"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