arjen hoekstra wrote:
>
> Wow! The reactions keep on rolling in! Great: I love
> talking evolution! I only hope I will keep on having
> the time to reply to everyone. Thank you for your
> posts Gary: you saved me quite a bit of time for
> replies. I only hope that this doesn't evolve in a
> discussion of evolution vs. creationism. That is not
> why I put it on this board; there are other boards to
> discuss that exact topic. Let me react again to the
> people who posted.
>
> Anwar:
> "You continue to argue from an evolutionary point of
> view. I was discarding this view in my argument."
>
> Evolution is the topic of the discussion I started, so
> of course I will talk evolution! And you haven't
> discarded anything; you just said that you didn't
> believe in it.

Yes, it was that may first arguments were not based on evolution
so for you to argue on evolution you could not disprove my
claims because we were arguing on two differently planes.

> Anwar:
> "You didn't argue me on the fact that no known process
> adds to the genetic code of a species and that all
> processes which alter the genetic code either damage
> or destroy it."
>
> First of all, I didn't reply to it, because it doesn't
> invalidate my theory at all. Like you mentioned
> yourself, only a small part of our total DNA is
> actually transcribed, so a mutation can easily start
> including some more DNA to be transcribed, which
> basically means adding to the genetic code. Secondly,
> I don't really have enough knowledge to talk about
> cell genetics; I am specialized in evolutionary
> biology on population level. But I can tell you of at
> least one process that is able to add to the genetic
> code: viruses!

Yes, but these uncoded parts of the DNA in
between the ones that are replicated are never coded.
ANd to my knowledge have never been known to code
SO saying that the coding of these is possible
doesn't prove anything if they are NEVER coded.
So we are still left with the same problem, that
genetic material is never added onto the coded
part of the genome so but only taken away or
damaged. Moroever please explain how viruses
add to the genetic code of a species and
where this genetic variation is duplicated in
the reproduction of the genome.


>
> Anwar:
> "How come that you didn't address the otter example
> either."
>
> Because an otter is still a carnivore, whether it is
> able to crack shells or not. The otter just uses a
> tool to expand its food sources a little, but it is
> still just eating meat. So it is irrelevant for the
> comparison with humans, where the inclusion of tools
> changed our diets from mainly frugivorous to meat.
>
A rock is a tool,yes. So if I pick up a rock and throw
it at a bunny or a bigger rock and drop it onto
a deer's head and then take a sharp rock that I find and cut
into it this is just about the same thing as
the otter. We use tools to
expand our food sources. A chickens' head can be ripped
of by hand and a small mammals body smashed or ripped open.
You don't need that many tools, just cunning. The aboriginies
go under water stealthily with reeds to help them breath and pull ducks
underwater. Once the duck is dead I can smash it's head open to create an opening
or rip it open from the mouth, anus or rip its legs apart. I dig into
its eyes to get them out and smash it's head on a rock to get to the
brains. Tools make it easier, just ask the otter. Moreover how do we
know abou this mainly frugivorous diet. WHen we have chimps who are mainly
frugivorous but have exteneded canines(which according to you is the hall
mark of meat eating.) Moreover what i was pointing to more specifically
was the fact that there is a fish called an oyster cracker that only uses its
mouth to get open oysters yet the otter has to use a tool(so
does that mean it is not supposed to eat oysters?) Dealing with
humanity now, chimpanzees would characterize the main frugivorous diet
and there is a difference between their teeth and ours. They have
bigger canines, right? But from what I read they hunt extensively other
monkeys. Therefore if they could better their use of tools they would
probably move on to bigger things. Moreover what of those frugivorous
monkeys with huge canines? More than just the teeth I've read how
our digestive systmes are similar to dogs.

 This is how I figure it,
we have canines and we have rigged molars, enough to cut meat. We
have the capability to hunt and chimpanzees our supposed closest
relatives also eat meat and hunt. I will not argue the size
of canines but rather the existence of them. Also tools are fair
game. So we have the canines and rigged molars and we have the
tools to obtain meat. It is fair game. Again though, concering
pathogens, I don't
think parasites and the like cause disease. Even if we take
wild carnivores/ominivores, do we cook their meat so that they
do not get these worms or bacteria. Moreover, we also
have to cook the vegetables because you can get such things from these too.
There have been enough expirements on what happens to the quality
of life of these animals when their diet becomes fully cooked
as compared to when fully raw. I think there is enough evidence
on this topic. I don't care abou meat eating because as I said it's fair
game. What I care about is the unnatural and harmful process of
cooking. Meat eating is well within the spectrum of food
aquisition for more than just humans. But fire use is not and I think
the evidence is in on the negative effects fire has on foods. And in
the case of poisonous foods, why exchange one bad for another?
As for the disease phenomenon I engender a different aspect on disease.
So Bovine aids, salmonella and all that good stuff doesnn't bother me
when it comes to eating the meat of animals. It is the dimished quality
of a sick animal's meat that I'm concerned about. I think any investigation
as to the true nature of salmonella and e.coli as well as some of the
different and more logical theories on AIDS will quell any real fears
about these things. I could be wrong but I will follow what I believe
to be more logical, intelligent and prudent. My not believing in
the germ theory of disease already dispells much of the belief
about AIDS. I do believe that Virii and Bacteria exist but I
don't believe that they are the real causes of any degenerative
disease and that their eradiction will destroy the degerating
process. Slowing them down may be important but supporting the body
is more crucial. IF I'm giving my body what it needs it will have
the strength to slow the germs and bacteria which may be causing
harm with their wastes and regenerate itself. There is no more
reason to comment on anything I've said about evolution. I end
my discussion of it here. I only want to talk about humanities
ability to eat meat from a view point of humanity only, not our
supposed evolutionary ancestors.

Godbless,
Anwar