pearl wrote:
> Settings beyond my control. My replies preceded and followed by "##".
>
> "Immortalist"
yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1166817423.506821.315020@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...>> Meat is meat, whatever the prey species.
>
> Then you imply that an animal from Australia, say, could be brought to
> America and upon eating any of the various animals will never alter its
> rate of cancer or wellness? I agree that in cell biology there are only
> a few types of microtubules involved in musculature motion but the
> various animals have very many other exotic molecules also.
>
> ## Where did the sheep in Australia and the cattle in the US come
> from, originally? Is there any evidence of native predators failing
> to manage safe, efficient digestion of flesh from those new arrivals?
>
If one were to believe your assumptions we might come to believe that
ALL animals can eat ALL animals and none would be toxic or poisonous.
Also the nature of evolutionary theory goes agaisnt what you claim,
where there are many examples of adaption through the selection of
mutations and genetic cross-overs, since there are many "arms races"
between species, plants and animals; The cat catches more prey and more
of the prey becomes faster. Like cockroaches that die from DDT and the
few that are resistent creating an entire population of DDT resisten
roaches. Besides it appears you argue for something because there is no
contrary evidence. This is called the "appeal to ignorance" and is
definately fallacious reasoning and would raise an objection in most
courtrooms today;
The Argument from Ignorance: Argument Ad Ignorantiam
The argument ad ignorantiam (from ignorance) is the mistake that is
committed when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the
basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it
has not been proved true. We realize, on reflection, that many false
propositions have not yet been proved false, and many true propositions
have not yet been proved true-and thus our ignorance of how to prove
or disprove a proposition does not establish either truth or falsehood.
This fallacious appeal to ignorance crops up most commonly in the
misunderstandings incidental to developing science, where propositions
whose truth cannot yet be established are mistakenly held to be false
for that reason, and also in the world of pseudoscience, where
propositions about psychic phenomena and the like are fallaciously held
to be true because their falsehood has not been conclusively
established.
Famous in the history of science is the argument ad ignorantiam given
in criticism of Galileo, when he showed leading astronomers of his time
the mountains and valleys on the moon that could be seen through his
telescope. Some scholars of that age, absolutely convinced that the
moon was a perfect sphere, as theology and Aristotelian science had
long taught, argued against Galileo that, although we see what appear
to be mountains and valleys, the moon is in fact a perfect sphere,
because all its apparent irregularities are filled in by an invisible
crystalline substance-an hypothesis that saves the perfection of the
heavenly bodies and that Galileo could not prove false! Legend has it
that Galileo, to expose the argument ad ignorantiam, offered another of
the same kind as a caricature. Unable to prove the nonexistence of the
transparent crystal supposedly filling the valleys, he put forward the
equally probable hypothesis that there were, rising up from that
invisible crystalline envelope, even greater mountain peaks-but made
of crystal and thus invisible! And this hypothesis, he pointed out, his
critics could not prove false.
Those who strongly oppose some great change are often tempted to argue
against the change on the ground that it has not yet been proved
workable or safe. Such proof often is impossible to provide in advance,
and commonly the appeal of the objection is to ignorance mixed with
fear. Such an appeal often takes the form of rhetorical questions that
suggest, but do not flatly assert, that the proposed changes are full
of unknown peril. Policy changes may be supported, as well as opposed,
by an appeal to ignorance. When the federal government issued a waiver,
in 1992, allowing Wisconsin to reduce the additional benefits it had
been giving to welfare mothers for having more than one child, the
governor of Wisconsin was asked if there was any evidence that unwed
mothers were having additional children simply in order to gain the
added income. His reply, ad ignorantiam, was this: "No, there isn't.
There really isn't, but there is no evidence to the contrary, either."
In some circumstances, of course, the fact that certain evidence or
results have not been obtained, after they have been actively sought in
ways calculated to reveal them, may have substantial argumentative
force. New drugs being tested for safety, for example, are commonly
given to rodents or other animal subjects for prolonged periods; the
absence of any toxic effect on the animals is taken to be evidence
(although not conclusive evidence) that the drug is probably not toxic
to humans. Consumer protection often relies on evidence of this kind.
In circumstances like these, we rely not on ignorance but on our
knowledge, or conviction, that if the result we are concerned about
were likely to arise, it would have arisen in some of the test cases.
This use of the inability to prove something true supposes that
investigators are highly skilled, and that they very probably would
have uncovered the evidence sought had it been possible to do so.
Tragic mistakes sometimes are made in this sphere, but if the standard
is set too high-if what is required is a conclusive proof of
harmlessness that cannot ever be given-consumers will be denied what
may prove to be valuable, even lifesaving, medical therapies.
Similarly, when a security investigation yields no evidence of improper
conduct by the persons investigated, it would be wrong to conclude that
the investigation has left us ignorant. A thorough investigation will
properly result in their being "cleared." Not to draw a conclusion, in
some cases, is as much a breach of correct reasoning as it would be to
draw a mistaken conclusion.
The appeal to ignorance is common and often appropriate in a criminal
court, where an accused person is presumed innocent until proved
guilty. We adopt this principle because we recognize that the error of
convicting the innocent is far more grave than that of acquitting the
guilty-and thus the defense in a criminal case may legitimately claim
that if the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt,
the only verdict possible is not guilty. The United States Supreme
Court strongly reaffirmed this standard of proof in these words:
The reasonable-doubt standard ... is a prime instrument for reducing
the risk of convictions resting on factual error. The standard provides
concrete substance for the presumption of innocence-that bedrock
axiomatic and elementary principle whose enforcement lies at the
foundation of the administration of our criminal law.
But this appeal to ignorance succeeds only where innocence must be
assumed in the absence of proof to the contrary; in other contexts,
such an appeal is indeed an argument ad ignorantiam.
--------------------------
FALLACIES OF RELEVANCE
When an argument relies on premisses that are not relevant to its
conclusion, and that therefore cannot possibly establish its truth, the
fallacy committed is one of relevance. "Irrelevance" may perhaps better
describe the problem, but the premisses are often psychologically
relevant to the conclusion, and this relevance explains their seeming
correctness and persuasiveness. How psychological relevance can be
confused with logical relevance can be explained in part by the
different uses of language that we distinguished among in Chapter 4;
the mechanics of these confusions will become clearer in the following
analyses of the seven different fallacies in this group.
Latin names traditionally have been given to many fallacies; some of
these-such as ad hominem-have become part of the English language. We
will use here both the Latin and the English names.
Introduction to Logic
by Irving M. Copi, Carl Cohen
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic-11th-Irving-Copi/dp/0130337358
> Understand that the anatomy, physiology, and biology of species
> with different diets is dissimilar, inc. the structure of jaws, size of
> oesophagus, stomach, liver, kidneys, length of intestines, digestive
> enzymes, concentration of stomach acid... as is their psychology.
> (Read
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm ). ##
>
>>> But to answer your question fairly it would appear that most observed
>>> omnivores are at a stage where individuals have been selected for and
>>> increased in gene pool gene frequencies and appear to not get diseased.
>>
>> Thank you. But humans do. That should tell you everything.
>
> Are you saying they always have had the same disease rate?
>
> ## No humans have adapted to eating meat. Wrong action
> will always have consequences, in proportion to the extent. ##
>
Here is pure hypocracy, on the one hand you claim animals can't adapt
or change and now your claiming they can! Or are you saying that only
humans, and no other animals could adapt in the way your describing,
which I agree with?
>>>>> 9 - MEAT
>>>> ..
>>>>> I confess that there is no archaeological evidence that such events
>>>>> ever happened. But rhe behavior of chimpanzees and other primates, as
>>>>> well as our kind's dietary preferences, leave little doubt that the
>>>>> ausrralopithecines had a special fondness for meat. And as
>>>>> savanna-dwelling, tool-using animals, they had a developed capacity and
>>>>> plenty of opportunity to scavenge and hunt.
>>>>
>>>> '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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The hunter/gatherer theory has not been touched by the other macho man
>>> the hunter theory. You see you need to learn to seperate those two
>>> theories. It is rather obvious that men hunted and women gathered but
>>> this exagerated man the hunter stereotype you talk of, I agree with.
>>> Some use it as a straw man to bash upon the tribal male female reality
>>> 40,000 years ago;
>>
>> 40,000 years ago. Yet anatomically modern humans are known to
>> have been around for at least 195,000 years. Different conditions.
>>
>
> These are all just theories and I agree with your dates but what you
> said does not eliminate the possibility that gender differences were
> selected for and exagerated. You have just challenge the assumption of
> "when" it happened.
>
> ## Of course. *When* it happened is significant. I have seen it
> claimed that modern humans "evolved" during the same period
> there is any tangible evidence of hunting, circa 45,000 years ago. ##
>
The evolution of homo sapians is explained by many theories or some
combination of them; the aquatic theories, the re-radiation of
continents theories, the grassy plains theories, the heat dissipation
theories and many more missionary position evolutionary theories.
>>
>>> Women marathoners have comparable endurance,
>>
>> The only way humans may have some hope of catching an animal.
>
> I am afraid your "only" quantification, a varient of quantity of "all"
> (which should be some varient of the quantity "some") must be
> challenged. By making that assertion you must defend the idea that men
> could in no way catch the necessary amount of animals for the group,
> even if an artificial experiment, else you would beg the question and
> would start to shift the burden of proof logically.
>
> ## Without bows and arrows, spears, guns, and the like,
> how are you going to kill an animal? You say you're going
> to stone the animal to death.. but to do that, you need to
> surround the animal in some way. To get close enough to
> do that, you must first run the animal to exhaustion. Logic. ##
>
Some primates have been observed to gang up on prey, there is much
evidence that humans followed migrating herds and learned to herd them
off cliffs, things like bows and arrows cannot be replaced by rock
formation before they disintigrate (those bones aren't bones at the
museum but rock re-deposits in their shape) etc....
9 - MEAT
THE OPEN COUNTRY beckoned wich another resource. In rhe forest, animals
tend to be small, furtive, difficult to see. But the savanna teemed
with visible herds. From time to time a stick-carrying group of
australopithecines would encounter an infant gazelle or antelope that
had strayed from the protection of its mother and they would surround,
seize, and eat it. Occasionally they would also stumble upon the
remains of a larger animal that had died from natural causes or had
been killed by the feline predators that lived off the herds. Hooting
and howling and waving their sticks, they would drive away the vultures
and jackals, rush in and rear off bits of decaying meat, and run to the
nearest clump of trees, ready to drop everything and seek safety in the
branches if one of the felines returned and interrupted their meal.
I confess that there is no archaeological evidence that such events
ever happened. But rhe behavior of chimpanzees and other primates, as
well as our kind's dietary preferences, leave little doubt that the
ausrralopithecines had a special fondness for meat. And as
savanna-dwelling, tool-using animals, they had a developed capacity and
plenty of opportunity to scavenge and hunt. As for seeking the safety
of trees, we do have the fossil evidence of curved fingers and toes and
the chimpanzeelike long arms and short legs.
Not so long ago scientists believed that monkeys and apes were strict
vegetarians. After meticulous observation in the wild, most primates
turned out to be omnivores. Like humans, they ear both plant and animal
foods. Being rather small creatures, monkeys necessarily prey mostly on
insects rather than on game. And a significant amount of their insect
eating is simply a natural by-product of the consumption of leaves and
fruit. When they encounter a leaf with a weevil wrapped in it, or a fig
with a worm in it, they do not spit out the intruder. If anything, they
spit out the leaf or fruit, a practice that produces a steady rain ot
half-chewed plant food as the troop progresses from tree to tree.
As among most human populations, monkeys usually eat only relatively
small amounts of animal food compared to plant food. This is not a
matter of choice, bur simply of the difficulties monkeys confront in
obtaining a steady supply of animal flesh. Studies in Namibia and
Botswana show that baboons will stop eating virtually everything else
when insects swarm. They prefer animal matter first; roots, seeds,
fruits, and flowers second; and leaves and grass third. At certain
seasons of the year, they spend as much as 75 percent of their eating
time on insects. Several species of large monkeys not only consume
insects but actually hunt small game. My reconstruction of the
australopithecine way of life gains plausibility from the fact that the
most accomplished hunters among monkeys appear ro be grounddwelling
baboons that live in open country. During a year of observation near
Gelgil, Kenya, Robert Harding observed forty-seven small vertebrates
being killed and eaten by baboons. The most common prey were infant
gazelles and antelopes. If mere baboons are capable of capturing infant
gazelles and antelopes, the early australopithecines cannot have been
less capable.
Among extant nonhuman primates, chimpanzees are the most ardent meat
eaters. The time and effort expended m termiring and anting alone
suggest the degree of their fondness for animal flesh. And let us not
forget the painful bites and stings that they risk in order to get at
these tidbits. Nor do chimpanzees confine their pursuit of animal flesh
to anting and termiting. They actively hunt and eat at least
twenty-three species of mammals, including several kinds of monkeys and
baboons, galagos, bush bucks, bush pigs, duikers, mice, rars,
squirrels, shrews, mongooses, and hyraxes. They also kill and eat
chimpanzee and even human babies if they get a chance. At Gombe, over
the course of a decade, observers witnessed the consumption of
ninety-five small animals-mostly infant baboons, monkeys, and bush
pigs. This is only a partial accounting because the chimpanzees
consumed additional animals out of sight of the observers. Altogether,
Gombe chimpanzees devoted about 10 percent of their time spent on
feeding to the pursuit and consumption of game.
Chimpanzees usually hunt cooperatively and share their quarry with each
other. In fact, if a chimpanzee is unable to get others to join in, it
will abandon the hunt. Throughout the entire process of killing,
distributing, and consuming prey animals, they display an unusual level
of social interaction and excitement. During the hunt, anywhere from
three to nine chimpanzees try to surround the prey animal. They keep
positioning and repositioning themselves for as long as an hour, trying
to cut off potential escape routes.
Both males and females hunt and consume meat. During an eight-year
period, from 1974 to 1981, females captured or stole, and then ate, at
least part of forty-four prey animals, not counting another twenty-one
prey animals that they attacked or seized but were unable to hold on
to. Males hunted more than females and consumed more meat. Chimpanzees
occasionally share plant foods, but they always share meat unless the
prey is captured by a solitary chimpanzee in the forest. Meat-sharing
often results from persistent "begging." The supplicant holds an
outstretched hand under the meat possessor's mouth, or parts the lips
of a meat-chewing companion. If these tactics fail, the supplicant may
begin to whimper and to express rage and frustration. Van
Lawick-Goodall describes how a young chimp named Mr. Worzle threw a
tantrum when Goliath, a dominant male, refused to share the body of a
baby baboon with him. Mr. Worzle followed Goliath from branch to
branch, hand outstretched and whimpering. "When Goliath pushed Worzle's
hand away for the eleventh time, the lower-ranking male . . . hurled
himself backward off the branch, screaming and hitting wildly at the
surrounding vegetation. Goliath looked at him and then, with a great
effort (using hands, teeth, and one foot), tore his prey in two and
handed the entire hindquarters to Worzle."
OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Harris
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/harris_marvin.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marvin_harris.html
>>> but men are faster - their champions run twenty-six
>>> five-minute miles one after another.
>>
>> Fast enough to catch a rabbit, .... or ..... ?
>
> You need to concentrate on understanding statistical thinking. Most
> human theorization is statistical in nature. 2 and 1/2 children used to
> be the average family size, but could you ever find a half child?
>
> ## You need to concentrate on understanding the reality of it. ##
>
Male champions are always between 5 and 20 percent faster than women
champions: in 1974 the difference was 8 percent in the i oo meters, 11
percent in the 400 meters, 15 percent in the mile, 10 percent in the
10,000 meters, and so on through every distance. Even in the marathon,
where size and brute strength count least, the difference was 13
percent. Women marathoners have comparable endurance, but men are
faster - their champions run twenty-six five-minute miles one after
another. The gap cannot be attributed to a lack of incentive and
training. The great women runners of East Germany and the Soviet Union
are the products of nationwide recruitment and scientifically planned
training programs. Yet their champions, who consistently set Olympic
and world records, could not place in an average men's regional track
meet. The overlap in performances between all men and women is of
course great;
the best women athletes are better than
most male athletes, and women's track and
field is an exciting competitive world of its own.
But there is a substantial difference between
average and best performances.
Quoted From E.O. Wilson;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
This is why you seem to be lacking in the ability to think in averages
or statistics in order to see that while most men beat women, "the best
women athletes are better than most male athletes."
>>
>>
>>> Despite men's average deficiency in manual dexterity compared to women,
>>> many musicians are men. There is no question that playing a musical
>>> instrument is a severe test of manual dexterity. Male musicians may
>>> have unusually good manual dexterity to begin with, or they may develop
>>> it through practice.
>>
>> Ahah.
>>
>
> Now your trying to claim that all theories of gender dimorphism
> eliminate the possibility that these heredetory and instinctual
> abilities can be adjusted in strength.
>
> Is it nature or nurture that makes us who we are? The question itself
> is a false dichotomy;
>
> [someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in
> fact other alternatives exist or can exist]
>
> ## They can indeed. Hominid and human males were throwing rocks
> to defend females and young from predators -- not to kill mastodons. ##
>
Actually this could be correct partly since the more advantages a trait
provides the more likely it will be selected for in evolution.
58 - SEX, HUNTING, AND DEADLY FORCE
MEN ARE 11.6 CENTIMETERS (4.6 inches) taller than women on average.
Women have lighter bones and more fat than men, and therefore weigh
less for their height (fat weighs less than muscle). Women are about
two-thirds to three-quarters as strong as men, depending on the group
of muscles tested. The biggest strength differences are concentrated in
the arms, chest, and shoulders. There is no mystery, therefore, about
why men outperform women in track-and-field athletic contests. In
archery, for example, the woman's hand bow record for distance is 15
percent less than the male record. In compound bow competition, the gap
is 30 percent. In javelin hurling, it is 20 percent. Add to these
differences a 10 percent gap in various kinds of sprints and
intermediate- and long-distance races. As I mentioned earlier, there is
a 9 percent gap in the marathon. The same for 100-meter dashes, but
larger, about 12 percent, for intermediate distances. While athletic
training programs and psychological incentives improve women's
track-and-field performance, there is little prospect that the gap that
now exists in sports based on muscular strength and body build will
ever be significantly narrowed (except, perhaps someday, through
genetic engineering).
Oh the basis of what anthropologists know about simple band-and-village
societies, I think we can be fairly confident that these differences
were responsible during early post-takeoff times for the recurrent
cultural selection of males as the sex responsible for I hunting large
animals. There are a few exceptions-the Agta of the Philippines, for
example, among whom some women hunt for wild pigs-but in 95 percent of
known cases, men specialize in bringing down big game. As to whether
earlier presapiens and protocultural hominid species had the same
division of labor, I shall say nothing because we cannot extrapolate
from modern foragers to such remote times. Men were culturally selected
to prey on large animals because their height, weight, and brawn
advantages made them, on the average, more efficient at this task than
women. Moreover, the male height, weight, and brawn advantages in the
use of hand-held hunting weapons increase considerably for the many
months during which women are less mobile because they are pregnant or
lactating.
Sex-linked anatomical and physiological differences do not preclude
women from participating in hunting to some degree. But the
systemically rational alternative is to train men rather than women to
be responsible for big-game hunting, especially since women are never
at a disadvantage in hunting smaller game or collecting wild fruits,
berries, or tubers, which are just as important in many foragers' diets
as meat from big game.
The selection of males to do the hunting of large game means that at
least since Paleolithic times men have been the specialists in the
manufacture and use of weapons such as spears, bow and arrows,
harpoons, clubs, and boomerangs-weapons that have the capacity to wound
and kill human beings as well as animals. I am not saying that male
control over these weapons automatically leads to male dominance and
the sexual double standard. On the contrary, many foraging societies
with a sexual division of labor between male hunters and female
gatherers have nearly egalitarian relations between the sexes. For
example, writing other fieldwork among the Montagnais-Naskapi foragers
of Labrador, anthropologist Eleanor Leacock notes that "they gave me
insight into a level of respect and consideration for the individuality
of others, regardless of sex, that I had never before experienced." And
in his study of the forest-dwelling Mbuti of Zaire, Colin Turnbull
found a high level of cooperation and mutual understanding between the
sexes and considerable authority and power vested in women. Despite his
skills with bow and arrow, the Mbuti male does not see himself as
superior to his wife. He "sees himself as the hunter, but then he could
not hunt without a wife, and although hunting is more exciting than
being a beater or a gatherer, he knows that the bulk of his diet comes
from the foods gathered by the women."
Marjorie Shostak's biography ofNisa shows the !Kung to be another
foraging society in which nearly egalitarian relationships between the
sexes prevail. Shostak states that the !Kung do not show any preference
for male children over female children. In matters relating to
childrearing, both parents guide their offspring, and a mother's word
carries about the same weight as the father's. Mothers play a major
role in deciding whom their children will marry, and after marriage,
!Kung couples live near the wife's family as often as they live near
the husband's. Women dispose of whatever food they find and bring back
to camp as they see fit. "All in all, !Kung women have a striking
degree of autonomy over their own and their children's lives. Brought
up to respect their own importance in community life, !Kung women
become multifaceted adults and are likely to be competent and assertive
as well as nurturant and cooperative."
Nonetheless, I cannot agree with Eleanor Leacock and other feminist
anthropologists who claim that gender roles in foraging societies are
completely egalitarian. My reading of the ethnographic evidence
indicates that in the realm of public decision making and conflict
resolution, men generally have a slight but nonetheless significant
edge over women in virtually all foraging societies. As Shostak points
out for the !Kung, "Men more often hold positions of influence-as
spokespeople for the group or as healers-and their somewhat greater
authority over many areas of !Kung life is acknowledged by men and
women alike." Men's initiation rites are held in secret; women's are
held in public. If a menstruating woman touches a hunter's arrows, his
quarry will escape; but men never pollute what they touch. The !Kung,
therefore, are somewhat short of having a perfectly balanced set of
separate-but-equal gender roles.
The same is true of the Mbuti. Turnbull writes "that the hunters (i.e.,
the men) may be considered the political leaders of the camp and that
in this the women are almost, if not fully, the equals of the men." But
"a certain amount of wife beating is considered good," even if "the
wife is expected to fight back," and for children, "mother is
associated with love," while "father is associated with authority."
Richard Lee recorded thirty-four cases of nonlethal bare-handed
fighting among the !Kung. Fourteen of these involved a man attacking a
woman; only one involved a woman attacking a man. Lee remarks that
despite the higher frequency of male-initiated attacks, "women fought
fiercely and often gave as good as or better than they got." But the
men in these encounters may have been restrained by the presence of a
newly installed government constable and therefore did not use their
weapons. Delving deeper into the past, Lee learned about twenty-two
killings that had taken place prior to his field-work. None of the
killers, but two of the victims, were women. Lee interpreted this to
mean that men were unable to victimize women as freely as they do in
really oppressive male sexist societies. Another interpretation seems
more apt. !Kung women may have been more timid in the past when there
were no constables nearby and refrained from getting into brawls with
men, knowing that they would be in mortal danger if the men began to
use their spears and poisoned arrows.
Why are women almost, but not fully, the equals of men in public
authority and conflict resolution among foragers? I think it is because
of the monopoly men maintain over the manufacture and use of hunting
weapons, combined with their advantages in weight, height, and brawn.
Trained to kill large animals with deadly weapons from boyhood on, men
can be more dangerous and hence more coercive than women when conflicts
between them break out. "I'm a man. I've got my arrows. I'm not afraid
to die," say the !Kung hunters when disputes start to get out of hand.
If these are the reactions of men trained to kill animals, what will
men who have been trained to kill people do? How will women fare when
the hunters hunt each other?
59 - FEMALE WARRIORS?
WHEREVER CONDITIONS FAVORED the intensification of warfare among bands
and villages, the political and domestic subordination of women also
became more intense. This theory has been tested by anthropologist
Brian Hayden of Simon Frazer University and his associates on a sample
of thirty-three hunter-gatherer societies. The correlation between low
status for females and more deaths due to armed combat was
"unexpectedly high." As Hayden .....
OUR KIND by Marvin Harris 1989
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060919906/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Harris
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/information/biography/fghij/harris_marvin.html
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/marvin_harris.html
>
http://tinyurl.com/86mf9
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> "Homosexual men have a smaller clump of cells (known as INAH3) in the
> hypothalamus than heterosexual men. The structure is closer in size to
> that of women. This suggests, but does not establish, that sexual
> orientation is a module determined by early brain development. If so,
> then the tendency of heterosexual women to be sexually attracted to men
> and the tendency of heterosexual men to be attracted to women may be
> attributable to anatomical sex differences in the brain that are
> present at birth."
>
> --Nigel Barber - Science of Romance
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1573929700/
>
> ## Males and females are different in all species, regardless
> of dietary niche; whether they are predators or herbivores.
>
DId I claim they were not different in most species, except the species
we have never seen yet which may or may not be different? But how would
this obvious observation change the prior assertions if they did assume
such? (curious logically)
> ...'
>
http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2006/dec/10/fish-sex-change-investigatedx1/
>
> Also:
>
> 'Research in Denmark points to a group of chemicals -
> phthalates - found in objects and everyday products all
> around us. They are in plastic, carpets, fabric, make-up,
> food packaging, perfume, cosmetics, milk, vegetables,
> pesticides and sun cream. Known as endocrine disrupters,
> it is believed they upset the delicate balance of hormones
> during the early stages of pregnancy.
>
> Related to this is the general crisis in male fertility in the
> West. One in six boys born today will have a low
> sperm-count. Hypospadias sufferers are part of a much
> wider problem which has seen male fertility drastically
> decline over the past 50 years.
> ...'
>
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article1523035.ece
>
> I'm not making any claims here.. just theorising. ##
>
> ------------------------------В-----
>
> Nurture is reversible; nature is not.
>
> ## It isn't, no. Except in bizarre conditions, like the above. ##
>
??
>
>
>> Long article - lots of speculation. Deal with the facts.
>
> Your theory that I am or not dealing with facts, of course is not
> factual.
>
> ## Well, yes, it is. You are trying to speculate away 60 million
> years of frugivorous adaptation and the clear detrimental effects
> of straying from our evolutionary diet, with theory about gender.##
>
> Therefore when you can factually deal with me, please come
> back. For in science, a theory is an explanation.
>
> ## A theory is very often not the correct explanation. Actual
> evidence elevates theory into the realm of factual knowledge. ##
>
Here is a scientist that disagrees with you. Now you need to describe
what a fact is. Is it just the best theories with the best evidence
that also work the best, or do you claim to have eliminated all chance
for error and cannot be mistaken?
CARLSON: Ms. Scott -- hold on. That's not -- in some ways, that's not
really the question. I mean, the question is: Shall we admit the truth
that evolution is a theory? It's the theory of evolution, not the law
of evolution. And what's wrong with admitting that?
SCOTT: Well, in science, a theory is an explanation. Of course
evolution is a theory, just like gravitation. But what we should be...
CARLSON: Wait, I thought gravity was a law. The law of gravity,
right...
SCOTT: No, gravity...
CARLSON: ... or is this so far over my head I don't know what you're
talking about? I thought it was a law.
SCOTT: Well, I'll tell you what, if you drop something, it's going to
fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
attracted by the mass...
CARLSON: Well you are blowing my mind...
SCOTT: That's not an observation.
CARLSON: ... law of gravity. Honestly, is it not the law, it's really a
theory of gravity?
SCOTT: It's a theory of gravity. But remember, a theory is an
explanation.
SPRIGG: ... should point out, Scott, though, that theories of origins
and theories that are testable in terms of current experimentation are
somewhat different in a scientific perspective. We can't experimentally
confirm evolution.
SCOTT: Sure we can...
CNN Crossfire: Secret Court Stymies Justice Department; Creationists
Square off with Evolutionists; Should Bush Be Telling Americans to
Exercise?
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0208/24/cf.00.html
> Evolution is a
> theory, just like gravitation. Gravity is not a law of nature but an
> explaination of observations. If you drop something, it's going to
> fall. That's an observation: unsupported things fall. But you explain
> that observation with the theory of gravity, which is that the mass of
> what whatever it is you dropped, a pencil or a pen or something, is
> attracted by the mass...it's really a theory of gravity? But remember,
> a theory is an explanation.
>
> ## That gravity is a real phenomenon and a natural law is not
> under discussion. What is theorised about, is what causes it.
> If such a thing as a 'graviton' were to be found, then that would
> be more than just a theory. We've evidence meat is unhealthful. ##
Gravity does seem to be a real phenomenon but you would have a hard
time proving that you could not be in error about gravity. You would
have to eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming and that in
reality there is no gravity but in the dream it seems very real. In
order to claim that idea and belief in gravity is completely
justifiable you must eliminate the possibility that you are dreaming it
all up.
