Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly
40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and
that the amount of meat eaten was trivial.
Skeptics, such as
myself, know that such behavior IS aberrant, and since
only a vanishingly small percentage of the entire troop
actively participate. Such behavior is totally unrelated to natural
dietary imperatives, because ALL adults would behave in this manner if
it were nutritionally important. Further, the practice is purely
social/cultural, since flesh is traded for sexual favors, much like human
CBS> Today, we know that
chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their
Yes, they eat mainly
fruit, but they are not
"also predators", since only a small percentage participates
in such predation. They could be honestly classified
as "predators" IF 100% of the adults behaved
so. 100% of humans may not be classified as "murderers"
if only a small percentage manifests such behavior.
CBS> In some sites
the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one
data is a common ploy of those who wish to mislead. The real questions,
left conveniently omitted, is how much is the annual per capita
consumption of "meat"? And what percentage of
various troops participate?
"Meat" is a human-prepared false, culturally-conditioned
food, that humans do not eat as natural flesh-eaters do: raw, dripping
blood, killed with their natural equipment.
Humans need their flesh radically prepared specifically
to disguise its grisly origins. They must "trim" bones,
fat, fur, sinew, tendons, ligaments, glands, veins and arteries, brains
and guts, in addition to various other organs, away to discard. Why??
All this to effectively disguise the source of
Then, humans cook "meat" to further
disguise the texture and taste. Seductive tastes are created by
Products; and the formation of highly toxic and carcinogenic
compounds by the high temperatures of cooking is inevitable. Then,
they further make the cooked corpse edible only by adding pungent spices
and herbs to further disguise the meal. Only after this complex
ritual can the human consume flesh! It is remarkable that the human
is the ONLY species that has to disguise its food like this; is it not
abundantly evident to anthro-apologists
that flesh-eating in neither natural for the chimp or the human?
CBS> Recently revealed aspects
of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat
as a political and reproductive tool, have important implications for
research on the origins of human behavior.
Again, critical and
accurate numbers are ignored. What are we claiming here: "Human
see, human do?" A penis is a "reproductive tool";
however, trading flesh for sexual favors is a political and psychological
tool of deception and manipulation.
CBS> These findings come
at a time when many anthropologists argue for scavenging rather than hunting
as a way of life for early human ancestors.
what absolute nonsense! Let the proponents of this propaganda actually
test their theory by eating some fresh road-kill. Raw,
of course. The human species has a particularly strong anti-instinct
for ingesting putrefying flesh, due to our olfactory sensitivity and repulsion
from toxic amines, such
as those in human meat-eaters'
feces, or decaying
CBS> Research into the hunting
ecology of wild chimpanzees may therefore shed new light on the current
debate about the origins of human behavior.
Why don't these brilliant
researchers simply ask any 2-year old to kill an animal with its bare
hands and eat it? Simple, inexpensive, and conclusive research
to prove that human are not natural flesh-eaters. Why can't anthro-apologists
think of these simple concepts? Why are their beliefs so ridiculous,
irrational, and hopelessly naive?
CBS> One of the most important
and intriguing questions in human evolution is when meat became an important
part of the diet of our ancestors.
us totally irrelevant, the WHY is important. This should be obvious
for anthro-apologists, because their job is to study humans, right?
"The term Anthropology may refer to:
* In social science, Anthropology is the study of humans
from the point of view of culture; this is the most widespread use, but
also the most modern
* In theology, Theological anthropology is the branch of theology which
is concerned with the study of humankind, or anthropology,
in relation to the divine.
* In the context of theology, it's mainly those studying Christian anthropology
that use the term
* In philosophy, Philosophical Anthropology seeks to unify the several
empirical investigations and phenomenological explorations of human
nature in an effort to understand human beings as both creatures of their
environment and creators of their own values."
Yep, the study of humans, right!
However, what mystifies me is the reason
anthro-apologists completely ignore the rather obvious effects
of conditioning by the local culture.
And, they have a marvelously developed ability to just ignore real
science; and this especially from those who make noises about human diet;
yet they know nothing about the human diet. This is why they generally
are overweight and die of "degenerative diseases". They wax
eloquently over the wonders of humans eating
and animal fat, yet totally ignoring TC
Campbell's breakthrough book: "The
China Study: The Most Comprehensive Study of Nutrition Ever Conducted
and the Startling Implications for Diet, Weight Loss and Long-term Health".
"Book Description: Referred to as the "Grand
Prix of epidemiology" by The New York Times, this study examines
more than 350 variables of health and nutrition with surveys from 6,500
adults in more than 2,500 counties across China and Taiwan, and conclusively
demonstrates the link between nutrition and heart disease, diabetes, and
cancer. While revealing that proper nutrition can have a dramatic effect
on reducing and reversing these ailments as well as curbing obesity, this
text calls into question the practices of many of the current dietary
programs, such as the Atkins diet, that are widely popular in the West.
The politics of nutrition and the impact of special interest groups in
the creation and dissemination of public information are also discussed."
Of course, if anthro-apologists
really looked at human diet from an objective point-of-view,
they would have to abandon their own cooked, animals diets,
and these academic types are not concerned about their own health.
CBS> Physical anthropologists
and archaeologists have been using a number of techniques to try to answer
this question. The presence of primitive stone tools in the fossil record
tells us that 2.5 million years ago early hominids were using stone implements
to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted
or whose carcasses they had scavenged.
For those disconnected-from-reality,
hypothetical, academics that never venture out of their air-conditioned
offices, I challenge them to enter the real world of experimental/experiantial
science and test the "scavanging" hypothesis in person. Leave
the safety and comfort of your office cocoon and go find some road-kill
that has been laying in the sunshine for a few days, this to simulate
being in the sunshine for a few days in the African Tropics, and then
munch down! Any takers?
CBS> The pattern of obtaining and processing meat by more recent people
has been studied by examining archaeological sites in Europe and elsewhere,
and also by studying the hunting and meat-eating behavior of modern foraging
people, the so-called hunter-gatherers. Before 2.5 million years ago,
however, we know very little about the foods that hominids ate, or the
role that meat may have played in their diet. We know that the earliest
upright-walking (bipedal) hominids, the australopithecines, evolved in
Africa about 5 million years ago, and that they shared a common ancestor
with modern chimpanzees shortly before that time. Modern people and chimpanzees
share an estimated 98.5%
of our DNA sequence, making us more closely related to each other
than either is to any other animal species. Therefore, understanding chimpanzee
hunting behavior and ecology
may tell us a great deal about the behavior and ecology of those very
No, it won't! All
it tells us is that SOME modern chimps are developing social trickery
to get sexual favors. A tiny 1.4%
of the time invested in gathering food, by only a small percentage of
troop members, is no basis for any broad, unsupported conclusions. Clearly,
such a tiny effort in such activity disqualifies it from any real nutritional
CBS> What are the social
and ecological factors that predict when chimpanzees will hunt and whether
they will be successful ?
If hunting activity
is social in character, and it is, then it is not related
to nutritional needs, for if it were, ALL adults would partake.
CBS> What are the likely
similarities in meat-eating patterns between chimpanzees and the earliest
None; humans do not
eat flesh raw, nor kill their prey with thier natural physical equipment.!
CBS> .. it
was thought that chimpanzees were strictly vegetarian.
Chimps, humans, and
other apes are frugivores;
they eat mostly fruit. Vegetarian
is a human philosophy, NOT a natural dietary classification.
CBS> ... and hunting has
also been observed at most other sites in Africa where
chimpanzees have been studied, ...
MOST! IF hunting
were a nutritional imperative, the ALL other adults would
be practicing it. QED.
Chimpanzee Predatory Behavior
three decades of research on the hunting behavior of chimpanzees at Gombe,
we already know a great deal about their predatory patterns.
Except, that it is
violent, sexual pathology, not nutritional.
CBS> Chimpanzees are largely
fruit eaters, and meat composes only about 3% of the
time they spent eating overall, ...
Clearly, then it is
not a nutritional item.
CBS> ... thus promoting
the evolution of cooperative behavior.
Behavior does NOT evolve; evolution
occurs at the genetic
level by random mutations of the genetic code, with eventual selection
out by external, unknown "pressures".
CBS> Why Do Chimpanzees Hunt ?
Among the great apes (the gorilla,the orangutan,the bonobo, and the chimpanzee)
and ourselves, only humans and chimpanzees hunt and eat meat on a frequent
of the time invested in gathering food, can not be honestly called "frequent".
CBS> ... humans... are considered
There is no scientific
definition of "omnivore".
CBS> The important decisions about what to eat and when to eat it should
therefore be based on the nutritional costs and benefits of obtaining
that food compared to the essential nutrients that the food provides.
never mentions any nutrient.
CBHS> ... the alpha there,
Ntilogi, used captured meat as a political tool to withhold from rivals
and dole out to allies
Social manipulation, not nutritional.
CBS> My own preconception
was that hunting must be nutritionally based.
Yet there is no
support for this finally admitted "preconception".
CBS> Many researchers now
believe that the carcasses of large mammals were an important source of
meat for early hominids once they had stone tools to use for removing
the flesh from the carcass.
Again, let these "researchers"
do their their own research on some rotting offal.
wild chimpanzees (particularly the males who do most of the hunting) show
little interest in dead animals as a food source, ...
Right, only disconnected
human academics are silly enough to come up with this absurd hypothesis.