|
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 |
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, uk.business.agriculture, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
From: usual suspect <abovegro...@earth.man>
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 21:30:14 GMT
Local: Sun 13 July 2003 22:30
Subject: Re: The fantasy
our village idiot wrote: Another vegan misanthrope lashing out with violence. Are you trying to >>Suffering is a necessary part of existence ON our planet. > That so? Let's cut your balls off without anaesthesia then. fatten me for slaughter? That's one reason why bulls are castrated; it's also normally done in a painless fashion. >>Living requires food. Animals are food. Pleasure is a function of Yes they are. >>eating, too, so it makes sense that animals are for our pleasure. > Animals are not a proper food for humans. > Illness results, Illness results from eating certain plants immediately. Illness and death occur regardless of diet at some point in life. > suffering results. Suffering results for all animals whether they're eaten by humans or other animals. Indeed, many other predators are less humane than humans. > Animals are not here for our pleasure. Sure they are. >>I'll stand by that with respect to a time-frame of a little longer than Accepting the premise that changes in longevity >>"until very recently." I'll add that I have serious doubts about the >>longevity of early hominids given predation, disease, and acts of >>nature. Those utopian pseudo-science websites you like to cite don't >>mention any of the above -- I wonder why. > I don't care what you stand by. Cite some evidence yourself for a change. have occurred over the course of human evolution, we use a resampling approach to examine the nature of that change, with particular interest in whether there is a pattern of gradual change, or if there is a significant increase in longevity with the emergence of Homo erectus. Our sample consists of ages at death derived from the literature and includes over 150 specimens ranging from the late Miocene to the Upper Pleistocene. These were plotted against time using a resampling method that avoids the problems of time dependence and the interpretation of slope that are inherent in linear regressions. To avoid error introduced by dates, we considered the data in 100,000 and 50,000 year intervals and focused on increments of change (D) between individual observations in adjacent intervals. Random resampling with replacement was done an equal number of times for each increment generating a distribution for each resampling run as well as a total distribution of D. These distributions suggest no significant change in longevity with the emergence of Homo erectus; RATHER, SUCH CHANGE OCCURS LATER IN HUMAN EVOLUTION. [my emphasis] I also found the following chart, though I haven't had time to Pan troglodytes: Longevity about 40 years. http://www.saburchill.com/IBbiology/chapters02/030.html Now piss off, pendejo. You do your own homework next time. You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||