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