The Predatory Behavior and
Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees:

CBS> When 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 "dating".

CBS> Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems.
    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 ton annually.
     Quoting meaningless 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 the "meal".  

    Then, humans cook "meat" to further disguise the texture and taste.  Seductive tastes are created by Mallaird Reaction 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.
     "Scavenging"; 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 corpses.

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.
    The "when" us totally irrelevant, the WHY is important.  This should be obvious for anthro-apologists, because their job is to study humans, right?

    Wikipeodia supports that:

"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 animal protein 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 earliest hominids.
     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 imperative.

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 hominids ?
     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
CBS> After 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 basis.
     1.4% of the time invested in gathering food, can not be honestly called "frequent".

CBS> ... humans... are considered omnivores.
     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.
     However, CBS> 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.

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.

CBS> ... 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.



Home page