing tag or hide and seek. Watch adults play tennis or
> >baseball.
> >Throwing or hitting a ball (rock) hard and accurately is essential. All
> >sorts of
> >war/kill games abound on computers. Gangs roam out inner cities, staking
> >out
> >territories and defending them with violence.
>
> That's about teratorial aggression which is something that animals do
> quite independant of whether they hunt or not.
>

And the stalking and killing of people that goes on in the inner cities
isn't a hunting
type behavior?
Try walking down a dark street on the wrong side of town.

> In fact if you think about the construction of games like hide and seek
> or tag the hunter is the _outsider_, the role that each child tries to
> avoid. These games appear to be about _being hunted_. The hunter is
> really just serving a duty necessary to create the experience, looking
> forward to his or her turn to be among the hunted.
>

I tend to disagree. Hide and seek is about FINDING the hider. The finder
is
the winner. As for tag, there is just as much effort involved in CATCHING
the prey
as in avoiding being the prey. After all, our ancesters were both, hunter
and prey.

> Some primates actively hunt, others do not so being primates says little
> about the subject.
>
> It's suggestive that groups that hunt seem all to have initiation
> rituals, typified by "blooding". Would such a ritual be necessary if
> hunting were actually an instincive behaviour? Rituals exist to impress
> leasons on people, to change people.

And animals who bring crippled prey to their offspring are not 'training'
them to hunt?

Man is a very social animal. Many of our social rituals have to do with
instinctive type
behaviors.

Sue

>

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

In article <8qssj6$v8t$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,

"Richard Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
> news:39D19A...@albany.net...

> > Brandon, see my response to Ward. The only thing I'd
> > like to add here is that chimps are *not* our closest
> > relatives - you're mistaken on that point as well. If
> > you want to talk about "chimps", then don't write
> > "primates".
>

> Sigh. Mikie, you'd think by now you would know better than to make
foolish
> statements.
> Chimps ARE our closest relatives. At least they are mine. I'm
doubtful
> about yours, perhaps
> dodo birds?
>
> Sue

Sue,
His "ponit" is that there is some scientific evidence that man's
closest living relative may be the bonobo rather than the common
chimpanzee. He ignores the fact that the bonobo is the same animal as
the pygmy chimpanzee. All the DNA evidence I have seen suggests the
common chimpanzee is our closest living relative, however, even if it
is the bonobo, it's still a chimpanzee. It looks like some people like
to play word games when they have no real argument.
Kevin

>
> > --
> >
> >
> > "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>
>

Richard Bishop

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

<brand...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8qt57j$2rd$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...

> In article <8qssj6$v8t$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "Richard Bishop" <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >
> > Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
> > news:39D19A...@albany.net...

> > > Brandon, see my response to Ward. The only thing I'd
> > > like to add here is that chimps are *not* our closest
> > > relatives - you're mistaken on that point as well. If
> > > you want to talk about "chimps", then don't write
> > > "primates".
> >

> > Sigh. Mikie, you'd think by now you would know better than to make
> foolish
> > statements.
> > Chimps ARE our closest relatives. At least they are mine. I'm
> doubtful
> > about yours, perhaps
> > dodo birds?
> >
> > Sue
>
> Sue,
> His "ponit" is that there is some scientific evidence that man's
> closest living relative may be the bonobo rather than the common
> chimpanzee. He ignores the fact that the bonobo is the same animal as
> the pygmy chimpanzee. All the DNA evidence I have seen suggests the
> common chimpanzee is our closest living relative, however, even if it
> is the bonobo, it's still a chimpanzee. It looks like some people like
> to play word games when they have no real argument.

Yes, that's his typical tactic. Just makes him look sillier.

Sue

> Kevin

> >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > > "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
> >
> >
>
>

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:27:45 -0400, "Richard Bishop"
<bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:h1u3ts878b4histca...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 09:23:24 -0400, "Richard Bishop"
>> <bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's about teratorial aggression which is something that animals do
>> quite independant of whether they hunt or not.
>>
>
>And the stalking and killing of people that goes on in the inner cities
>isn't a hunting
>type behavior?
>Try walking down a dark street on the wrong side of town.

The fact that it usually happens "on the wrong side of town" certainly
puts in the teritorial area. It's very often about defending turf,
asserting control of teritory.

Of course mugging also takes place for more rational, ecconomic reasons.
And killing can also be motivated by pure Evil. An act of perversion.

>
>> In fact if you think about the construction of games like hide and seek
>> or tag the hunter is the _outsider_, the role that each child tries to
>> avoid. These games appear to be about _being hunted_. The hunter is
>> really just serving a duty necessary to create the experience, looking
>> forward to his or her turn to be among the hunted.
>>
>
>I tend to disagree. Hide and seek is about FINDING the hider. The finder
>is
>the winner.

No, think about it. The kid that gets found first becomes the hunter, or
"it". It's a _penalty_ for failing to escape. They hate that role. The
whole incentive for catching someone is to shed it. Did you ever hear a
kid say "I want to be "It"". No it's who can get in with the "you're it"
first.

The _fun_ part is being the pursued. If the game were about hunting then
there would be one quary and many hunters. I don't think that ever
happens. It's not a game about aggression but about delicious fear.

> As for tag, there is just as much effort involved in CATCHING
>the prey
>as in avoiding being the prey.

It's as much effort, yes, but it's not the bit they enjoy. And they are
not "avoiding being the prey" they are avoiding becoming the hunter.

>>
>> It's suggestive that groups that hunt seem all to have initiation
>> rituals, typified by "blooding". Would such a ritual be necessary if
>> hunting were actually an instincive behaviour? Rituals exist to impress
>> leasons on people, to change people.
>
>And animals who bring crippled prey to their offspring are not 'training'
>them to hunt?
>

Not exactly. They are helping them to go beyond pursuit to actual
killing.

>Man is a very social animal. Many of our social rituals have to do with
>instinctive type
>behaviors.
>

The are to do with _altering_ our instinctive behaviours.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Interesting ideas about 'Hide and Seek, Malcolm. I hadn't
thought of that, but I agree that it seems to have evolved
as a way to learn to *evade* hunters more than a way to
become one. I think a lot of our hunting subculture evolved
from envy and fear of the *real* hunting animals that used
to have 'pale primate' for dinner. Quite a bit of our religion
seems to have had the same origin...

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message

news:39D25D...@albany.net...

> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> .> > Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
> .> > news:39D19A...@albany.net...
> .> > > Brandon, see my response to Ward. The only thing I'd
> .> > > like to add here is that chimps are *not* our closest
> .> > > relatives - you're mistaken on that point as well. If
> .> > > you want to talk about "chimps", then don't write
> .> > > "primates".
> .> >
> (...)
>
>
> .> His "ponit" is that there is some scientific evidence that man's
> .> closest living relative may be the bonobo rather than the common
> .> chimpanzee. He ignores the fact that the bonobo is the same animal as
> .> the pygmy chimpanzee. All the DNA evidence I have seen suggests the
> .> common chimpanzee is our closest living relative, however, even if it
> .> is the bonobo, it's still a chimpanzee. It looks like some people
> like
> .> to play word games when they have no real argument.
> .> Kevin
>
> I'm not the one playing "word games" here. If "bonobo" were
> interchangable with "chimpanzee", then there would be no
> genetic difference, now would there?

A bonobo IS a champanzee. You have been told this repeatedly.

>If you want to see people
> torturing the language, look to the 'evolution' thread, where
> Antis have been trying to claim that breeding chickens that
> can't even walk properly is "evolution"...

Sigh. I think I'll cross-post this over to talk.origins so you can get a
real drubbing from
the scientists.
Evolution is merely change in the gene pool over time. We HAVE changed the
gene pool
of the different varieties of domestic chickens. And, btw, Mikie, the claim
that the chickens
can't walk 'properly' is yet another of the little ARL lies. They can walk
just fine.

Sue

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:37:19 GMT, Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net>
wrote:

>Interesting ideas about 'Hide and Seek, Malcolm. I hadn't
>thought of that, but I agree that it seems to have evolved
>as a way to learn to *evade* hunters more than a way to
>become one. I think a lot of our hunting subculture evolved
>from envy and fear of the *real* hunting animals that used
>to have 'pale primate' for dinner. Quite a bit of our religion
>seems to have had the same origin...

Actually practical considerations are perfectly adequate as an
explanation for ancient hunting.

Malcolm McMahon

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 14:30:01 -0400, "Richard Bishop"
<bis...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>
>And prey animals don't tend to be territorial. It's the predators who stake
>out
>a large territory and defend it. Cougars, wolves, grizzlies, all of them
>have their
>own territory. Prey animals such as elk, deer, etc., only compete for
>mates, don't
>compete for territory. Rather, they tend to be herd animals and only
>challenge
>during mating season.
>Dogs (predator) defend their territory. Birds do to some extent but that's
>a mating
>thing. During the off-season they flock together.
>

What it comes down to is that animals are teritorial whenever they
_need_ to control teritory, whether it be hunting ground, nesting site,
mating grounds or whatever.

Richard Bishop

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Malcolm McMahon <mal...@pigsty.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:grd4tsc9jjuqpupt3...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 17:37:19 GMT, Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Interesting ideas about 'Hide and Seek, Malcolm. I hadn't
> >thought of that, but I agree that it seems to have evolved
> >as a way to learn to *evade* hunters more than a way to
> >become one. I think a lot of our hunting subculture evolved
> >from envy and fear of the *real* hunting animals that used
> >to have 'pale primate' for dinner. Quite a bit of our religion
> >seems to have had the same origin...

One thing I missed about this post. Where did you get the idea that early
primates
were 'pale'?

And our ancesters were as real as any other hunters.

>
> Actually practical considerations are perfectly adequate as an
> explanation for ancient hunting.
>

Sue

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

In article <8qtem3$a9b$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,

The little tag-line he has below explains it all. It's a warning to
all who try to debate him. Hey, we can't blame him, he gave us fair
warning.
Kevin

>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>
>

1cattom

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote:

> Ward M. Clark wrote:
> .>
> .> Could you provide examples of that evidence?
>
> ARAs becoming involved in human rights issues is the
> example that springs to mind. The other side of it would
> be ARAs treating animals with respect, but that one is
> kind of obvious...

But the lying by ARAs to conceal the vivisection they promote in the
so-called alternatives suggests the opposite, does it not?

How is failing to acknowledge the use of animals consistent with
treating them with respect, Mr. C?

What about these examples to the contrary, Rat and Mr. C?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/et?ac=003507474657614&rtmo=aqX5XJXJ&atmo=tttt
tttd&pg=/et/00/9/3/neo03.html

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/dt?ac=002830376029449&rtmo=lnFnQAot&atmo
=HHHH22NL&pg=/00/9/3/do06.html

> .>
> (...)
>
> .> "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> .> news:39D15F...@pacbell.net...
> .> > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
> .> >
> .> > <snip>

> .> > > People that blur the ethical line between
> .> > > humans and animals are likely to treat the former like the
> latter.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Brandon, let's go back to your claim for a moment, shall
we? You claimed that because humans are primates, and primates
are omnivores and hunters, then humans must also be predators.
I really don't care about the semantics of chimp vs bonobo,
because the difference is irrelevant here. Your mischaracterization
of gorillas as omnivores, and your assumption that all primates
have identical instincts, is what *is* relevant here. You are
mistaken in your initial assumption, and your conclusion is
unsupported. Trying to sidetrack one's opponent is transparent.

I will also note here that your attack style is
far too much like S/R Bishop's to give you much credibility
with me or the other ARAs. If you want to effective as an
Anti, then leave out the personal attacks. If you want to
be effective as a troll, just keep this up. Your choice.

jan sand

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 10:01:13 -0500, jazmyn <jaz...@firstlight.net>
wrote:

>As smart an ANIMAL Koko is, she is STILL an animal. Not a human. She
>cannot grasp any concept more complex then food, companionship, mating
>and the very basics. She cannot reason in the same way as even the
>average mentally retarded human. 300 words is really not much and it
>took many, many years of training to get her that far.
>
>As for evolving, she's not evolved to our level yet.. When an animal is
>able to fully communicate on an EQUAL level with anyone, not just a
>scientist who taught the animal sign language and is able to fully grasp
>any concept presented, then I would be impressed enough to feel that
>THAT animal, but not the whole species, might be given the same rights
>as a human. However, with rights come responsibilities and that animal
>would have to fully understand those responsibilities. The animal
>should of course be ASKED at that pint weither it would prefer to live
>as a human or 'in the wild'. Though any creature with half a brain
>would not care to live 'in the wild'. Too much chance of starvation,
>disease, parasites, exposure to violent weather, poachers, predators,
>etc.
>
>However, if a species did rise to that level, many high government
>officials would view it as a threat and we might end up with the species
>being wiped out by our elected officials as a matter of 'national
>security'. I pity any alien who might contact this planet, due to the
>paranoia of many factions of the government(s).
>

Obviously you cannot have the faintest conception of what goes on in
any one elses conscious mind and you are so filled with hubris over
being human that it is unlikely you are amenable to reason or doubt on
the subject.

Jan Sand

Pat James

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

On Wed, 27 Sep 2000 13:36:32 -0500, Richard Bishop wrote
(in message <8qtem3$a9b$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>):

'bonobo' = pygmy chimp.

'chimp' = chimpanzee.

'human' = (mostly) bald chimp.

[ka-snip]

--
Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance with
incredible arrogance.
Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A person
incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true believer.

Rat & Swan

unread,

Sep 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/27/00

to

Ward M. Clark wrote:

> Could you provide examples of that evidence?

Of people treating non-human animals like
humans? Or in the way they would treat
humans under similar circumstances?

Rat

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 12:42:32 AM9/28/00

to

In article <01HW.B5F81F9E0...@enews.newsguy.com>,

That pretty much sums that one up. Why couldn't the rest of us make
it that simple?
Kevin

>
> [ka-snip]
>
> --
> Scientific creationism: a religious dogma combining massive ignorance
with
> incredible arrogance.
> Creationist: (1) One who follows creationism. (2) A moron. (3) A
person
> incapable of doing math. (4) A liar. (5) A very gullible true
believer.
>
>

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 12:39:23 AM9/28/00

to

In article <39D2AF...@albany.net>,

mj...@albany.net wrote:
> Brandon, let's go back to your claim for a moment, shall
> we?

OK

You claimed that because humans are primates, and primates
> are omnivores and hunters, then humans must also be predators.

That is correct.

> I really don't care about the semantics of chimp vs bonobo,
> because the difference is irrelevant here.

Then you admit that you were the one who made the mistake.

Your mischaracterization
> of gorillas as omnivores,

Not a mischaracterization at all. As both Ward and I pointed out, you
are correct that gorillas are more nerbivorous than the other apes,
however, even gorillas are known to eat small animals and insects, as
well as bird's eggs.

and your assumption that all primates
> have identical instincts,

Where did I lake any statement like thet? Making a comparison on a
limited number of instincts is far from the broad claim you are making
here.

is what *is* relevant here.

What is relevant here is that the ARA's are the ones who want me to
change my way of life without providing any evidence that their views
are correct, but let's continue.

You are
> mistaken in your initial assumption,

My initial assumption was that man's closest living relatives are
the apes. My additional assumptions were that, of these, chimpanzees
are the closest relatives to man ( whichever of the two species happens
to be the closest is not important). Also, my assumptions were that the
apes also include gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. I never singled
any one species out, you did that, and every single statement I made
was true.

and your conclusion is
> unsupported.

My conclusion was that, because man's closest relatives are
omnivores, the evidence strongly supports my belief that man is
naturally an omnivore. Now, what part is unsupported?

Trying to sidetrack one's opponent is transparent.

Excuse me for bringing this up, but accusing me of trying to
sidetrack someone is an out and out lie. You were the one who wanted to
eliminate chimpanzees from the discussion. You were the one who tried
to play sematics with the words "bonobo" and "chimpanzee". You were the
one who tried to single out the gorilla as a specific issue when I only
mentioned gorillas in my first post as part of listing all the families
of apes. Interestingly enough, you singled out a family of apes that
has only one living species and tried to seperate the two species of
chimpanzees even more than scientific study allow. In case you don't
know it, bonobos and common chimpanzees are in the same genus, that's
as close as two animals can get without being the same species. In
fact, you have just accused me of the tactics you are guilty of. Not
once have I made a misleading statement. Not once have I made a false
statement hoping I wouldn't get called on it and not once have I tried
to suggest that it is any of my business whether you or anyone else
chooses to hunt, eat meat, grow their own vegetables, or fly a friiging
kite.
You and the other ARA's are the ones suggesting that I should give
up hunting for food and sport, yet you cannot provide any supporting
evidence for your beliefs. Since I am not suggesting that you should
hunt, I am not the one challenging anyone else's way of life. Therefore
the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. Yet I am the one
providing the verifiable evidence in the form of facts well-known to
anyone except those who wish to play word games.

>
> I will also note here that your attack style is
> far too much like S/R Bishop's to give you much credibility

Show one instance where I verbally attacked anyone other than in
direct retaliation for a similar attack, or in response to
unsubstantiated and incoherent nonsense (i.e.:anthony dacko).

> with me or the other ARAs.

Your credibility is...? Where's your evidence to support your beliefs?

If you want to effective as an
> Anti, then leave out the personal attacks.

See above.

If you want to
> be effective as a troll, just keep this up. Your choice.

Sir, I have been posting to usenet for a good while now. The fact
that I just recently started posting to this thread is irrelevant. A
troll is someone who posts unsubstantiated nonsense in an attempt to
flame someone without provocation. You have been proven wrong
repeatedly, yet refuse to admit your mistakes. In this post, you have
made several false allegations aimed directly at me. You have accused
me of the tactics that you are actually the one guilty of.You have
failed to offer anything supporting your claims and have proven you
have no understanding of logic or debate techniques. You, sir, are not
a troll, you are a complete liar. I would ask for an apology but it
would be useless and everyone here will be able to see exactly what you
have attempted to do and I'm sure you will be called to task on it by
more than just me. In no case, I repeat, no case, have I made
unwarranted attacks on anyone's character without provocation. I have
not lied about anyone in an attempt to avoid the actual issues. You
have done both. My style of debate does not please you because I offer
comments you can't refute with truth and because I don't cower to
people who spill uneducated, mindless nonsense. Your problem with me is
that I do know what the hell I am talking about and that leaves you
with no alternative but to lie and accuse me of your mistakes. You are
pathetic.
Kevin

> --
>
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.>
.> In article <39D2AF...@albany.net>,
.> mj...@albany.net wrote:
.> > Brandon, let's go back to your claim for a moment, shall
.> > we?
.>
.> OK
.>
.> You claimed that because humans are primates, and primates
.> > are omnivores and hunters, then humans must also be predators.
.>
.> That is correct.
.>
.> > I really don't care about the semantics of chimp vs bonobo,
.> > because the difference is irrelevant here.
.>
.> Then you admit that you were the one who made the mistake.

No, I'm saying that because I don't argue that either chimps or
bonobos don't hunt, it doesn't matter if they are the same species -
which they aren't.

.>
.> Your mischaracterization
.> > of gorillas as omnivores,
.>
.> Not a mischaracterization at all. As both Ward and I pointed out,
you
.> are correct that gorillas are more nerbivorous than the other apes,
.> however, even gorillas are known to eat small animals and insects, as
.> well as bird's eggs.

Once again, this doesn't make them omnivores, unless you want to
lobby for deer and most other herbivores to be reclassified as
such. Are you really trying to imply that, because gorillas eat
a few bugs and maybe an occasional bird's egg, they are predators...?

.>
.> and your assumption that all primates
.> > have identical instincts,
.>
.> Where did I lake any statement like thet? Making a comparison on a
.> limited number of instincts is far from the broad claim you are
making
.> here.

OK, I'll change that to "identical predatory instincts". You
have not established this, and by using the class 'primate'
instead of the class 'chimpanzee' as your evidence, you have
botched your argument.

.>
.> is what *is* relevant here.
.>
.> What is relevant here is that the ARA's are the ones who want me to
.> change my way of life without providing any evidence that their views
.> are correct, but let's continue.

This thread was supposed to be about animal intelligence, but
your digression is still based on an unsupported assumption; you
have yet to prove that humans have any instinct to be predators.
*You* are the one who is making a claim and not proving it, not
the ARAs.

.>
.> You are
.> > mistaken in your initial assumption,
.>
.> My initial assumption was that man's closest living relatives are
.> the apes. My additional assumptions were that, of these, chimpanzees
.> are the closest relatives to man ( whichever of the two species
happens
.> to be the closest is not important). Also, my assumptions were that
the
.> apes also include gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. I never singled
.> any one species out, you did that, and every single statement I made
.> was true.

Didn't you claim that they are all omnivores? They aren't.
Gorillas are not classed as omnivores. They behave like
fairly typical herbivores with few predators.

.>
.> and your conclusion is
.> > unsupported.
.>
.> My conclusion was that, because man's closest relatives are
.> omnivores, the evidence strongly supports my belief that man is
.> naturally an omnivore. Now, what part is unsupported?

You are also equating "omnivore" with "predator", and have
not only failed to support this, you have actually contradicted
it as a global claim by mentioning that some omnivores are
scavengers.

.>
.> Trying to sidetrack one's opponent is transparent.
.>
.> Excuse me for bringing this up, but accusing me of trying to
.> sidetrack someone is an out and out lie. You were the one who wanted
to
.> eliminate chimpanzees from the discussion. You were the one who tried
.> to play sematics with the words "bonobo" and "chimpanzee".

You are laboring under a major misconception here: I was
*conceding* that chimps hunt, not trying to eliminate them
from discussion. Go back and read what I wrote again, please.
The chimp vs bonobo thing was just to further illuminate
your errors re primates.

.> You were the
.> one who tried to single out the gorilla as a specific issue when I
only
.> mentioned gorillas in my first post as part of listing all the
families
.> of apes. Interestingly enough, you singled out a family of apes that
.> has only one living species and tried to seperate the two species of
.> chimpanzees even more than scientific study allow. In case you don't
.> know it, bonobos and common chimpanzees are in the same genus, that's
.> as close as two animals can get without being the same species. In
.> fact, you have just accused me of the tactics you are guilty of. Not
.> once have I made a misleading statement. Not once have I made a false
.> statement hoping I wouldn't get called on it and not once have I
tried
.> to suggest that it is any of my business whether you or anyone else
.> chooses to hunt, eat meat, grow their own vegetables, or fly a
friiging
.> kite.

I 'singled out' gorillas because you were trying to use them
as evidence, along with the other primates, that primates are
all predators. That is not correct.

.> You and the other ARA's are the ones suggesting that I should give
.> up hunting for food and sport, yet you cannot provide any supporting
.> evidence for your beliefs. Since I am not suggesting that you should
.> hunt, I am not the one challenging anyone else's way of life.
Therefore
.> the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. Yet I am the one
.> providing the verifiable evidence in the form of facts well-known to
.> anyone except those who wish to play word games.

Your "facts" are not all "well-known", and I think you'll
find that much of your evidence is not verifiable.

> >
> > I will also note here that your attack style is
> > far too much like S/R Bishop's to give you much credibility
>
> Show one instance where I verbally attacked anyone other than in
> direct retaliation for a similar attack, or in response to
> unsubstantiated and incoherent nonsense (i.e.:anthony dacko).

My mistake. I went back and checked, and you were just quoting
Bishop. Sorry about that.

> > with me or the other ARAs.
>
> Your credibility is...? Where's your evidence to support your beliefs?

I'm not saying that humans definitely have an instinct to
form heirarchies, as opposed to an instinct to hunt. I present
that as my opinion. You, on the other hand, want us to accept as
fact your unproven claim that humans act as we do because we
are predators. My evidence is from what I know of primate and
monkey behavior, human behavior, and predator behavior. The
evidence best supports, *in my opinion*, my theory.

Just for the record, I apologized *before* I read this part of
your post. I'll write the above off as your anger talking. I do
find this interesting enough to note, though:

"In no case, I repeat, no case, have I made unwarranted attacks
on anyone's character without provocation."

Richard Bishop

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00

to

Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message

news:39D2AF...@albany.net...

> Brandon, let's go back to your claim for a moment, shall

> we? You claimed that because humans are primates, and primates

> are omnivores and hunters, then humans must also be predators.

Sigh, Mikie, we KNOW humans are predators because they have been predators
for
thousands and thousands of years. The evidence is staggering that our
ancesters hunted,
ate meat, used skins, bones, sinews.
All the denial in the world won't make this fact go away.

> I really don't care about the semantics of chimp vs bonobo,

> because the difference is irrelevant here. Your mischaracterization
> of gorillas as omnivores, and your assumption that all primates
> have identical instincts, is what *is* relevant here. You are
> mistaken in your initial assumption, and your conclusion is
> unsupported. Trying to sidetrack one's opponent is transparent.

>
> I will also note here that your attack style is
> far too much like S/R Bishop's to give you much credibility

> with me or the other ARAs. If you want to effective as an
> Anti, then leave out the personal attacks. If you want to

> be effective as a troll, just keep this up. Your choice.

> --

Translation: I'm unable to respond intelligently to your argument so I'm
soon going
to claim you are mean to me and I'll run away by putting you in my kill
file.

Sue

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00

to

In article <39D33C...@albany.net>,

mj...@albany.net wrote:
> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> .>
> .> In article <39D2AF...@albany.net>,
> .> mj...@albany.net wrote:
> .> > Brandon, let's go back to your claim for a moment, shall
> .> > we?
> .>
> .> OK
> .>
> .> You claimed that because humans are primates, and primates
> .> > are omnivores and hunters, then humans must also be predators.
> .>
> .> That is correct.
> .>
> .> > I really don't care about the semantics of chimp vs bonobo,
> .> > because the difference is irrelevant here.
> .>
> .> Then you admit that you were the one who made the mistake.
>
> No, I'm saying that because I don't argue that either chimps or
> bonobos don't hunt,

That was my point, they are our closest relatives and they hunt,
thank you.

it doesn't matter if they are the same species -
> which they aren't.

I never said they were. I didn't list all the species of gibbons
seperately either, why didn't you claim I was trying to insinuate they
were all the same species. You would ahve had a lot more to work with.

>
> .>
> .> Your mischaracterization
> .> > of gorillas as omnivores,
> .>
> .> Not a mischaracterization at all. As both Ward and I pointed out,
> you
> .> are correct that gorillas are more nerbivorous than the other apes,
> .> however, even gorillas are known to eat small animals and insects,
as
> .> well as bird's eggs.
>
> Once again, this doesn't make them omnivores, unless you want to
> lobby for deer and most other herbivores to be reclassified as
> such. Are you really trying to imply that, because gorillas eat
> a few bugs and maybe an occasional bird's egg, they are predators...?

No, gorillas belong to c class that is naturally omnivorous, what
part of this comfuses you? The fact that genetics have allowed for
gorillas to evolve into a more herbivorous creature does not remove
them from the calss primata, genetically that is still where they
belong.

>
> .>
> .> and your assumption that all primates
> .> > have identical instincts,
> .>
> .> Where did I lake any statement like thet? Making a comparison on
a
> .> limited number of instincts is far from the broad claim you are
> making
> .> here.
>
> OK, I'll change that to "identical predatory instincts".

OK, that's acceptable, at least in the context it was intended,
which you continually ignore.

You
> have not established this, and by using the class 'primate'
> instead of the class 'chimpanzee' as your evidence, you have
> botched your argument.

I listed the members of the class primata because that is the class
to which humans belong. I also narrowed it further to include only
apes. There are several dozen species of apes, all but one of which are
natural omnivores. However, my actual comparison was based on only two
species, the chimpanzees.

>
> .>
> .> is what *is* relevant here.
> .>
> .> What is relevant here is that the ARA's are the ones who want me
to
> .> change my way of life without providing any evidence that their
views
> .> are correct, but let's continue.
>
> This thread was supposed to be about animal intelligence, but
> your digression is still based on an unsupported assumption; you
> have yet to prove that humans have any instinct to be predators.

Only because you refuse to pay attention. Our two closest relatives
are natural predators. Can you refute that statement?

> *You* are the one who is making a claim and not proving it, not
> the ARAs.

Wrong, you continue to play word games.

>
> .>
> .> You are
> .> > mistaken in your initial assumption,
> .>
> .> My initial assumption was that man's closest living relatives
are
> .> the apes. My additional assumptions were that, of these,
chimpanzees
> .> are the closest relatives to man ( whichever of the two species
> happens
> .> to be the closest is not important). Also, my assumptions were that
> the
> .> apes also include gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons. I never
singled
> .> any one species out, you did that, and every single statement I
made
> .> was true.
>
> Didn't you claim that they are all omnivores? They aren't.
> Gorillas are not classed as omnivores.

They are classed as primates, there is no class for omnivores.
Primates are considered omnivores. Generalities and specifcs are
something you need to study. A single member of any group may vary in
some characteristics from other members of that group, however it does
not change their DNA.

They behave like
> fairly typical herbivores with few predators.

I agree, will you stop with the gorilla business already.

>
> .>
> .> and your conclusion is
> .> > unsupported.

1)Man is a primate, more specifically, man is an ape.

2)The other surviving apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and
gibbons.

3) Of these 4 groups, man's closest relatives are the chimpanzees, of
which there are two species, both belonging to the same genus.

4) As a whole, apes are omnivores. Specifically, both species of
chimpanzees are omnivores.

5) Omnivores are of two general types when it comes to satisfying the
meat portion of their diet: predators and scavengers.

6) Of these two types, the apes (including both species of
chimpanzees) are predators.

7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
supports my theory that man is a natural predator.

> .>
> .> My conclusion was that, because man's closest relatives are
> .> omnivores, the evidence strongly supports my belief that man is
> .> naturally an omnivore. Now, what part is unsupported?
>
> You are also equating "omnivore" with "predator", and have
> not only failed to support this, you have actually contradicted
> it as a global claim by mentioning that some omnivores are
> scavengers.

I explained this above after already explaining in my orginal post
that primates are not scavengers.

>
> .>
> .> Trying to sidetrack one's opponent is transparent.
> .>
> .> Excuse me for bringing this up, but accusing me of trying to
> .> sidetrack someone is an out and out lie. You were the one who
wanted
> to
> .> eliminate chimpanzees from the discussion. You were the one who
tried
> .> to play sematics with the words "bonobo" and "chimpanzee".
>
> You are laboring under a major misconception here: I was
> *conceding* that chimps hunt, not trying to eliminate them
> from discussion.

Then my entire point is proven, what was all the other ranting about?

Go back and read what I wrote again, please.
> The chimp vs bonobo thing was just to further illuminate
> your errors re primates.

And it was proven not to be an error, except on your part.

The second sentence is my response to the first.

>
> .> You and the other ARA's are the ones suggesting that I should
give
> .> up hunting for food and sport, yet you cannot provide any
supporting
> .> evidence for your beliefs. Since I am not suggesting that you
should
> .> hunt, I am not the one challenging anyone else's way of life.
> Therefore
> .> the burden of proof is not on me, it is on you. Yet I am the one
> .> providing the verifiable evidence in the form of facts well-known
to
> .> anyone except those who wish to play word games.
>
> Your "facts" are not all "well-known", and I think you'll
> find that much of your evidence is not verifiable.

I spelled it out more clearly for you, check numbers 1-7 above. Note
I did not change anything I originally said, just included the minor
points you were harping about.

>
> > >
> > > I will also note here that your attack style is
> > > far too much like S/R Bishop's to give you much credibility
> >
> > Show one instance where I verbally attacked anyone other than in
> > direct retaliation for a similar attack, or in response to
> > unsubstantiated and incoherent nonsense (i.e.:anthony dacko).
>
> My mistake. I went back and checked, and you were just quoting
> Bishop. Sorry about that.

I don't remember quoting anybody.

>
> > > with me or the other ARAs.
> >
> > Your credibility is...? Where's your evidence to support your
beliefs?
>
> I'm not saying that humans definitely have an instinct to
> form heirarchies, as opposed to an instinct to hunt. I present
> that as my opinion. You, on the other hand, want us to accept as
> fact your unproven claim that humans act as we do because we
> are predators. My evidence is from what I know of primate and
> monkey behavior, human behavior, and predator behavior. The
> evidence best supports, *in my opinion*, my theory.

Show the evidence that supports your theory, I still have not seen it.

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/28/00

to

Ward M. Clark wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

<snip>

> > > Could you provide examples of that evidence?

> > Of people treating non-human animals like
> > humans? Or in the way they would treat
> > humans under similar circumstances?

> The former.

I don't want to sound as if I'm trying to evade
the issue, but it would depend on what one
meant by "like humans." I see that concern all
the time in the way many humans treat companion
animals like children. Sometimes, IMO, this is
good, and I think our relationship with our
dependent companion animals should be like that
with our dependent children. IOW, we should
take our responsibilities toward them seriously,
for their whole lives, put our obligations toward
them before our own comfort or luxuries, and
recognize an absolute obligation to provide for
their best possible welfare, either ourselves,
or by rehoming them with someone who can. As
with children, this _should_ mean that we base
our ideas of what their best welfare is on a
true understanding of their wants and needs. The
situation can backfire disasterously when the
humans involved are ignorant or blind to the
needs of their companions, and instead treat them
_as if_ they were actually human children, instead
of being in the same relationship to us as children.
IOW, again, treating a non-human animal like a human
does not mean treating one as a human. AR does not
have to involve anthropomorphizing, although most
antis assume it does. <g>

Rat

Ward M. Clark

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 11:49:29 PM9/28/00

to

"Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message

news:39D403...@pacbell.net...
> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <megasnip>

> > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>

> I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> engaged in predatory behavior for at least
> most of their evolutionary development.

It's pretty inarguable.

> But
> I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.

Not really.

>
> "I'm a member of the Winter family; all other
> members of the Winter family are meat-eaters;
> therefore I'm a "natural" meat-eater." Doesn't
> follow.

Your version doesn't, but you're engaging in a bit of apples/oranges, nicht
wahr?

> We're playing games with the word
> "natural" again here. Isn't it time to develop
> some version of Godwin's Law that the thread is
> dead when someone introduces the word "natural"
> into the argument?

I don't think so.

You see, Rat, your analogy falls apart when you consider that the social
relationships of a family can not be accurately compared to broad behavioral
attributes of an entire species. To use your model, you'd have to say,
conversely, "My SO and I don't eat meat, therefore no human beings in the
world eat meat."

Kevin's logic is actually quite good, and his analogy is much more
appropriate, in fact - a corresponding analogy might be, "red-tailed hawks
are predators, and rough-legged hawks are very similar genetically and
morphologically; we can therefore imply that rough-legged hawks are
predators as well." The difference being humans and chimps are much more
closely related than the red-tailed and rough-legged hawks. In point of
fact, we are more closely related to chimps than chimps are to gorillas.
Mitochondrial DNA analysis of bonobos, chimpanzees, and gorillas, compared
to humans, is quite revealing, as shown in several articles from the Journal
of Molecular Evolution; I'll try to reproduce the relevant data and make it
look decent in ASCII:

**********
bonobo chimpanzee
human
chimpanzee 0.1482 (0.0078)
0.0106 (0.0011)
0.0271 (0.0034)
0.0222
0.0212
0.7
human 0.4079 (0.0150) 0.4192 (0.0153)
0.0219 (0.0016) 0.0212 (0.0016)
0.0609 (0.0051) 0.0486 (0.0046)
0.0429 0.0466
0.0420 0.0390
1.8 1.9
gorilla 0.4833 (0.0171) 0.4984 (0.0175) 0.5358
(0.0186)
0.0298 (0.0019) 0.0305 (0.0019)
0.0295 (0.0019)
0.0574 (0.0050) 0.0618 (0.0052)
0.0743 (0.0057)
0.0607 0.0618
0.0620
0.0536 0.0546
0.0542
? 2.3 (0.2)
2.3 (0.2)

The numbers in each cell (error bars in parentheses where available) are:

mtDNA protein-coding genes, synonymous substitutions[1]
mtDNA protein-coding genes, nonsynonymous substitutions[1]
substitutions in mtDNA rRNA-specifying genes[1]
Amino acid differences, from mtDNA protein coding genes (model 1)[2]
Amino acid differences, from mtDNA protein coding genes (model 2)[2]
Sibley and Alquist percentage difference. Gorilla figures based on the 1987
paper, others based on the 1984 paper; the 1990 paper is different again
with larger error bars.[3,4,5] I can't vouch for these personally; but since
they are widely used I provide them as a comparison.

Data taken from the talk.origins archive feedback section,
(http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jul00.html) quoted by Chris
Ho-Stuart, compiled from the following sources:

Ulfur Arnason, Anette Gullberg, Axel Janke, Xiufeng Xu. (1996)
Pattern and Timing of Evolutionary Divergences Among Hominoids Based on
Analyses of Complete mtDNAs.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, 43:650-661
Ulfur Arnason, Xiufeng Xu, Anette Gullberg, Dan Graur. (1996)
Molecular Reference for Calibrating Recent Evolutionary Divergences
Journal of Molecular Evolution, 43:41-45
Sibley, Charles G. and Ahlquist, Jon E. (1984)
The phylogeny of the hominoid primates, as indicated by DNA-DNA
hybridization.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, 20:2-15.
Sibley, Charles G. and Ahlquist, Jon E. (1987)
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: Evidence from an expanded
data set.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, 26:99-121.
Sibley, Charles G., Comstock, John A., and Ahlquist, Jon E. (1990)
DNA hybridization evidence of hominoid phylogeny: A reanalysis of the data.
Journal of Molecular Evolution, 30:202-236.

I find it interesting that, if not for a somewhat anthropocentric point of
view in taxonomy, humans would probably be listed in the same genus as
chimps. As I understand it, that's the thesis of Jared Diamond's book, "The
Third Chimpanzee."

Also, I think the claim of Man (as a species) being a natural predator is
quite relevant.

How, then, may we define whether a species can be considered a natural
predator?

Well, we could look at behavior. Humans have been "behaving" as predators,
as defined by engaging regularly in predatory behavior, for something like 2
million years. If you look at the development of human technology,
beginning with the habilines, you see a large proportion of implements
designed for butchering carcasses, and later, weapons for hunting. (We were
scavengers before we were hunters.)

We could look at physiology - humans are physiologically omnivores, adapted
for a broad range of diets, as evidenced by dentition and our
gastrointestinal tracts. We have neither the adaptations shown by obligate
carnivores like lions, nor the adaptations for pure herbivory, like
ruminants. In other words, we're generalists, and that's a great
evolutionary advantage. Further, the patterns of hominid evolution show
evidence of an increasing utilization of animal protein in diet, beginning
with A. africanus, roughly 2.5 mya.

You could look at the foundations of social structure, at least with social
animals - like humans. In our case, the beginning of tribal society was
formed with the banding together of hunting parties. In fact, the expansion
of humans into northern latitudes would not have been possible if the advent
of cooperative hunting had not allowed the taking of large game. This had
the benefit of providing hides for warmth, as well as fats and oils for
energy, to aid in withstanding winter cold. This behavior likely began with
H. erectus/H. ergaster, 1.5 or so mya.

To be perfectly blunt, Rat, YOUR body is quite well adapted to use animal
flesh for nutrition. You simply choose not to. That's fine. I'm a
libertarian sort of guy, myself; as far as I'm concerned, you're welcome to
eat as you please, and I'll expect the same consideration in return. But,
IMNSHO, it's intellectually dishonest, on examination of the facts, to claim
some sort of moral high ground by doing refusing to eat animal products -
and I'd be happy to explore that further, in another thread, if you like.

Incidentally, I'll risk a bit of ire from my compatriots here on one point.
People will point to Man's binocular vision as evidence of predatory
inclination, and while predators do tend to have focused binocular vision,
that's not the reason we have it - we have binocular vision due to having
descended from arboreal primate ancestors.

But I digress. To summarize, all three of those definitions indicate Man's
status as a natural predator. In our modern society, individual members of
our species can choose not to engage in predatory diet or behavior; but that
does not change the overall biological status of H. sapiens sapiens as a
species. As a species, behaviorally, Man is accurately classed as a
(natural) terminal predator.

Ward M. Clark

unread,

Sep 28, 2000, 11:52:14 PM9/28/00

to

That ASCII attempt came out looking really crappy. Apologies, all. You can
see the data in a table on the Web page referenced, and I highly recommend
the entire talk.origins Web site. It's not on topic for this board, but
it's an outstanding site nonetheless.

--
Ward M. Clark
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been

"Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@home.com> wrote in message
news:djUA5.11862$g6.37...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com...

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 12:30:15 AM9/29/00

to

"Ward M. Clark" wrote:
>
> "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:39D403...@pacbell.net...
> > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <megasnip>
> > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
> >
> > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> > engaged in predatory behavior for at least
> > most of their evolutionary development.
>
> It's pretty inarguable.
>
> > But
> > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
>
> Not really.

Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid. Humans
generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but Brandon's
logic doesn't "prove" it.

Playing a little loose with the form of a syllogism (a true syllogism
only has three parts):

1. All apes are primates.
2. Some non-human apes (and primates) are predators.
3. Man is an ape (and primate).
4. Therefore, man is a predator.

That's formally invalid. It would require one to work backward from the
the statement that "some apes (primates) are predators" to infer that
*all* primates are predators, and since man is a primate, he must be a
predator. It's a non sequitur.

However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on the
(invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.

[...]

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 12:34:15 AM9/29/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.>
.> In article <39D1DD...@albany.net>,
.> mj...@albany.net wrote:

.> > Ward M. Clark wrote:
.> > .>

.> > .> Could you provide examples of that evidence?
.> >
.> > ARAs becoming involved in human rights issues is the
.> > example that springs to mind. The other side of it would
.> > be ARAs treating animals with respect, but that one is
.> > kind of obvious...
.>
.> Do you have some evidence that any of us you have responded to on
.> this thread don't treat animals with respect?
.> Kevin

How is that relevant to this topic?

.> >
.> > .>
.> > (...)
.> >
.> > .> "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> > .> news:39D15F...@pacbell.net...

.> > .> > Malcolm McMahon wrote:
.> > .> >

.> > .> > <snip>
.> > .> > > People that blur the ethical line between
.> > .> > > humans and animals are likely to treat the former like the
.> > latter.
.> > .> >

.> > .> > Why? Isn't it just as likely that they will

.> > .> > treat the latter like the former? There is
.> > .> > considerable evidence of both.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 12:42:35 AM9/29/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.>
.> In article <39D33C...@albany.net>,
.> mj...@albany.net wrote:
.> > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.> > .>

.> > .> In article <39D2AF...@albany.net>,

.> > .> mj...@albany.net wrote:
.> > .> > Brandon, let's go back to your claim for a moment, shall
.> > .> > we?
.> > .>

.> > .> OK
.> > .>
.> > .> You claimed that because humans are primates, and primates

.> > .> > are omnivores and hunters, then humans must also be predators.

.> > .>
.> > .> That is correct.
.> > .>
.> > .> > I really don't care about the semantics of chimp vs bonobo,

.> > .> > because the difference is irrelevant here.

.> > .>
.> > .> Then you admit that you were the one who made the mistake.

.> >
.> > No, I'm saying that because I don't argue that either chimps or
.> > bonobos don't hunt,
.>
.> That was my point, they are our closest relatives and they hunt,
.> thank you.

No, your point was this, which I will quote in its entirety:

" I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However, the
fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators. Where
humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find a
different prey: other humans.
Kevin"

I have no problem with the rather obvious fact that humans engage
in predation. What I do question, and you have failed to establish,
is that we have a "genetic tendency to hunt prey". You can't decide
that, because chimps hunt, and humans hunt, and the two are closely
related, that humans - or even chimps! - have a hunting instinct.
This behavior can be just as well explained as 'opportunistic
omnivorism', IOW taking food where it can be found. I *especially*
have a problem with your contention that this alleged hunting
instinct is responsible for human crime. You are welcome to your
opinion, but that is all it is: your opinion.

(...)

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 12:48:19 AM9/29/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.>
.> >
.> > OK, I'll change that to "identical predatory instincts". >
.> > .>

.> > .> I'm glad I took the time to re-check, I didn't think that
sounded

.> right. I never said that either, although when I first read it, I
.> thought I might have said something along those lines in some context
.> you couldn't grasp. The fact that you put something in quotation
marks
.> that I never said is the lowest trick yet.
.> Kevin

For gods' sake, man I was referring to *my* claim, not
putting that forth as a quote from you. I'm beginning to
suspect that you are misreading me on purpose...

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 12:55:16 AM9/29/00

to

Jonathan Ball wrote:
.>

.> "Ward M. Clark" wrote:
.> >

.> > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> > news:39D403...@pacbell.net...
.> > > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.> > >
.> > > <megasnip>
.> > > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate,
primates are
.> > > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
evidence
.> > > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
.> > >
.> > > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
.> > > engaged in predatory behavior for at least
.> > > most of their evolutionary development.
.> >
.> > It's pretty inarguable.
.> >
.> > > But
.> > > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
.> > > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
.> >
.> > Not really.
.>
.> Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid.
Humans
.> generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but Brandon's
.> logic doesn't "prove" it.
.>
.> Playing a little loose with the form of a syllogism (a true syllogism
.> only has three parts):
.>
.> 1. All apes are primates.
.> 2. Some non-human apes (and primates) are predators.
.> 3. Man is an ape (and primate).
.> 4. Therefore, man is a predator.
.>
.> That's formally invalid. It would require one to work backward from
the
.> the statement that "some apes (primates) are predators" to infer that
.> *all* primates are predators, and since man is a primate, he must be
a
.> predator. It's a non sequitur.

Thank you for posting that.

.>
.> However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on
the
.> (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.

I'm not really even arguing that we are predators in the general
sense of the word. It's this 'genetic tendency' stuff, and trying
to use it to explain human/human crime that I think is way out there.

Ward does a great job of illustrating the obvious, but he also
proceeds from an unproven assumption: that humans *or* chimpanzees
have some sort of instinct to hunt. I don't think anyone here needs
to be told that humans have been hunting for a long time; what is
in question is why we have done it, and whether it is instrinsic
to our nature.

.> [...]

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 1:38:20 AM9/29/00

to

Well, given that it has been going on a long time - since homo sapiens
sapiens first appeared - it doesn't seem a stretch to me to think that
it's intrinsic. I think some of the "proofs" - gangbanging, for example
- are simply silly. It's fine to use the term "predatory" to describe
gang behavior, and perhaps to describe some other forms of human combat
as "predatory" in nature, as an figurative extension of the term. But
in terms of the earlier, more primitive understanding of the word, it
seems unworkable.

However, animal "rights" activists have a bit of a problem in trying to
explain where the human hunting tendency originated. In these
newsgroups, we've seen goofs suggest that meat eating is some kind of
"learned" behavior that goes against human nature. You have generally
remained silent during those debates, but I can't imagine you really
believe that crap. You would have to posit some kind of big, bad Meat
Marketing Board several hundred thousand years ago, long before humans
moved out of the hunting-gathering period, and I don't think even you
would get that silly. Ron Hamilton and ~~Illweed~~ might, though.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Jonathan Ball wrote:
.>
.> Michael Cerkowski wrote:
.> >
.> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
(...)

.> > .> Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid.

.> > Humans
.> > .> generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
Brandon's
.> > .> logic doesn't "prove" it.

.> > .>
.> > .> Playing a little loose with the form of a syllogism (a true
syllogism

.> > .> only has three parts):

.> > .>
.> > .> 1. All apes are primates.

.> > .> 2. Some non-human apes (and primates) are predators.
.> > .> 3. Man is an ape (and primate).
.> > .> 4. Therefore, man is a predator.

.> > .>
.> > .> That's formally invalid. It would require one to work backward
from

.> > the
.> > .> the statement that "some apes (primates) are predators" to infer
that
.> > .> *all* primates are predators, and since man is a primate, he
must be
.> > a
.> > .> predator. It's a non sequitur.
.> >
.> > Thank you for posting that.
.> >
.> > .>

.> > .> However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based
on

.> > the
.> > .> (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
.> >
.> > I'm not really even arguing that we are predators in the general
.> > sense of the word. It's this 'genetic tendency' stuff, and trying
.> > to use it to explain human/human crime that I think is way out
there.

That wasn't clear. I should have written "I'm not even arguing that
we are not predators in the general sense".

.> >
.> > Ward does a great job of illustrating the obvious, but he also
.> > proceeds from an unproven assumption: that humans *or* chimpanzees
.> > have some sort of instinct to hunt. I don't think anyone here needs
.> > to be told that humans have been hunting for a long time; what is
.> > in question is why we have done it, and whether it is instrinsic
.> > to our nature.
.>
.> Well, given that it has been going on a long time - since homo
sapiens
.> sapiens first appeared - it doesn't seem a stretch to me to think
that
.> it's intrinsic. I think some of the "proofs" - gangbanging, for
example
.> - are simply silly. It's fine to use the term "predatory" to
describe
.> gang behavior, and perhaps to describe some other forms of human
combat
.> as "predatory" in nature, as an figurative extension of the term.
But
.> in terms of the earlier, more primitive understanding of the word, it
.> seems unworkable.

No, it isn't unimaginable, even for ARAs like me. However, it
is far from being established as fact, and the widespread Anti
acceptance of it as fact is as irksome to ARAs as the widespread
ARA belief that we are natural herbivores is to Antis. When this
unproven theory is then expanded to include modern human social
behavior, that's when the sparks really fly - for me anyway.

.> However, animal "rights" activists have a bit of a problem in trying
to
.> explain where the human hunting tendency originated. In these
.> newsgroups, we've seen goofs suggest that meat eating is some kind of
.> "learned" behavior that goes against human nature. You have
generally
.> remained silent during those debates, but I can't imagine you really
.> believe that crap. You would have to posit some kind of big, bad
Meat
.> Marketing Board several hundred thousand years ago, long before
humans
.> moved out of the hunting-gathering period, and I don't think even you
.> would get that silly. Ron Hamilton and ~~Illweed~~ might, though.

I think that you'd be surprised at how many posts I ignore these
days; that mostly explains my silence on the issue. For the record,
I believe (not as fact, but as my preferred theory) that first
humans scavenged to supplement their diets, then learned to emulate
carnivores when it became obvious that eating meat was a good way to
acquire lots of nutrients in a small volume. I think that, like most
primates, humans are opportunists - the greatest opportunists of
all the primates, actually. This means, to me, that we both *can*
hunt and eat meat, and *don't have to do so*, because we are not
carnivores and don't have a genuine drive to hunt. I have posited
in past discussions that what we *do* have is a drive to manipulate,
to change our environment to serve our own interests. When a hunter
fires a rifle and kills an animal, I believe that what is being
gratified is an instinct to use tools, to cause action at a
distance, to make a large change with a small effort. That, to me,
is what it means to be human, and I feel that it is both our great
strength as a species and the source of our greatest danger to both
our continued survival and the continued health and variety of
the planetary ecologies.

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

In article <39D41A8F...@earthlink.net>,

I appreciate your input, and it's good to have evidence that all of
us who don't agree with the animal rights philosophy aren't all dancing
to the same tune and blindly following the leader. However, I must
point out that Ithink you made the same mistake as Rat and Michael. My
conclusion was based not on some primates being predators, it was based
on two different facts:

1) Of all the species of apes( several dozen, I don't have an
accurate estimate of the number of different species of gibbons) all
but one are predators. This is significantly different from "some are
predators".

2) Our two closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzees. Of
those two species, both are predators.

Takeb together, those two factors, in my opinion, provide more than
enough evidence to support my conclusion. Again, thanks for your
statements.
Kevin
>
> [...]

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

In article <39D44A...@albany.net>,

OK, Michael, let me try to explain this. Animals instancts and
behavior ARE based on genetics. An animal having a genetic disposition
to hunt is no different from an animal having a genetic disposition to
have red hair. That is General Biology. I am going to explain something
you probably will claim you already know, but the truth is your posts
on this thread disprove that possible claim. It is necessary to state a
little biology to tie it in with your statements.
If, in a certain population, there are animals in that population
that have gene A for a particular trait, while others have gene B,
either of those genes may be passed on, depending on the existing
environment.If both genes are equally adapted for the environment and
if gene A is the dominant gene, it will show up in the majority of the
population. However, a significant number of those will carry the
recessive gene B and have the ability to pass that gene on to their
offspring. The only way the recessive gene B can show up in any member
of the population is if that member obtained the recessive gene from
both parents. In theory, with only two such genes as the simplest
example, 3/4 of the population will exhibit the qualities of the
dominant gene and the remaing 1/4 will exhibit the qualities of the
recessive gene. However, 2/3 of those displaying the dominant trait
(1/2 of the total population) will carry the recessive gene.
If the existing environment favors one gene over the other, then the
circumstances change. If the dominant gene 'A' is more suited for the
environment, the recessive gene will slowly disappear from the
population. This is a rather long process, however, since 1/2 of the
population possesses the unfavorable gene but do not show the trait so
the environmental impact is spread over many generations. However, if
the recessive gene 'B' becomes more suited to the environment, we have
a different set of circumstances.. Becuse the recessive trait is only
apparent in the animals that carry only that trait, they continue to
reproduce while those that carry the dominant trait 'A' die out. This
takes place much faster than the previous example, since now the
unfavorable trait is apparent in every member of the population that
possesses either 1 or 2 genes for that trait. The dominant trait is
eliminated in a matter of a few generations and the previously
recessive trait is now the dominant one because it is the only one that
exists. This is the basis for evolution.
Now, you are disgreeing on whether hunting is a genetic trait or an
opportunistic one. It's really rather simple, if an animal population
hunts on a regular basis, it's genetic. Wolves hunt, it is genetic.
Vultures are scavengers, it is genetic. Rabbits eat plants, it is
genetic. Why should the fact that both species of chimpanzees are
omnivores (which you have already agreed to) be any thing other than
genetic? Because that's the way you want it. Let's take an example of
how opportunism works in: let's say a pack of coyotes(natural
predators) is seen raiding a vegetable garden. This is something that
can and has happened on rare occasions when their natural food supply
is low. Theywill eat foods such as watermelons and tomatoes that are
mostly water because thier digestive systems can handle these foods to
some degree if absolutely necessary. This is opportunistic behavior
that will not be exhibited under normal circumstnces. he trait for this
behavior will not be passed on since there is no trait for this
behavior. Similarly, your previous example of a deer eating bird eggs,
opportunism based on current, short-term conditions. There is some
biological need that deer have that is not currently being met by their
normal, genetically-controlled behavior and eating eggs satisfies that
need until the conditions change back to normal. When that change does
take place, the only way you would see a deer eat eggs is if someone
force-fed them down its throat.
Let's now suppose we have a particular group of chimpanzees(pick your
favorite species). Genetically, these animals are natural omnivores (if
Rat is reading this, you show proof that natural is not an applicable
word and I'll stop using it, however I think I've shown ample reason
why it is). But, let's say that for some reason, thid particular group
becomes strict carnivores. This would be due to some conditions that
have eroded their normal vegetation supply. Over a short-term, this
would have no effect on the genetics of this particular group. But,
should the environmental changes continue over several generations, the
gene for herbivore activity would be bred out and we would have a new
group of chimpanzees that are carnivorous rather than omnivorous. Over
several generations, the descendants of this group would likely become
a new species. Of course, the reverse is also true. Let's say that a
few million years ago, a species of primates was seperated into several
populations. Now, suppose that this particular species were omnivores.
However, the population we are considering was affected by a long-term
change in the environment that eroded it's natural source of meat.
Therefore, this population was forced into surviving on a purely
vegetarian diet. This continued over enough generations that the gene
for carnivorous behavior completely disappeared from this particular
group. The vegetative diet required the animals to spend less time
moving long distances, so the genes that controlled other traits also
were affected. One of these happened to be the genes controlling the
animal's size. The former mambers of the species were smaller animals,
which was beneficial in that they had less body weight to carry while
hunting. That is no longer a concern, so that gene is slowly eroded
from this particular group and replaced by a formerly recessive gene
that causes the animal to grow larger than it's relatives, who are
still omnivores. This continues over several generations until we now
have a larger than average primate that is a herbivore and has actually
become a new species that cannot mate and reproduce with the omnivores
that descended from the same group of ancestors. In other words,
Michael, we have your gorilla.
Chimpanzees are omnivores because primates as a whole are genetically
predisposed to be omnivores. Gorillas are herbivores because they are
an exception among the primates and are genetically predisposed to be
herbivores. Gorillas will sometimes eat small animals because of
opportunism, chimpanzees will sometimes eat only meat or only plants
for short periods of time for the same reason.
Another example, a wild chimpanzee is being taken to a zoo somewhere
in the U.S.. This chimpanzee somehow escapes into the wilds of North
America. In it's native Africa, this chimpanzzes normal food was a
particular species of monkey. However, there are no monkeys in North
America. The chimpanzee is hungry, what does it do? Well, it catches
and eats squirrels until it is recaptured. Why? Because that is what
was available. Now, if this monkey is somehow re-released into an area
that has both squirrels and monkeys, what is going to be its first
choice for prey? Monkeys will be, assuming the monkeys are of the same
or closely related species as those which it is accustomed to eating.
Now, Michael, you have the difference between genetic(natural) behavior
and opportunistic behavior. Of course, you will probably contradict
much of what you have already posted and claim you knew this all along.
Therefore, chimpanzees and man have a common ancestor, the history of
chimpanzees and man over millions of years shows a pre-disposition
toward an omnivorous diet. Therefore, there is no evidence that the
evolutionary events that seperated man from the other apes was related
to diet in any form whatsoever. If there was, and your views were
correct, we'd all be as big as gorillas. Have a nice day.
Kevin

>
> (...)
> --
>
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."
>

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

The original thread for this message was getting off topic. I dacided
it was best to start a new thread for the following message.
Kevin

In article <8r2kp8$6ql$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,

Now, for my rather lengthy response:

> > Even though my post was aimed at Michael, I would be interested in
comments from those who disagree with the animal rights philosophy
also. Those who believe we were created from nothing when God decided
it was time to create us, nevermind. Go read your Bible again, it
doesn't say that. Sorry, there is a reason I felt the need to include
that statement.
Kevin
> > --

1cattom

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Jonathan Ball <jonba...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> "Ward M. Clark" wrote:
> >
> > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > news:39D403...@pacbell.net...
> > > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > >
> > > <megasnip>
> > > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> > > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
> > >
> > > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> > > engaged in predatory behavior for at least
> > > most of their evolutionary development.
> >
> > It's pretty inarguable.
> >
> > > But
> > > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> > > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
> >
> > Not really.
>
> Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid.

Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
unethical, and you fell for it.

> Humans
> generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but Brandon's
> logic doesn't "prove" it.

Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed out
that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his theory
to be proven.

[...]

>
> However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on the
> (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
>

You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.

1cattom

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <megasnip>

> > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>

> I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> engaged in predatory behavior for at least

> most of their evolutionary development. But

> I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.

The logic is just fine. Your misrepresentation of it is what's slovenly.

> "I'm a member of the Winter family; all other
> members of the Winter family are meat-eaters;
> therefore I'm a "natural" meat-eater."

But Kevin didn't simply say "therefore." He wrote that the evidence
supported his theory, a much milder, and correct, conclusion.

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

In article <1ehpzfy.1oqv7rl1uuzi8N%1ca...@altavista.com>,
1ca...@altavista.com (1cattom) wrote:

> Jonathan Ball <jonba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "Ward M. Clark" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:39D403...@pacbell.net...
> > > > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <megasnip>
> > > > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate,
primates are
> > > > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
evidence
> > > > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
> > > >
> > > > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> > > > engaged in predatory behavior for at least
> > > > most of their evolutionary development.
> > >
> > > It's pretty inarguable.
> > >
> > > > But
> > > > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> > > > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
> > >
> > > Not really.
> >
> > Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid.
>

> Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
> unethical, and you fell for it.
>

> > Humans
> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
Brandon's
> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
>

> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed out
> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
theory
> to be proven.

Thank you, although I may not always use the appropriate
terminology, the truth is no theory has ever been proven and never will
be. The best you can do is show supporting evidence, which I have done.
I also believe I have shown ample evidence that the opinions expressed
by Michael do not have supporting evidence.
Kevin
>
> [...]

> >
> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on
the
> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
> >

> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.
>

brand...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

In article <39D403...@pacbell.net>,

lab...@pacbell.net wrote:
> brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> <megasnip>

> > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates
are
> > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>

> I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> engaged in predatory behavior for at least

> most of their evolutionary development. But

> I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
>

> "I'm a member of the Winter family; all other
> members of the Winter family are meat-eaters;

> therefore I'm a "natural" meat-eater." Doesn't
> follow. We're playing games with the word

> "natural" again here. Isn't it time to develop
> some version of Godwin's Law that the thread is
> dead when someone introduces the word "natural"
> into the argument?
>

> Rat

That was a rather dishonest trick and poor representation of what I
actually said. I would have expected it from Michael, but not from you.
He has spent much of this thread misquoting and taking my syayements
out of context. However, I have already said on this ng that from some
of your posts, you seemed to be a reasonable person and someone I could
have honest disagreements with. I hope I don't have to change that
opinion. We can disagree without stooping to such tactics. If you have
evidence to dispute what I actually said, present it. Otherwise, have
the decency to admit that I present a valid argument. You may not have
intended to misrepresent what I said, you may have simply confused
Michael's constant misrepresentations with my actual words, if so,
please let me know and we can drop this disagreement. If you will read
what I actually said, and if you understand logic and basic scientific
principles, you will see that what I stated is not even debatable. I
sincerely hope you will admit your error and if it was Michael's
mistakes that caused yours, address your complaints to him. Thank you.
Kevin

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Kevin, or Brandon, whatever your name is, I am truly
gratefuly for your oversimplification of genetics. It's
always nice to have an Anti "explain" things to me, whether
it be S/R Bishop or you. I do, sadly, feel the need to
correct you once more on a few points, however:

Genetic changes in a population as it adapts to a changing
environment are much more gradual and unpredictable than
you have 'explained'. First, it take a *lot* longer than
"several generations" for a species to change radically;
in most cases it takes at least thousands of years. A
significant number of times, it never happens at all.

Second, you have yet to establish that chimps hunt
because of an instinct to do so. You seem to be laboring
under the misconception that *all* animal behavior is
genetic; that is just not true. Even animals with a true
hunting instinct usually need to be *taught* to hunt
by parents or other members of their group. Your zoo
chimpanzee example would be true only if the chimp had
been taught to hunt; if not, it would not hunt squirrels,
it would simply forage and/or die.

Last, you seem confused about the link between hunting
behavior and genetics. I would certainly agree that
carnivores, who depend on meat for the bulk of their diet,
would develop an instinct to hunt. It is at best simplistic,
however, to apply this to an onmivorous species that gets
maybe (this is an educated guess) ten to fifteen percent
of its food in the form of meat - with a substantial portion
of that being insects. Now there *is* at least one species of
baboon that seems to have become effectively carnivorous, and
I would not be surprised to find that *they* have also developed
an instinct to hunt. Your case as stated, though, even when
embellished by genetics 101, is not nearly solid enough to
state as fact. Sorry.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

1cattom wrote:
.>
.> Rat & Swan <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote:
.>
.> > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
.> >
.> > <megasnip>
.> > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate,
primates are
.> > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
evidence
.> > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
.> >
.> > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
.> > engaged in predatory behavior for at least
.> > most of their evolutionary development. But
.> > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
.> > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
.>
.> The logic is just fine. Your misrepresentation of it is what's
slovenly.
.>
.> > "I'm a member of the Winter family; all other
.> > members of the Winter family are meat-eaters;
.> > therefore I'm a "natural" meat-eater."
.>
.> But Kevin didn't simply say "therefore." He wrote that the evidence
.> supported his theory, a much milder, and correct, conclusion.

Read the whole thread before wading in, "1". He has in fact
claimed that his conclusion is fact, and has not withdrawn
the claim.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

1cattom wrote:
(...)

.> Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
.> unethical, and you fell for it.
.>
.> > Humans
.> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
Brandon's
.> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
.>
.> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed
out
.> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
theory
.> to be proven.
.>
.> [...]
.> >
.> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on
the
.> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
.> >
.> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.

No, Bob, you didn't bother to read the thread. Here is the
claim, which hasn't been retracted. You can apologize to Rat
and me at your convenience, but before Monday. ;)

*******************************************************************

I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However, the
fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators. Where
humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find a
different prey: other humans.
Kevin

*******************************************************************

Now, I don't really have to highlight the relevant verb, do I?

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

1cattom wrote:
>
> Jonathan Ball <jonba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>

> > "Ward M. Clark" wrote:
> > >
> > > "Rat & Swan" <lab...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> > > news:39D403...@pacbell.net...
> > > > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > <megasnip>
> > > > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> > > > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > > > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
> > > >
> > > > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> > > > engaged in predatory behavior for at least
> > > > most of their evolutionary development.
> > >
> > > It's pretty inarguable.
> > >
> > > > But
> > > > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> > > > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
> > >
> > > Not really.
> >
> > Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid.
>

> Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and

> unethical, and you fell for it.

How did she misrepresent it? Brandon wrote out six apparent premises,
and then drew a conclusion from them in a seventh statement:

1)Man is a primate, more specifically, man is an ape.

2)The other surviving apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and
gibbons.

3)Of these 4 groups, man's closest relatives are the chimpanzees, of
which there are two species, both belonging to the same genus.

4)As a whole, apes are omnivores. Specifically, both species of
chimpanzees are omnivores.

5)Omnivores are of two general types when it comes to satisfying the
meat portion of their diet: predators and scavengers.

6)Of these two types, the apes (including both species of
chimpanzees) are predators.

7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are

predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.

Rat left the 7th one in her reply, and claimed that Brandon's conclusion
doesn't logically follow from his six premises.

Brandon later boiled them down to two:

1)Of all the species of apes( several dozen, I don't have an

accurate estimate of the number of different species of gibbons)
all but one are predators. This is significantly different from
"some are predators".

[It's not different, logically. You can't say "all apes are
predators" - a universal affirmative, since at least one
species is not; the best you can say is "some apes are predators"
- a particular affirmative.]

2)Our two closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzees. Of

those two species, both are predators.

Take[n] together, those two factors, in my opinion, provide more than

enough evidence to support my conclusion.

What's the link? How does this support his conclusion? He's made a
conclusion about human behavior, labeling it innate, by comparing humans
to two gentically close species.

>
> > Humans
> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but Brandon's
> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
>

> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed out

> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his theory

> to be proven.

He wrote out his points in an apparent logical structure of premises and
conclusion. If he didn't intend it to be taken as a formal or
semi-formal proof, leading to a directed conclusion, I'm wondering why
he presented it in the form he did.

Look again at the last of the 7 points:

7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are

predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.

That "therefore" is clearly a drawing of an inference based on the
points that preceded it, exactly as in a syllogism. Note also that
Brandon, perhaps inadvertently, performs his own sleight-of-hand. He
states that *primates* are predators, when all of the earlier points
pointed to *apes* generally being predators. Not all primates are apes.

He did say that the evidence "supports", not "proves", his theory.
However, he presented his evidence in a formal proof-like manner, and
it's invalid. Even in a formally valid syllogism, the conclusion isn't
necessarily factually true, if one or more of the premises is false.

I doubt anyone would have had a problem if he had said something along
the lines of:

"All but one of the non-human apes is a predator, and among the
predators are the two species genetically closest to humans.
Based on that, and also on the factual observation that every
human society hunts or has done so in the past [an observation
conspicuously missing from his 6 premises], I conclude that
humans are naturally predators."

>
> [...]

> >
> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on the
> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
> >

> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.

I still don't think there was any.

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> In article <39D403...@pacbell.net>,
> lab...@pacbell.net wrote:

> > brand...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > <megasnip>
> > > 7) Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates
> are
> > > predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the evidence
> > > supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
> >
> > I'll agree that the evidence suggests humans
> > engaged in predatory behavior for at least

> > most of their evolutionary development. But

> > I don't agree that the conclusion follows in
> > your syllogism above. The logic is slovenly.
> >

> > "I'm a member of the Winter family; all other

> > members of the Winter family are meat-eaters;

> > therefore I'm a "natural" meat-eater." Doesn't
> > follow. We're playing games with the word
> > "natural" again here. Isn't it time to develop
> > some version of Godwin's Law that the thread is
> > dead when someone introduces the word "natural"
> > into the argument?
> >
> > Rat
>
> That was a rather dishonest trick and poor representation of what I
> actually said. I would have expected it from Michael, but not from you.
> He has spent much of this thread misquoting and taking my syayements
> out of context. However, I have already said on this ng that from some
> of your posts, you seemed to be a reasonable person and someone I could
> have honest disagreements with. I hope I don't have to change that
> opinion. We can disagree without stooping to such tactics. If you have
> evidence to dispute what I actually said, present it. Otherwise, have
> the decency to admit that I present a valid argument. You may not have
> intended to misrepresent what I said, you may have simply confused
> Michael's constant misrepresentations with my actual words, if so,
> please let me know and we can drop this disagreement. If you will read
> what I actually said, and if you understand logic and basic scientific
> principles, you will see that what I stated is not even debatable. I
> sincerely hope you will admit your error and if it was Michael's
> mistakes that caused yours, address your complaints to him. Thank you.
> Kevin

This response supports my belief that you intended your 7-point argument
to have the same weight as a formal proof. One, you state you have a
"valid" argument; two, you make mention of understanding logic.

Validity refers to the form of an argument, and whether the conclusion
logically - not necessarily factually - follows from the premises.
Consider:

All poodles are dogs
"Killer" is a poodle
Therefore, "Killer" is a dog

and

All dogs have gills and breathe underwater
"Fifi" is a dog
Therefore, "Fifi" has gills and breathes underwater

Both arguments are structurally valid: if the premises are true, the
conclusion is necessarily true.

I don't think your 7-point argument was valid, in a formal sense.

con...@mailexcite.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

In article <OlUA5.11883$g6.37...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
"Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@home.com> wrote:
[...]

To summarize, all three of those definitions indicate
> Man's
> > status as a natural predator. In our modern society, individual
members
> of
> > our species can choose not to engage in predatory diet or behavior;
but
> that
> > does not change the overall biological status of H. sapiens sapiens
as a
> > species. As a species, behaviorally, Man is accurately classed as a
> > (natural) terminal predator.

Fine summarization Ward. Again cultural and environmental conditions
can show that humans can adapt to either extreme. Inuit can do quite
well, thank you, on an all meat diet. Chinese monks developed the first
vegan diet, with soy supplements possibly supplying vit B12. But your
thesis is correct, we are omnivores with pack hunting abilities, and
that is how we survived in the predator and competition rich habitat of
the African savannah.
Having gutted and prepared wild pigs, one can see how the pig GI system
is so much like ours, And their teeth have alot of simularity. Except
detractors might say, "what about canines, we don't have canines (tusks)
like pigs". Ahh, but this is where tools came in. Pigs use their tusks
ofcourse for rooting for vegetable food, self defense, and probably for
killing some prey. But our millions of years of tool use made canines
for killing prey superfluous. Canines, like our vestigial appendix
became a liability and was selected out of the gene pool.

Ron

1cattom

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Michael Cerkowski <mj...@albany.net> wrote:

> 1cattom wrote:
> (...)
>
> .> Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
> .> unethical, and you fell for it.
> .>
> .> > Humans
> .> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
> Brandon's
> .> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
> .>
> .> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed
> out
> .> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
> theory

> .> to be proven.
> .>
> .> [...]
> .> >

> .> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not based on
> the

> .> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
> .> >
> .> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.
>
> No, Bob, you didn't bother to read the thread.

I don't have to read the thread. What Rat excerpted was sufficient
evidence for me.

> Here is the
> claim, which hasn't been retracted.

Do you claim that there is an ethical obligation to retract incorrect
statements, Mr. C?

> You can apologize to Rat
> and me at your convenience, but before Monday. ;)

Why should I?

> *******************************************************************
>
> I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
> realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However, the
> fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators. Where
> humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
> possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find a
> different prey: other humans.
> Kevin
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> Now, I don't really have to highlight the relevant verb, do I?

Nope. That was not the statement that Rat took issue with, was it?

And yes, biology and history prove inductively that we are natural
predators. Brandon only furnished part of the evidence that supported
the conclusion, and offered a more qualified conclusion after listing a
mere fraction of the evidence.

Biology is much more than genetics, is it not?

1cattom

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Jonathan Ball <jonba...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> 1cattom wrote:
> >
> > Jonathan Ball <jonba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >

[...]

> > >
> > > Sorry, fellas. I agree with Rat about the logic. It's invalid.
> >
> > Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
> > unethical, and you fell for it.
>
> How did she misrepresent it? Brandon wrote out six apparent premises,
> and then drew a conclusion from them in a seventh statement:

His conclusion was that they supported the theory, which was correct.

> 1)Man is a primate, more specifically, man is an ape.
>
> 2)The other surviving apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and
> gibbons.
>
> 3)Of these 4 groups, man's closest relatives are the chimpanzees, of
> which there are two species, both belonging to the same genus.
>
> 4)As a whole, apes are omnivores. Specifically, both species of
> chimpanzees are omnivores.
>
> 5)Omnivores are of two general types when it comes to satisfying the
> meat portion of their diet: predators and scavengers.

Are those mutually exclusive? If not, we can easily conclude that this
was never intended as a deductive argument.

> 6)Of these two types, the apes (including both species of
> chimpanzees) are predators.
>
> 7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
> evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.

Which it does. It doesn't prove it; there's all sorts of other
biological evidence that proves it to the same extent that anything is
proven scientifically--all by induction, not deduction.

> Rat left the 7th one in her reply, and claimed that Brandon's conclusion
> doesn't logically follow from his six premises.

But it does--the conclusion that they support the theory is perfectly
valid.

> Brandon later boiled them down to two:
>
> 1)Of all the species of apes( several dozen, I don't have an
> accurate estimate of the number of different species of gibbons)
> all but one are predators. This is significantly different from
> "some are predators".
>
> [It's not different, logically. You can't say "all apes are
> predators" - a universal affirmative, since at least one
> species is not; the best you can say is "some apes are predators"
> - a particular affirmative.]
>
> 2)Our two closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzees. Of
> those two species, both are predators.
>
> Take[n] together, those two factors, in my opinion, provide more than
> enough evidence to support my conclusion.
>
> What's the link?

Evolution!

> How does this support his conclusion?

Inductive reasoning, which Rat tried to misrepresent as a deductive
proof.

> He's made a
> conclusion about human behavior, labeling it innate, by comparing humans
> to two gentically close species.

Yep. Classical inductive reasoning, analogous to concluding that the sun
will rise in the east tomorrow because it did so today.

His explicit conclusion was that it supported the theory, not that his
theory was proven by the preceding evidence.

> > > Humans
> > > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but Brandon's
> > > logic doesn't "prove" it.
> >
> > Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed out
> > that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his theory
> > to be proven.
>
> He wrote out his points in an apparent logical structure of premises and
> conclusion.

Yes, in the form of an inductive argument with a properly qualified
conclusion. Rat removed the qualification to attack it.

> If he didn't intend it to be taken as a formal or
> semi-formal proof, leading to a directed conclusion, I'm wondering why
> he presented it in the form he did.

Is anything formally proven in science, particularly behavioral biology?
And still thousands of papers are written in this formal form of
inductive logic. You lay out the data, you state the firm conclusions
firmly, and you speculate, with careful qualification, about the others.

Look at the parallels in an article from the New England Journal of
Medicine:

"Evidence that regression of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma was
medicated by a graft-versus-tumor effect is compelling. First,
fludarabine and cyclophosphamide...[pretreatments for grafting]...are
inactive against renal-cell carcinoma27,28; ...Second, tumor regression
typically occurred shortly after the withdrawal of cyclosporine, and in
one patient it followed an infusion of donor lymphocytes. Similar
graft-versus-leukemia effects are well-documented after allogeneic bone
marrow transplantation...Moreover, the median interval...to disease
regression, the observation that regression occurred only after complete
donor T-cell chimerism had been established, and the association of
graft-versus-host disease with regression of metastases are all
consistent with the occurrence of an antitumor effect that was mediated
by the donor's cells."

--Childs et al., Regression of metastatic renal-cell carcinoma after
nonmyeloablative allogeneic peripheral-blood stem-cell transplantation,
NEJM 750-758. The passage is from p. 757.

Note that everything listed is a correlation or an analogy.

> Look again at the last of the 7 points:
>
> 7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
> evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>
> That "therefore" is clearly a drawing of an inference based on the
> points that preceded it, exactly as in a syllogism.

An inductive one, which Rat changed to a deductive one.

> Note also that
> Brandon, perhaps inadvertently, performs his own sleight-of-hand. He
> states that *primates* are predators, when all of the earlier points
> pointed to *apes* generally being predators. Not all primates are apes.
>

The facts still support the theory.

> He did say that the evidence "supports", not "proves", his theory.

Yes. That qualification was conveniently omitted from Rat's "analogy."

> However, he presented his evidence in a formal proof-like manner, and
> it's invalid.

He presented his qualified conclusion in a formal inductive manner, so
it is not proper to pretend that he was using deductive reasoning,
especially given the scientific subject matter.

> Even in a formally valid syllogism, the conclusion isn't
> necessarily factually true, if one or more of the premises is false.

I know. His conclusion was that chimp behavior supports the theory that
humans are predators. I agree that anthropology provides much stronger
evidence.

> I doubt anyone would have had a problem if he had said something along
> the lines of:
>
> "All but one of the non-human apes is a predator, and among the
> predators are the two species genetically closest to humans.
> Based on that, and also on the factual observation that every
> human society hunts or has done so in the past [an observation
> conspicuously missing from his 6 premises], I conclude that
> humans are naturally predators."

I disagree. You clearly have made a stronger case, but your argument is
still inductive, not deductive.

[...]

Rat & Swan

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/29/00

to

Jonathan Ball wrote:

Thanks, Jonathan, for coming in here. I'm not
disputing man, as a species, is a predator.
I'm a little queasy about "natural" predator,
because "natural" has so many connotations --
there's a tendency for people to think
"natural"= good, and the word is hard to define.
What I was arguing is that the syllogism is
logically invalid, as you say. Since it's
quite obvious humans have been predators, I don't
see why we need to bring in other primates, or
even the chimpanzees, into it.

<snip>

> > Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
> > unethical, and you fell for it.

I don't get the "unethical" here.

<snip>

> I doubt anyone would have had a problem if he had said something along
> the lines of:

> "All but one of the non-human apes is a predator, and among the
> predators are the two species genetically closest to humans.
> Based on that, and also on the factual observation that every
> human society hunts or has done so in the past [an observation
> conspicuously missing from his 6 premises], I conclude that
> humans are naturally predators."

I don't have a problem with this version either.

<snip>
Rat

Waiting

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 8:44:17 PM9/29/00

to

<con...@mailexcite.com> wrote in message news:8r38l6$oli$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <OlUA5.11883$g6.37...@news2.rdc2.tx.home.com>,
> "Ward M. Clark" <wardm...@home.com> wrote:
> [...]

> To summarize, all three of those definitions indicate
> > Man's
> > > status as a natural predator. In our modern society, individual
> members
> > of
> > > our species can choose not to engage in predatory diet or behavior;
> but
> > that
> > > does not change the overall biological status of H. sapiens sapiens
> as a
> > > species. As a species, behaviorally, Man is accurately classed as a
> > > (natural) terminal predator.
>

> Fine summarization Ward. Again cultural and environmental conditions
> can show that humans can adapt to either extreme. Inuit can do quite
> well, thank you, on an all meat diet. Chinese monks developed the first
> vegan diet, with soy supplements possibly supplying vit B12. But your
> thesis is correct, we are omnivores with pack hunting abilities, and
> that is how we survived in the predator and competition rich habitat of
> the African savannah.
> Having gutted and prepared wild pigs, one can see how the pig GI system
> is so much like ours, And their teeth have alot of simularity. Except
> detractors might say, "what about canines, we don't have canines (tusks)
> like pigs". Ahh, but this is where tools came in. Pigs use their tusks
> ofcourse for rooting for vegetable food, self defense, and probably for
> killing some prey. But our millions of years of tool use made canines
> for killing prey superfluous. Canines, like our vestigial appendix
> became a liability and was selected out of the gene pool.

Hundreds of thousands of years surely - not millions - perhaps our species
was a mutation ??????

Ayt estimate of how many gaenerations we are for chinpanzees?

We can't handle self awareness - that's for sure!

Dale Anderson

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 8:48:57 PM9/29/00

to

"Waiting" <icra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%FaB5.1956$uq5....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...

>
> Hundreds of thousands of years surely - not millions - perhaps our
species
> was a mutation ??????

Now wouldn't that be an interesting irony....... ;-)

--

Dale (BBD) Anderson
dand...@mail.tds.net

"My point being that when you argue
with animal rights activist about "poor
starving children" you might just as well
bring up aliens from Mars. As they
probably know more about that than
being poor, starving or children."

Verne

Waiting

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 9:38:24 PM9/29/00

to

Oh Dear I made a spelling mistake

Sea below

"Waiting" <icra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%FaB5.1956$uq5....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>

Any estimate of how many generations we are from chinpanzees?

brand...@postoffice.clarksville.com

unread,

Sep 29, 2000, 10:47:48 PM9/29/00

to

In article <39D52B...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
<mj...@albany.net>
writes:
>1cattom wrote:
>(...)
>
>..> Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
>..> unethical, and you fell for it.
>..>
>..> > Humans
>..> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
>Brandon's
>..> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
>..>
>..> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed
>out
>..> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
>theory
>..> to be proven.
>..>
>..> [...]
>..> >
>..> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not
based on
>the
>..> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
>..> >
>..> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.
>
> No, Bob, you didn't bother to read the thread. Here is the
>claim, which hasn't been retracted. You can apologize to Rat

>and me at your convenience, but before Monday. ;)
>

>*******************************************************************
>
> I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
>realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However, the
>fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators. Where
>humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
>possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find a
>different prey: other humans.
> Kevin

The use of the word "prove" was an error. I did not realize that I
had
even said that after the thread continued for so long. However, you
didn't bring this original post up until just recently, and everything I
said since was based on my replies to you. So, please allow me to clarify,
now my 7 points post is what I am refering to, the premises do in fact
support the conclusion. Their is strong existing evidence to support my
belief that man is a predator by genetically inherited traits. Now, I have
admitted I made an error in terminology, the word prove should not have been
used. If I used it anywhere else, that is also in error. Please replace that
word with "supports my theory". Have we settled this issue?

Kevin
>
>*******************************************************************
>
> Now, I don't really have to highlight the relevant verb, do I?

>--
>
>
> "Against ignorance, the Dogs themselves contend in vain."

----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net is FOR SALE. Click below for details.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=446657012

CMSQ...@webtv.net

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 2:40:17 AM9/30/00

to

Mankind to this day is still a predator.

Candy

CMSQ...@webtv.net

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 2:29:29 AM9/30/00

to

Gee I always volunteered to be "IT" first, so I could go get 'em.
Matter of perspective and personal motives I guess. But the analogy is
right on target.

Candy

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00

to

brand...@postoffice.clarksville.com wrote:
.>
.> In article <39D52B...@albany.net>, Michael Cerkowski
.> <mj...@albany.net>
.> writes:
.> >1cattom wrote:
.> >(...)
.> >
.> >..> Rat's misrepresentation of a qualified statement was invalid and
.> >..> unethical, and you fell for it.
.> >..>
.> >..> > Humans
.> >..> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
.> >Brandon's
.> >..> > logic doesn't "prove" it.

.> >..>
.> >..> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly
pointed

.> >out
.> >..> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
.> >theory
.> >..> to be proven.
.> >..>
.> >..> [...]
.> >..> >

.> >..> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not

.> based on
.> >the
.> >..> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.

.> >..> >
.> >..> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.

.> >
.> > No, Bob, you didn't bother to read the thread. Here is the
.> >claim, which hasn't been retracted. You can apologize to Rat
.> >and me at your convenience, but before Monday. ;)
.> >
.> >*******************************************************************
.> >
.> > I'm sure you truly believe what you are saying, and I hope you
.> >realize that I do respect your right to your own opinion. However,
the
.> >fact remains that biology proves that we are natural predators.
Where
.> >humans are seperated from nature, as in large urban areas, those who
.> >possess the natural genetic tendency to hunt prey all to often find
a
.> >different prey: other humans.
.> > Kevin
.>
.> The use of the word "prove" was an error. I did not realize that I
.> had
.> even said that after the thread continued for so long. However, you
.> didn't bring this original post up until just recently, and
everything I
.> said since was based on my replies to you. So, please allow me to
clarify,
.> now my 7 points post is what I am refering to, the premises do in
fact
.> support the conclusion. Their is strong existing evidence to support
my
.> belief that man is a predator by genetically inherited traits. Now, I
have
.> admitted I made an error in terminology, the word prove should not
have been
.> used. If I used it anywhere else, that is also in error. Please
replace that
.> word with "supports my theory". Have we settled this issue?
.> Kevin

Thanks you for modifying your claim. We aren't going to
agree that there is "strong evidence" to support the above
claim, but I will certainly agree that it is *possible* that
you are correct. I still feel that behavioral evidence better
supports my theory. For example, why would natural, genetic
predatory instincts reveal themselves in inner city crime,
but not in the suburbs? Sure, suburbanites exhibit behaivior
that can be called predatory, but if they felt a need to hunt,
there is little to stop them from going out and actually
hunting animals, yet hunting as a percentage of population
continues to decline. Do you believe that only about 8% of
the population has a 'genetic tendency' to hunt? I think that
we are seeing primates behaving like primates, forming
heirarchies through power struggles with others of our kind.
That is not the same thing as a hunting instinct by any stretch
of reason.

I'd appreciate it if you'd stop complaining that I
constantly misrepresent you. So far, I have mistakenly
attributed one S Bishop quote to you, and immediately
apologized. You have misunderstood what I was writing
two or three times, yet you keep spouting this 'he
misrepresented me' stuff...

(...)

brand...@postoffice.clarksville.com

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00

to

In article <39D5032D...@earthlink.net>, Jonathan Ball

True.

>
> 1)Man is a primate, more specifically, man is an ape.
>
> 2)The other surviving apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and
> gibbons.
>
> 3)Of these 4 groups, man's closest relatives are the chimpanzees, of
> which there are two species, both belonging to the same genus.
>
> 4)As a whole, apes are omnivores. Specifically, both species of
> chimpanzees are omnivores.
>
> 5)Omnivores are of two general types when it comes to satisfying the
> meat portion of their diet: predators and scavengers.
>
> 6)Of these two types, the apes (including both species of
> chimpanzees) are predators.
>
> 7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
> evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>
>Rat left the 7th one in her reply, and claimed that Brandon's conclusion
>doesn't logically follow from his six premises.

And she was wrong, but I'll get to that in a second.

>
>Brandon later boiled them down to two:
>
> 1)Of all the species of apes( several dozen, I don't have an
> accurate estimate of the number of different species of gibbons)
> all but one are predators. This is significantly different from
> "some are predators".
>
> [It's not different, logically. You can't say "all apes are
> predators" - a universal affirmative, since at least one
> species is not; the best you can say is "some apes are
predators"
> - a particular affirmative.]

If this were simply philosophical logic, you would be correct. But
it isn't, this is biology, and in biology there are exceptions to every
rule. Not pointing out the existence of an exception allowed Michael to
claim he had found a flaw earlier. Of course he hadn't, he had simply
found evidence of evolution, which I already believe anyway.
Let's take an example. Suppose a man and a woman are about to become
parents. For the sake of this example, let's assume humans have only two
eye colors: brown and blue. Now, if both parents have brown eyes, but it
is not known which genes for eye color they carry, there is a 75% chance
that their child will have brown eyes. In biology, a 75% chance is
significantly different from "some chance" since such probabilities
form
the basis for theoretical formulation. Now, let's take the same example,
only this time assume both parents have blue eyes. In this case, the
chance that their child will also have blue eyes is 100%. Now, where is
the exception I was talking about earlier? It was eliminated in the
assumption of only two eye colors. In reality, the chance is almost 100%,
something along the lines of 99.9999999999%, but there is a minute chance
of some other eye color, the only thing for certain is it won't be brown.

>
> 2)Our two closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzees. Of
> those two species, both are predators.
>
> Take[n] together, those two factors, in my opinion, provide more than
> enough evidence to support my conclusion.
>
>What's the link? How does this support his conclusion? He's made a
>conclusion about human behavior, labeling it innate, by comparing humans
>to two gentically close species.

I discussed the genetics as it applies to hunting instincts in a new
thread. However, I still do not understand the question, "What's the
link?"
The link is evolution, if it is assumed to be true, then my conclusion
holds. From your posts, I am assuming you support the theory of evolution
so the question is highly confusing.

>
>>
>> > Humans
>> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
Brandon's
>> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
>>
>> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed
out
>> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
theory
>> to be proven.
>
>He wrote out his points in an apparent logical structure of premises and
>conclusion. If he didn't intend it to be taken as a formal or
>semi-formal proof, leading to a directed conclusion, I'm wondering why
>he presented it in the form he did.

There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Not one. The format I used
was exactly the same format I have been required to use in presenting the
results of scientific experiments in biology, physics, geology, and
wildlife biology. Yes, it is the same format used for philosophical logic
with one difference, the manner is which the concluding statement is
presented. The words "supports the theory" or something to that effect
qualify it as the presentatation of a hypothesesis that has been shown to
have merit by the tests conducted. Again, I don't understand your question.

>
>Look again at the last of the 7 points:
>
> 7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
> evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>
>That "therefore" is clearly a drawing of an inference based on the
>points that preceded it, exactly as in a syllogism.

And is exactly the way the concluding statement of a scientific
experiment is presented. This is then followed by a statement to the
effect that the results either,
a) support the hypothesesis, thereby becoming a theory
b) failed to support the hypothesis, or
c) were inconclusive.

Note also that
>Brandon, perhaps inadvertently, performs his own sleight-of-hand. He
>states that *primates* are predators, when all of the earlier points
>pointed to *apes* generally being predators. Not all primates are apes.

It was inadvertent. I don't see how this could be considered a
sleight-of-hand since it would have been to my advantage to have said
"apes" as I intended rather than "primates".

>
>He did say that the evidence "supports", not "proves", his
theory.
>However, he presented his evidence in a formal proof-like manner, and
>it's invalid.

No, you simply did not understand the way it was presented. If you have
a problem with my presentation format, you'll have to take that up with
a large number of my professors, all of whom required this format for
scientific experiments.

Even in a formally valid syllogism, the conclusion isn't
>necessarily factually true, if one or more of the premises is false.

None of the premeises is false. You are correct, however, the entire
theory can be disproven if anyone can show any of the premises to be
false. Again, this is biology (a natural science). Statements such as
"some apes are predators" have no validity. You must be as exact as
possible to allow for pertinent questions. That is the reason
this format is used, any theory is worthless
if it is not open to question, that is the purpose for scientific study.
If it were not subject to question, it would be merely a process of
memorizing facts and figures, no experiments or theories would be
necessary or even applicable.

>
>I doubt anyone would have had a problem if he had said something along
>the lines of:
>
> "All but one of the non-human apes is a predator, and among the
> predators are the two species genetically closest to humans.
> Based on that, and also on the factual observation that every
> human society hunts or has done so in the past [an observation
> conspicuously missing from his 6 premises], I conclude that
> humans are naturally predators."

That says exactly the same thing, only people have to break down the
points in order to question it. Also, "conspicuously missing" infers an

attempt to mislead or avoid a negative situation. How can a piece of
information that is beneficial to my claim be "conspicuously missing".
I simply didn't think it was important to the main point of my
presentation. Actually, it is valid, but in the context you present it,
it is much weaker than any of my points.

>
>>
>> [...]
>> >
>> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not
based on the
>> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
>> >
>> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.
>
>I still don't think there was any.

After re-reading the posts on the thread, I have to agree with you.
However, I believe both Rat and you were misled by Michael's dishonest
actions. I also believe you probably honestly misunderstood my goal with
this presentation. "Proof" is a word with no validity in the natural
sciences. However, my main academic background is in mathematics where
the word "proof" is used with a particular meaning and I may sometimes
use the word inadvertently. In fact, it has been vrought to my attention
that I did just that in at least one instance. I apologize for that error.
If you, or anyone else, finds where I have used that word in a discussion
such as this, Please replace it in your reading with "supports the
theory".
I hope this clears up any misunderstandings. Thank you.
Kevin

brand...@postoffice.clarksville.com

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00

to

In article <39D5032D...@earthlink.net>, Jonathan Ball
<jonba...@earthlink.net> writes:

True.

>
> 1)Man is a primate, more specifically, man is an ape.
>
> 2)The other surviving apes are chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, and
> gibbons.
>
> 3)Of these 4 groups, man's closest relatives are the chimpanzees, of
> which there are two species, both belonging to the same genus.
>
> 4)As a whole, apes are omnivores. Specifically, both species of
> chimpanzees are omnivores.
>
> 5)Omnivores are of two general types when it comes to satisfying the
> meat portion of their diet: predators and scavengers.
>
> 6)Of these two types, the apes (including both species of
> chimpanzees) are predators.
>
> 7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
> evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>
>Rat left the 7th one in her reply, and claimed that Brandon's conclusion
>doesn't logically follow from his six premises.

And she was wrong, but I'll get to that in a second.
>

>Brandon later boiled them down to two:
>
> 1)Of all the species of apes( several dozen, I don't have an
> accurate estimate of the number of different species of gibbons)
> all but one are predators. This is significantly different from
> "some are predators".
>
> [It's not different, logically. You can't say "all apes are
> predators" - a universal affirmative, since at least one
> species is not; the best you can say is "some apes are
predators"
> - a particular affirmative.]

If this were simply philosophical logic, you would be correct. But
it isn't, this is biology, and in biology there are exceptions to every
rule. Not pointing out the existence of an exception allowed Michael to
claim he had found a flaw earlier. Of course he hadn't, he had simply
found evidence of evolution, which I already believe anyway.
Let's take an example. Suppose a man and a woman are about to become
parents. For the sake of this example, let's assume humans have only two
eye colors: brown and blue. Now, if both parents have brown eyes, but it
is not known which genes for eye color they carry, there is a 75% chance
that their child will have brown eyes. In biology, a 75% chance is
significantly different from "some chance" since such probabilities
form
the basis for theoretical formulation. Now, let's take the same example,
only this time assume both parents have blue eyes. In this case, the
chance that their child will also have blue eyes is 100%. Now, where is
the exception I was talking about earlier? It was eliminated in the
assumption of only two eye colors. In reality, the chance is almost 100%,
something along the lines of 99.9999999999%, but there is a minute chance
of some other eye color, the only thing for certain is it won't be brown.
>

> 2)Our two closest relatives are the two species of chimpanzees. Of
> those two species, both are predators.
>
> Take[n] together, those two factors, in my opinion, provide more than
> enough evidence to support my conclusion.
>
>What's the link? How does this support his conclusion? He's made a
>conclusion about human behavior, labeling it innate, by comparing humans
>to two gentically close species.

I discussed the genetics as it applies to hunting instincts in a new

thread. However, I still do not understand the question, "What's the
link?"
The link is evolution, if it is assumed to be true, then my conclusion
holds. From your posts, I am assuming you support the theory of evolution
so the question is highly confusing.
>
>>

>> > Humans
>> > generally are predators - most humans eat meat (prey) - but
Brandon's
>> > logic doesn't "prove" it.
>>
>> Brandon never claimed that it did. He simply and correctly pointed
out
>> that it supported his theory, which is nothing like claiming his
theory
>> to be proven.
>
>He wrote out his points in an apparent logical structure of premises and
>conclusion. If he didn't intend it to be taken as a formal or
>semi-formal proof, leading to a directed conclusion, I'm wondering why
>he presented it in the form he did.

There are no proofs in the natural sciences. Not one. The format I used
was exactly the same format I have been required to use in presenting the
results of scientific experiments in biology, physics, geology, and
wildlife biology. Yes, it is the same format used for philosophical logic
with one difference, the manner is which the concluding statement is
presented. The words "supports the theory" or something to that effect
qualify it as the presentatation of a hypothesesis that has been shown to
have merit by the tests conducted. Again, I don't understand your question.
>

>Look again at the last of the 7 points:
>
> 7)Therefore, based upon the fact that man is a primate, primates are
> predators(imcluding man's 2 closest living relatives) the
> evidence supports my theory that man is a natural predator.
>
>That "therefore" is clearly a drawing of an inference based on the
>points that preceded it, exactly as in a syllogism.

And is exactly the way the concluding statement of a scientific
experiment is presented. This is then followed by a statement to the
effect that the results either,
a) support the hypothesesis, thereby becoming a theory
b) failed to support the hypothesis, or
c) were inconclusive.

Note also that
>Brandon, perhaps inadvertently, performs his own sleight-of-hand. He
>states that *primates* are predators, when all of the earlier points
>pointed to *apes* generally being predators. Not all primates are apes.

It was inadvertent. I don't see how this could be considered a
sleight-of-hand since it would have been to my advantage to have said
"apes" as I intended rather than "primates".
>

>He did say that the evidence "supports", not "proves", his
theory.
>However, he presented his evidence in a formal proof-like manner, and
>it's invalid.

No, you simply did not understand the way it was presented. If you have

a problem with my presentation format, you'll have to take that up with
a large number of my professors, all of whom required this format for
scientific experiments.

Even in a formally valid syllogism, the conclusion isn't
>necessarily factually true, if one or more of the premises is false.

None of the premeises is false. You are correct, however, the entire

theory can be disproven if anyone can show any of the premises to be
false. Again, this is biology (a natural science). Statements such as
"some apes are predators" have no validity. You must be as exact as
possible to allow for pertinent questions. That is the reason
this format is used, any theory is worthless
if it is not open to question, that is the purpose for scientific study.
If it were not subject to question, it would be merely a process of
memorizing facts and figures, no experiments or theories would be
necessary or even applicable.
>

>I doubt anyone would have had a problem if he had said something along
>the lines of:
>
> "All but one of the non-human apes is a predator, and among the
> predators are the two species genetically closest to humans.
> Based on that, and also on the factual observation that every
> human society hunts or has done so in the past [an observation
> conspicuously missing from his 6 premises], I conclude that
> humans are naturally predators."

That says exactly the same thing, only people have to break down the
points in order to question it. Also, "conspicuously missing" infers an

attempt to mislead or avoid a negative situation. How can a piece of
information that is beneficial to my claim be "conspicuously missing".
I simply didn't think it was important to the main point of my
presentation. Actually, it is valid, but in the context you present it,
it is much weaker than any of my points.
>
>>

>> [...]
>> >
>> > However, having said that... man is a predator; just not
based on the
>> > (invalid) logical structure Brandon furnishes.
>> >
>> You missed Rat's sleight-of-hand, Jonathan.
>
>I still don't think there was any.

After re-reading the posts on the thread, I have to agree with you.

However, I believe both Rat and you were misled by Michael's dishonest
actions. I also believe you probably honestly misunderstood my goal with
this presentation. "Proof" is a word with no validity in the natural
sciences. However, my main academic background is in mathematics where
the word "proof" is used with a particular meaning and I may sometimes

use the word inadvertently. In fact, it has been brought to my attention

Jonathan Ball

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00

to

I'll have to respond to some of the other points later, probably not
until tomorrow evening. But I want to mention this "link" of evolution.

Nowhere in your 7 points do you mention it! Is it supposed to be
implicit? Secondly, we are not evolved from chimpanzees; we share some
common ancestor. Evolution would have to allow for the fact that
chimpanzees became "natural" predators after their descent from the
common ancestor, while we became - "unnatural"? - predators after our
descent.

You may be correct in your inferences, but you leave too much out of
your post. That's why I think your point is subject to attack on logic
grounds, not necessarily factual grounds.

For the record, I think you are right, and I agree with the idea that we
are "natural" predators. The animal "rights" view that our predation
was some kind of conscious choice is just silly beyond words. They have
no way of explaining how the choice would have been made.

I don't think the omission was an attempt to mislead. I think it
crucially undercuts your case! If you're not even going to say that
humans are observed engaging in predatory behavior to obtain meat, how
in the hell are you going to make the inductive leap to conclude that
humans are "natural" predators? Damn, man, you at least have to make an
explicit acknowledgment that humans do indeed hunt and kill animals for
meat before you can make some judgment that the the hunting and killing
is "natural"!

I hate to say this, but I think what I'm complaining about is what I see
as your sloppiness. I think you have the facts *and* the
interpretations correct, I just think you're doing a poor job of showing
them.

More later, maybe; I think I've hit the main points.

lone...@my-deja.com

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00

to

> Can you offer anything that contradicts
>the following biological facts?:
> 1) Humans are primates.
This is true.

> 2) Primates are omnivores
This is not generally true. I could detail what dozens of wild primates
are known to eat, but it is usually fruits, nuts, shoots, roots, and for
some monkeys, leaves. Even the "predatory" chimpanzee gets at most about
4% of its food from meat.

> 3) Omnivores are predators and/or scavengers for approximately 50% of
> their dietary intake.
This is not true. Where did this definition of "omnivore" come from?

> 4) The most advanced class of primates, the apes, are predators, not
> scavenfers.
Well, they usually don't eat dead rotting meat. But we humans are apes,
and most of us eat old meat that somebody else killed a while ago.

> 5) Man belongs to the class of primates along with chimpanzees,
> gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons.
Primates are an order, not a class. Also, the great apes (including
humans) are a family (or superfamily) within the order of primates.

> 6) Therefore, man is a predator by nature.
Therefore???
An illogical conclusion drawn from false statements.
By this "logic," gibbons and gorillas would be occasional predators like
humans and chimps.

I appreciate your interest in wild animal behavior. Your library
probably has some good books on primate behavior that you could read.

Michael Cerkowski

unread,

Sep 30, 2000, 3:00:00 AM9/30/00

to

Jonathan Ball wrote:
(...)

.> For the record, I think you are right, and I agree with the idea that
we
.> are "natural" predators. The animal "rights" view that our predation
.> was some kind of conscious choice is just silly beyond words. They
have
.> no way of explaining how the choice would have been made.

I have offered what I feel to be a perfectly reasonable alternative
explanation: that human predation is a choice made to improve and
increase the available food supply. This is a choice that could easily
have been made by any early human, and probably even by chimpanzees.
No one is arguing that humans often - even usually - act as predators.
The only thing in dispute here is whether we have an instinct to hunt.
Oh yeah, good point about evolution; it hadn't yet occurred to
me that he was apparently arguing that we evolved from the other
primates, as opposed to evolving with them...

Since "Brandon" has decided to act as if I'm the Great Satan
here, I'll add another rebuttal in this post: brandon is using
the genetics involved in highly changeable things like eye and
hair color to illustrate a change that would be on a far more
basic level: the development of a behavioral instinct. Instincts
change only rarely in a species, and usually over a huge time scale,
so the 'genetics 101' analogies are not particularly applicable.

Ward M. Clark

unread,

Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00

to

"Waiting" <icra...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:KsbB5.1948$L12....@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
<snip>

> >
> Any estimate of how many generations we are from chinpanzees?

We aren't "from" chimpanzees, we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
That common ancestor lived about 5 million years ago, maybe a little more.
The closest we've gotten is the discovery of Ardipithicus ramidus, which
seems to be derived shortly after the common ancestor, leading to the
hominid chain.

--
Ward M. Clark
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
Sometimes the light's all shining on me,
Other times, I can barely see
Lately it occurs to me,
What a long, strange trip it's been

Ward M. Clark

unread,

Oct 1, 2000, 3:00:00 AM10/1/00

to

"Michael Cerkowski" <mj...@albany.net> wrote in message
news:39D44D...@albany.net...
<snip>
>
> I'm not really even arguing that we are predators in the general
> sense of the word. It's this 'genetic tendency' stuff, and trying
> to use it to explain human/human crime that I think is way out there.
>
> Ward does a great job of illustrating the obvious, but he also
> proceeds from an unproven assumption: that humans *or* chimpanzees
> have some sort of instinct to hunt. I don't think anyone here needs
> to be told that humans have been hunting for a long time; what is
> in question is why we have done it, and whether it is instrinsic
> to our nature.
>

So, we've been hunters for about a million years, but you aren't sure
whether it's "intrinsic" or if there's "some other reason."

Suppose you explain the difference to us, Michael.

Use lots of paper.

<snip>