Tuna salad anyone? Death of a Tuna and Deathof a Whale

Geoff wrote:


Perhaps you could tell us why the video would be an enjoyable *hobby*
for anyone? Better yet, perhaps you could tell us why you feel it's OK
to livebait a small fish, to catch a bigger fish. What part of a fish
being ripped apart alive, is *understanding nature*?

I put it to you that your ilk are clueless about life in general, let
alone nature!

Evidently you know nothing of nature, as it is nature for one fish to
feed on another (rip another apart), whether it's on a fisherman's hook,
or just swimming free, it's the same death to the small fish,, think
about all the small bait fish the fishermen save by just removing one
large predator, thousands of them,, is one large fish worth more than
many small ones ?


Did they show anything like the suffering of tuna or the use of
livebaits? NO, because it's completely unacceptable, and unnecessary.
Killing a fish for food, and killing a fish for fun are worlds apart!
Why is it. The more a fish suffers, the more your ilk enjoy it?

Those tuna are fed on daily by Mako sharks, is it alright for the mako
to kill tuna ? How is that different from us killing tuna for food?

By the way, in every study done "fish" do not have the ability to feel
pain like mammals . If a mammal has a hook in it's mouth or nose it will
not pull against that hook due to it causing an increase in pain, a fish
pulls hard against the hook. A fish lacks the part of the brain that has
the pain receptors. (this has been proved) Sharks have been known to get
bitten in a feeding frenzy , bitten to the point of dying shortly after,
yet they show no signs of distress, they feed right along with the
unharmed sharks, until they die.

Of course we would not want any actual "FACTS" to get in the way of your
beliefs :-)

Man is "part" of the food chain, we have risen to the top of it, if you
want to put man as an animal, why not accept him as the predator he is,
you accept every "other" predator as being just nature that falls below
him ? Your not trying to get chimps to stop hunting monkeys, ripping
them apart and eating them raw. Nor trying to stop lions from killing
Zebras, or dolphins from feeding on toad fish, or wild mink from killing
everything they come in contact with, whether they are hungry or not

The reason is a few, very few, humans have lost the predator nature, due
to only one reason, the supply of alternate foods, available from the
grocery store. This unlimited food supply has caused a few humans to
loose their survival instinks, they have lost their very "nature". Now
these few want to "convert" the whole human race, so none could survive
without the corner grocery store. Since this cult has started less than
a 100 years ago, it will take many, many, many centuries to "breed" the
predator genes out of the human race, if they ever can.

Science has stated that humans evolved to what they are today because of
them becoming hunters, and feeding on high protein "MEAT", which caused
the brains to grow at a faster rate, we would be still swinging from the
trees if we had remained vegetarians, some of "your" off spring will
return to swinging from the trees, if meat is removed from their diets
for a couple hundred generations .

Of course you will try to shoot down all these "facts", because cultist
never let "facts" get in the way of their beliefs.


--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
Geoff wrote:
..
Did they show anything like the suffering of tuna or the use of
livebaits? NO, because it's completely unacceptable, and unnecessary.
Killing a fish for food, and killing a fish for fun are worlds apart!
Why is it. The more a fish suffers, the more your ilk enjoy it?

Those tuna are fed on daily by Mako sharks, is it alright for the mako
to kill tuna ? How is that different from us killing tuna for food?

By the way, in every study done "fish" do not have the ability to feel
pain like mammals . If a mammal has a hook in it's mouth or nose it will
not pull against that hook due to it causing an increase in pain, a fish
pulls hard against the hook. A fish lacks the part of the brain that has
the pain receptors. (this has been proved) Sharks have been known to get
bitten in a feeding frenzy , bitten to the point of dying shortly after,
yet they show no signs of distress, they feed right along with the
unharmed sharks, until they die.

Of course we would not want any actual "FACTS" to get in the way of your
beliefs :-)

The FACTS are on our side.

'We address the question of pain perception in fish by first accepting
the assumption that it is unlikely that the conscious perception of pain
evolved to simply guide reactions to noxious events, or to provide an
experiential dimension to accompany reflexes, but rather it allowed an
organism to discriminate their environment in ways that permitted adaptive
and flexible behaviour (Chandroo et al. 2004). The neural systems involved
in nociception and pain perception, and the cognitive processes resulting
in flexible behaviour function, probably evolved as an interactive dynamic
system within the central nervous system (Chapman and Nakamura 1999).
.........'
http://www.aquanet.ca/English/resear...erspective.pdf

Man is "part" of the food chain, we have risen to the top of it, if you
want to put man as an animal, why not accept him as the predator he is,

NOT.

"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us
because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat,
was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
- Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.D.,
Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology .

you accept every "other" predator as being just nature that falls below
him ? Your not trying to get chimps to stop hunting monkeys, ripping
them apart and eating them raw. Nor trying to stop lions from killing
Zebras, or dolphins from feeding on toad fish, or wild mink from killing
everything they come in contact with, whether they are hungry or not

The reason is a few, very few, humans have lost the predator nature, due
to only one reason, the supply of alternate foods, available from the
grocery store. This unlimited food supply has caused a few humans to
loose their survival instinks, they have lost their very "nature". Now
these few want to "convert" the whole human race, so none could survive
without the corner grocery store. Since this cult has started less than
a 100 years ago, it will take many, many, many centuries to "breed" the
predator genes out of the human race, if they ever can.

'Medical News Today
Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News
Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK)

Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social
Animals, Not Predators

by Neil Schoenherr
Washington University in St. Louis

You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans
actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals,
not the predators modern mythology would have us believe,
says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis.

Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts &
Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu,"
during the American Association for the Advancement of the
Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18.

Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier,
University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre
Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and
University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University.

In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and
Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view
and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not
as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs
and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles.

Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular
literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues.
He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living
primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of
years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man.

"Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have
as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart
the predator," says Sussman.

Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes,
which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago,
many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were
hunters and possessed a killer instinct.

The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm
of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic
Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive
and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil
and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case."

Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence
dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man
the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman
says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory.

We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied,
Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus
their research on one specific species, Australopithecus
afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half
million years ago and is one of the better known early human
species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus
afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before
and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal
traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the
fossil record.

"Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a
small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5
feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically
smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very
much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters.

But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus
afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat.

"It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and
cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply
couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?"

It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount
of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible.

Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.

"Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species,"
adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground
and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge
species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators,"
Sussman argues.

The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."

Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.

Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.

"One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
being preyed upon."

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

Science has stated that humans evolved to what they are today because of
them becoming hunters, and feeding on high protein "MEAT", which caused
the brains to grow at a faster rate, we would be still swinging from the
trees if we had remained vegetarians, some of "your" off spring will
return to swinging from the trees, if meat is removed from their diets
for a couple hundred generations .

'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
whom you believe."

Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm

Of course you will try to shoot down all these "facts", because cultist
never let "facts" get in the way of their beliefs.


--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot

pearl wrote:


The FACTS are on our side.

Total bull S. that I snipped, you quoted every source there is on your
side,, a hand full of nut cases. less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the
scientist that work in this field, 99.5 % of all the other PHD's
totally disagree. Of course everyone of these you quoted are either
members of PETA, or some other cult group,, they came to their
conclusions, "then", they looked for evidence to match their
conclusions, throwing out anything they found that did not agree.

None are respected in their fields, by their piers

I bet they totally freaked when they found out (just a few years ago)
Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they
explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell
them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and
"butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world
where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for
killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,,
some say 50,000 years

There is no "recorded history" when they were not both, so for at least
the past 8,000 years they have been killers, and meat eaters, do your
experts try to explain this away ? I don't think they can even if they
tried to toss out all the "written" evidence.

The theory of evolution would say any humans that were not killers,
would be killed out by those that were


What you have posted is propaganda, came right off a PETA site I would
bet. I don't have the time to waste to check these nuts out right now,
but I have saved the post,, maybe when I have "nothing" to do, we shall
see what a good web search on them will turn up, like what radical
groups they belong to, or which of these groups are giving them grants
to prove what they "want" proved. Anyone can get a PhD , even
psychopaths , and many PHDs have been caught lately falsifying their
research, to get grants

Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of
meat ? :-)
--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

Rodney Long wrote:

The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and
"butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world
where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for
killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,,
some say 50,000 years


Such is the pretentiousness of our species. If we were meant to eat
meat, then perhaps we wouldn't need tools for killing. Like primates,
we have learned to mimick carnivorous animals when required for
survival. However, modern packaging and shipping methods have
eliminated the need to eat meat for survival.

Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of
meat ? :-)

That's the point. Meat was necessary for survival when winter frost
prevented crops from growing. It kept people from starving, although
it wasn't necessarily healthy. Now that we can ship vegetables in from
warmer locations and eat them from a can, there is really no point to
eating meat.

wrote:
Rodney Long wrote:

The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and
"butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world
where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for
killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,,
some say 50,000 years


Such is the pretentiousness of our species. If we were meant to eat
meat, then perhaps we wouldn't need tools for killing. Like primates,
we have learned to mimick carnivorous animals when required for
survival. However, modern packaging and shipping methods have
eliminated the need to eat meat for survival.

The high protein of meat is what made our brains develop to what they
are today, if we had never eating meat, we would still be swinging from
the trees. Now chimps have started eating meat, in a couple hundred
thousand years, they will come out of the trees

Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of
meat ? :-)

That's the point. Meat was necessary for survival when winter frost
prevented crops from growing. It kept people from starving, although
it wasn't necessarily healthy.


The top medical people are now saying some "meat" is necessary in "many"
people's diets, true some can live without it, but the majority need
"some" for proper health . There are finally some real research that has
been done, since vegetarian diets, by enough people to study, have only
been done for half of the last century
Now that we can ship vegetables in from
warmer locations and eat them from a can, there is really no point to
eating meat.

For one reason, I like it

--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
wrote:
Rodney Long wrote:

The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and
"butcher" meat, and each other. There is no history of the western world
where man did not eat meat, no site where there were not tools for
killing and eating meat, let's see that's about what ? 20,000 years,,
some say 50,000 years


Such is the pretentiousness of our species. If we were meant to eat
meat, then perhaps we wouldn't need tools for killing. Like primates,
we have learned to mimick carnivorous animals when required for
survival. However, modern packaging and shipping methods have
eliminated the need to eat meat for survival.

The high protein of meat is what made our brains develop to what they
are today,

'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful
insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy.
Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose,
body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our
species history and origins. With advances in dating methods,
including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is
now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously,
anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional
views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such
as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even
though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that
their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions"
(The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that
they will persist in making them.

Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods
have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly
this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of
fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw
animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the
environmental factors our species have been exposed to
selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal
flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet.
The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human
brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and
fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps
blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing
humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species.
The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary
absence of animal products is also noted.
...
Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to
risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods
like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits
contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses
for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an
easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not,
and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother
and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now
little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been
the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans.
...
What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism
which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One, at
least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by Olav
T. Oftedal who says:

"Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of
energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it
appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively
dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands
of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the
demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional
consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient
intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions:
Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270

One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk,
we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the
right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of
the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full
year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons
with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains
reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling
to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half
that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans
are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing
nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less
demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism
are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later,
during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never
reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating
breast milk.
....
According to Exequiel M. Patiño and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks
contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8%
lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest
component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say
that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest
percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing
human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions
of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non
human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In
fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%)
of all the species of primates.' Patiño and Borda present their
research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial
milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to
be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences
as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on
human infants.

Patiño and Borda also present a table which compares primate
milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive
lower protein requirements of humans. [see link]

Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans
and other mammals must have system wide implications for our
metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may
restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many
nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double
(12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although
it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple
those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the
issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly
eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as
meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the
body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering
immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial
adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as
raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from
protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by
nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to wild
animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities of certain
food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to some
misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits which
we experience in the domestic state.

The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the
supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those
of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast
feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive'
peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our
evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern
cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware
naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage.
However, what we do know of the consequences is that it
reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the
substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products,
is pathogenic.

Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with
human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists.
This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their
ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in
the final sections of the article.
.....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

'BBC - Test The Nation - Results [IQ]

Studio groups
-------------------------------
Vegetarians 113
Public Schools 111
Butchers 105
Celebrities 105
Estate Agents 104
Footballers' Wives 101

UK Average - 109.25

http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/i...ts/index.shtml

'VEGGIE CHAMPIONS!!!

The Vegetarians win BBC's Test the Nation IQ battle.

Vegetarianism. the intelligent choice!

We are THRILLED to announce that the 40-strong team
of vegetarians came out top as the studio team winners of
Saturday night's hugely popular BBC National IQ contest.
And, proving that vegetarianism is clearly an intelligent
choice, the individual contestant with the highest overall
IQ was a vegetarian too!

Wearing green t-shirts, the vegetarians competed against
six other teams including butchers, estate agents, public
school pupils, state school pupils, footballers' wives and
celebrities.

The veggie team was made up of vegetarians and Society
members from around the UK, including five members of
VegSoc staff. As the results were announced, the veggie
team was consistently in the top three but not the obvious
victors. However, when the final scores were tallied,
including IQ variations for age differences, we were
delighted to be declared the winners - with an overall IQ
of 113. Interestingly, The Butchers came joint fourth! For
a full break-down of the scores please go to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/i.../results.shtml

Top-scoring contestant Marie Bidmead, 68, a mother-of-five
from Churcham, Gloucester said: "It was great fun. The veggie
team was so united and jolly, regardless of winning. We all
went along for a bit of fun and were up against these highflying
students and stars. I was in absolute shock when I got the top
score! I failed my 11-plus and I've never considered myself to
be a brain-box. I think it shows that we veggies are good
'thinkers' - we think about what we eat with intelligence for a
start!"

September 2006

http://www.vegsoc.org/news/2006/testnation.html

if we had never eating meat, we would still be swinging from
the trees.

'We' left the trees about seven million years ago, without meat.

Now chimps have started eating meat, in a couple hundred
thousand years, they will come out of the trees

See other post.

Besides, if we aren't supposed to eat animals, then why are they made of
meat ? :-)

That's the point. Meat was necessary for survival when winter frost
prevented crops from growing. It kept people from starving, although
it wasn't necessarily healthy.


The top medical people are now saying some "meat" is necessary in "many"
people's diets, true some can live without it, but the majority need
"some" for proper health .

'Analyses of data from the China studies by his collaborators and
others, Campbell told the epidemiology symposium, is leading to
policy recommendations. He mentioned three:

* The greater the variety of plant-based foods in the diet, the greater
the benefit. Variety insures broader coverage of known and unknown
nutrient needs.

* Provided there is plant food variety, quality and quantity, a healthful
and nutritionally complete diet can be attained without animal-based
food.

* The closer the food is to its native state - with minimal heating,
salting and processing - the greater will be the benefit.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

"China Study I is now regarded as the most comprehensive study
of diet, lifestyle and disease ever completed. Data from the study was
first published in an 896-page monograph (1990) and resulted in more
than 50 scientific publications."

"Planned since 1987, China Study II was designed to resurvey the
same mainland Chinese population as China Study I, in addition to a
few new sites in mainland China and a new population of 16 counties
in Taiwan. China Study II was directed by the three collaborators in
the first study and by Dr. Winharn Pan" ..

"Both surveys afford an opportunity to investigate the effect of
dietary change from the typical plant-based diet of rural China to a
Western-style diet that includes more animal-based foods, as
consumed in urban China and in Taiwan. "Even small increases in
the consumption of animal-based foods was associated with
increased disease risk," Campbell told a symposium at the
epidemiology congress, pointing to several statistically significant
correlations from the China studies:"
.....'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicl..._Study_II.html

There are finally some real research that has
been done, since vegetarian diets, by enough people to study, have only
been done for half of the last century

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in
the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases'
are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes
etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body,
the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a
review of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical
Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease,
high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.'
....'
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html

Now that we can ship vegetables in from
warmer locations and eat them from a can, there is really no point to
eating meat.

For one reason, I like it

'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
just a bland, general meaty taste. '
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that individuals'
ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate were associated
with increased blood flow in areas of the brain, particularly in
the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain, that are also activated
by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
...
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
...
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm

"The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin (search)
who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the Fox News
Channel. "What that does is release certain chemicals that are
similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
...'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html

Rodney Long wrote:

The first tools man made were spear points, and knives to kill, and
"butcher" meat, and each other.

'The way chimpanzees in West Africa use stone tools to crack
open nuts for food and pass on the trick to their offspring has
been revealed in an intriguing study published in the journal
Science.
...
During their expedition to the Tai Forest last year, the scientists
recovered 479 stone pieces, chips of granite, laterite, feldspar
and quartz broken from the hammers.

Another lead researcher, Dr Julio Mercader, also from George
Washington University, said the study could help us better
understand the behaviour of human-like species from several
million years ago.

"We do not say that [old hominid] sites look like our chimp
sites. What we do say is some of the flakes we found in some
of the pieces of shatter resemble those found at some of the
technologically simplest [hominid] sites in East Africa," he said.

"The implication is that older hominids practised nut-cracking
like the chimps."
...'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2006309.stm

"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:


The FACTS are on our side.

Total bull S. that I snipped,

Predictable ad hominem, and totally false. The BS is all yours.

Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they
explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell
them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon,
p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334,
159-295, No. 1270.

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period revealed
"no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates", although
they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees
did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed
meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete,
or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the
chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps sometimes
change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of chimps at the
Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma and Toyoshima,
revealed that they witnessed "only one instance of chimpanzees
ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles from rotten wood."
(p.87).

From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati
Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani
published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects,
vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in
the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe and
Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year (p.88),
although only 14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces of insects
and other animal foods. So perhaps these differing observations
are due to seasonal variation, or even local differences (cultural
variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle does not reveal which.
Maybe some of the chimps groups are 'vegetarian', while others
are not. But see the Kortlandt observations below before believing
that all chimps are meat-eaters.

Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the
common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known
to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not been
observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most detailed
account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos based on
a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was 80% fruit pulp,
15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that "Animal foods
constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95).

The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the
gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what
gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month
study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle
(p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of
stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct
observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas
ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt
followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months
in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal
samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains
of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did
not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly
visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests.
Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and
fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105),
and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained
animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed"
study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by
Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal
samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no
evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common
at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107)
In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas
at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for
animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108)

The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings
seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them
to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in
'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135,
that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs,
insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting
almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for
one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)"
He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae
and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item
observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal remains
have been found in gorilla dung, except for one case presumably
indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)."

Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates is
undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-dwelling
populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the reasons given below
in his evidence.

# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the digestive
systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or otherwise investigated
cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential prey
animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the poorer environments
of the savanna landscape however, predation on vertebrates appears to
be much more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides
both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists have
never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter that
have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
...'
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm

pearl wrote:


Predictable ad hominem, and totally false. The BS is all yours.

Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they
explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell
them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon,
p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334,
159-295, No. 1270.

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.


All this changed with Jane Goodal, who now has many documented, on
"film" cases where chimps kill and eat meat, it took years before the
chimps allowed her close enough to see this happen.

This SHOT DOWN ALL OTHER "THEORIES" BEFORE HER. Blowing out all of the
earlier theories. She had the "real" facts, and had them on film, from
the hunting, to the eating of meat. She even recorded at least one case
of cannibalisms . Why don't you check that out, I've even seen the
videos of it. Everyone was surprised by these facts.


--
Rodney Long,
Inventor of the Mojo SpecTastic "WIGGLE" rig, SpecTastic Thread,
Boomerang Fishing Pro. ,Stand Out Hooks ,Stand Out Lures,
Mojo's Rock Hopper & Rig Saver weights, and the EZKnot
http://www.ezknot.com

"Rodney Long" wrote in message ...
pearl wrote:


Predictable ad hominem, and totally false. The BS is all yours.

Chimpanzees, hunt, kill, and eat meat, in the wild ? Just how do they
explain that ? Why would Chimps do that ? they have no religion to tell
them to. They also kill each other "deliberately" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion &
Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). " Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon,
p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334,
159-295, No. 1270.

'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp diets
was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen spent 75
days of a 3-month period tracking and observing chimps. He made
direct unquantified observations and examined fecal deposits and
leftovers at feeding sites. He also found "no evidence that they ate
honey, eggs or animal prey" - this observation may have been too
limited due to seasonal variations in the chimp diet.

All this changed with Jane Goodal, who now has many documented, on
"film" cases where chimps kill and eat meat, it took years before the
chimps allowed her close enough to see this happen.

This SHOT DOWN ALL OTHER "THEORIES" BEFORE HER. Blowing out all of the
earlier theories. She had the "real" facts, and had them on film, from
the hunting, to the eating of meat. She even recorded at least one case
of cannibalisms . Why don't you check that out, I've even seen the
videos of it. Everyone was surprised by these facts.

Gombe National Park is a limited area, and competition is high.

'..The park is made up of narrow mountain strip of land about
16 kilometers long and 5 kilometers wide on the shore of Lake
Tanganyika. From the lake shore steep slopes rises up to form the
Rift Valley's escapement, which is covered by the dense forest.
...
The dominating vegetation in this park include the open
deciduous woodland on the upper slopes, gallery forests on
the valleys and lower slopes. This type of vegetation is unique in
Tanzania and has been supporting a large number of Chimpanzee,
Baboons, and a large number of bird species. Other species seen
here are colobus, blue and red tail monkeys.
....'
http://www.utalii.com/gombe%20national%20park.htm