From: tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: re: human evolution
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:30:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In Article 9218 in rec.equestrian montyb@alpha.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Monty C. 
Brandenberg) wrote:

>In article <1992Oct12.182843.7972@morrow.stanford.edu>, GC.GGG@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gwyn Gordon) writes:
|> In article <1992Oct11.203230.18579@aosg.gsf.dec.com>,
|> 
|> Within the very quote you use here, Dennis says "Human beings
|> evolved eating meat." Tracy responds with "Humans evolved eating
|> nuts, berries,...." and THEN goes on to ADD a morphological
|> statment. My understanding is that she has therefore doubly refuted
|> Dennis' argument, by responding with both anthropological AND
|> morphological evidence.

>Tracy later accepts my anthroplogical comment on the omniverous habits
>of pre-HSS humanoids.  And the morphological statements refute nothing
>than I have read of Dennis' notes.  Morphology is not Anthropology.

	Please reread the response I made to your post, I most definitely
did NOT agree with you, I said that you did not know whether Dennis
was making a Biological or an Anthropological comment.  The only thing I
agree with is that proto-humans did occassionally eat meat, however I most 
definitely DO NOT agree with your concept that this proves they "evolved" 
eating meat, and I feel my presentation of Biological evidence refuted that.
Also I reread Dennis's original post and noted that he was comparing
humans with wolves, bears, tigers and other distinctly and Biologically
carnivorous animals, therefore I now conclude that his statement was a
statement of Biology, not Anthropology, as wolves, bears and the like
do not fall into that subject criterion.  Therefore my refutation using
Biological fact was correct.

|> How is this "sloppy reasoning"? Besides, this isn't debate school,
|> it's an exchange of opinion. Mellow out, huh?

	I agree with Gwyn this is not sloppy reasoning, this is well-
thought out and deserves more consideration and less reactive and
vicious commentary in response.

>While I might have flamed excessively (I thought I did after the fact),
>the general sloppiness, fallacious modes of argument, and parrotting of
>pseudo-fact put me in a vindictive mood.  I apologize for the tone but
>not the content.

	Apology on tone accepted however it would have appeared more
sincere had you not proceeded to use the same vindictive tone in responding 
to Gwyn.

	Also as a follow-up on another point I called our local Humane
Society and they told me they are on good terms and affiliated with
Both Humane Societies mentioned in previous articles.  They also told
me that all local Humane Societies are free to set up there own rules,
and decide their own policies.  And finally they told me that they
do not feel there is a signifigant distinction between the terms 
animal rights and animal welfare, as many rights groups act only for
the welfare of animals and within the law, and many welfare groups
get carried away and step outside the law, therefore making the
distinction is really meaningless and most especially so if the 
distinction is made by outside forces such as the media.  I would
like to point out that this Humane Society has a very good 
reputation and is well-loved in this town, they work together with
authorities on many pieces of legislation and have even turned over their 
cruelty investigations to the county and now refer cases to them because
the county is doing such a good job of handling that.  Yet they
still take positive stands on issues normally called rights issues
such as refusing to sell or give animals from the shelter to
medical facilities for experimentation.  And I repeat they work entirely
WITHIN the law.

				Tracy and everybody
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian