> Carol:
> "Why does a spine make such a difference to you? Is vertebrate
> flesh so very biochemically different from invertebrate flesh?
> I read your answer above, but it doesn't make sense to me. If
> a cow checks for a spine before it takes a bite of something, OK;
> but I doubt it happens very often."
>
> I hope that last remark wasn't serious

It was lighthearted but not without a serious point.

> cows will know instinctively what to eat and that won't include
> vertebrate meat (and invertebrates only unconsciously).

Do you claim now to have a window on the consciousness of cows? :D
I'd love to give a cow a bowl of meadow bugs and see what happens.
(Honestly I would.)

> Point is that nature shows us that animals
> that eat vertebrate meat show very distinct adaptations.

What are they, please?  And please don't leave out the part about how these
adaptations are different from those required for eating invertebrate meat.
How about using lobster meat and salmon meat as examples of invertebrate
meat and vertebrate meat?  Where is this adaptation chasm, exactly?

I don't think that the distinction between whether something has a spine or
not is the point to the cow.  (Now I'm the one reading cow minds).  The
point, to the cow, is simply whether a particular potential food is
appealing or not, and I don't think whatever biochemical difference there
may be between those with spines and those without is greater than the
difference between vertebrate and invertebrate foods collectively and plant
foods.  In other words, if you offered that cow lobster meat and salmon
meat, it would probably respond to them very similarly.  Those two potential
foods are more similar to each other in their smell, texture, etc. than they
are to many others of their respective groups (invertebrate/vertebrate).
Cows eat what they are attracted to, and they are most attracted to plant
foods; that we agree on.  But I still don't understand your spinal fixation.

> Is that
> really so difficult to see? I gave a few examples in my original
> post, which have conveniently been ignored in this whole thread.
> There are many other examples to give as well, but I refuse to
> play the role of a high school biology teacher.

I just took another look at your original post, and it looks as though the
examples you're talking about are the ones about plant foods vs. animal
foods (B12, EFA, etc.).  Is that the part of the post you mean?  You say
there, "We have to keep in mind that we are talking of animal foods in the
form of vertebrate meat, since the inclusion of invertebrates in the diet
doesn't require such specific adaptations as vertebrate meat does."  But the
difference between adaptations required to eat vertebrate meat and
adaptations required to eat invertebrate meat is precisely what we're
talking about *now*.  It is not what you were talking about then.  You were
talking about vertebrate vs. plant -- big difference!  The conversation has
(dare I say it?) evolved, and you are being asked a different question than
you were answering there.  I'd be so happy if you'd actually answer this new
question.

> Carol:
> "What about scavenging? Who knows what a deer may come across
> there in the grass?"
>
> A deer biologist will know. Ask him/ her. I know the answer
> he/ she will give.

Do you really think deer biologists know everything it is possible to know
about deer?  Yours seems a very simple world, I must say.

Carol