Glad I didn't sell her

[Bright Raven]

As a species, Homo sapiens have a short history but the cells contain the genetic history of the ancestors extending in time back to the Precambrian. In terms of neural functions, social behavior, use of tools, etc Homo sapiens are highly evolved. But if you are looking for species A is above species B, you have to give me some criteria. For example, what species flys the fastest, what species is the most prolific reproducer, what species has the best eye sight, etc.

Some scientists represent Homo sapiens as the most highly evolved species. The phylogenetic tree places man at the "crown" of the tree. Other scientists present Homo sapiens in a linear phylogenetic tree like the one above to denote only ancestral history. If you note in my first response to you, I placed "above" and "below" in quotes for the purpose of highlighting that those terms are relative. In regard to the hierarchy, that is a function of ancestral history.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Are you saying that there is a disagreement and some scientists believe humans are the most highly evolved species and some do not?

And are you saying that there is a disagreement between scientist in how to classify animals?

 

[Bright Raven]

Are you saying that there is a disagreement and some scientists believe humans are the most highly evolved species and some do not?

And are you saying that there is a disagreement between scientist in how to classify animals?

Journals document disagreements on taxonomic position on a regular basis.

In regard to the evolution of humans, scientist traditionally presented the phylogenetic tree as a standing tree with the "more highly" evolved species in each taxonomic unit on the crown. The debate ensued as to whether that is appropriate. For example, some bacteria have evolved to fill niches that are extremely harsh in terms of temperature and toxicity. In that regard, they are more highly evolved than humans. Currently, you see more linear or even circular phylogenetic depictions to avoid that misrepresentation.

BTW: I apologize if anyone interprets this as an affront to their beliefs. For the record, this is not a presentation of my "beliefs", it is a presentation of the state of the science. Nevertheless, I am bowing out.

 

[TCRanch]

Well I'm glad you didn't sell her! I get emotionally attached to a lot of my cattle (that includes calves & bulls) and some of them have earned the right to die on the ranch rather than hauled to the sale barn for $.60 per pound.

 

[farmerjan]

Kept my first dairy cow, only her second owner, and put her down when her arthritis got bad at about 15. Kept my first beef/cross heifer calf bought to go on the nurse cow, raised daughters and granddaughters and with her last calf, a steer, on her, she got down at nearly 16 and I went out to the pasture, talked to her and put the bullet in her myself. We don't keep many to their "old age" but there are a few that deserve it. I am always telling my son we are not running an "old age home for cows" when he starts to get feeling bad for every older cow we have to sell.... but there are a few that will get a pass to stay til they die. Have a great granddaughter of old smokey just confirmed preg for her second calf and the first is a heifer that is pretty nice and will definitely stay. Don't still have any of her daughters, but have 3 granddaughters and 2 great grand daughters in the herd producing...

 

[Commercialfarmer]

I sure don't share your concern Raven, that good members of CT will be offended by your presentation. Unless you fancied your position to be unquestionable, maybe even a faith, I can't see where this would be a concern. You've even gone as far as to demonstrated that even the highest esteemed members of the scientific community not only question the system, but frequently disagree among themselves.

With all this disagreement in taxonomy, obviously many scientists share your sentiments and feel that others should not be allowed to make judgments on their behalf. I for one am glad that you've shared this information, as I'm afraid some people may be led to believe that because something is a scientific postulates or theory, that it should be forced on others to accept as truths. That would resemble a religion or faith, where faith is complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

But back to considering the original statement you disagreed with. Which can more or less be summarized as "people are not equal to animals". It made me ponder. And then considering the statement that someone else should not make a judgement on our behalf... The thought crossed my mind, has the basis of our judicial system been wrong since it's founding? Wow, what a thought. I mean, a jury or judge make judgements on our behalves. And if a person is just an animal, so therefor is equal to any other animal, it completely turns our entire judicial system on it's head.

Harvest a deer, and it equates to murder. Feed and butcher a calf and it's premeditated.

In this new world that is upon us, I'm very curious, is human life over valued, or animal life undervalued? Have you committed multiple animal murders for which you should stand trial, or is a hole behind the ear of anyone that as much as hinders productivity a non event? Did Dahmer not keep trophies of his victims as well?

If species equality is so, you must not have a problem with women being locked into paddocks and selling their offspring in the local sale ring. If species equality is so, the fattening and slaughter of children for consumption by cannibals is acceptable. Or does your own conscience argue against the silly argument you've tried to make?

 

[Bright Raven]

CF,

Glad no one is offended.

 

[MRRherefords]

Being a small operation, we have very special feelings for our animals. However, we acknowledge that their main purpose is to provide meat and send most of our cows to auction. With that being said we have allowed a few cows to finish out their time with us on the farm that they provided so many great calves for. One of my friends also runs a small operation. He had a bull that he kept until it was almost 20 years old. He was breeding up until he was 18. He decided to have him put down on his farm. He said he never regretted that decision.

 

[MRRherefords]

"We are placed by our creator above all animals."
I agree completely with that statement. It's also what gives me 'the heart' to care about how I treat them. No. I don't brush each one. But, every now and then, there's that one animal that responds differently than all the others. I can't help but respond back in a more caring way.

:nod: Agree with everything said there.

 

[HDRider]

I know I am. I am also guilty of being anthropomorphic. I put human characteristics on my pets and my cows are pets.

I have two dogs that live with me. I see emotions in their behavior. Their enthusiasm when they see me. The joy that display when being petted in my lap, the desire they have for food, etc. Hard to not interpret that in human terms.

But at the end of the day they are just animals.

Yes. Not sure what "just" means. Would you say mankind is "just" an animal?

Not as a rule, but some more so than others.

 

[warped04]

Sorry about your ole #07.

Also an interesting discussion afterwards.

 

[Bright Raven]

Commercialfarmer,

Reading your last response revealed a point that I want to explain. Following is the post I wish to explain:

Man is top of food chain everything below us is " just " pets or food , people that value animals as equal to humans are coo coo for coco puffs

I disagree.

The statement he made that I responded to with a disagreement is bolded. It says people. It does NOT say "if you value animals as equal to humans". When I responded that I disagree, I meant that I do not consider people who value animals as equal to humans as mentally defective. Why? Because I don't make those kind of personal judgements. I was not referring to myself. I have shot more game than you may ever see. I send cattle to stockyards for the production of food. I kill varmints such as black vultures, coyotes, etc.

In reading your last post, my first impression was that you were drinking. Not joking you because it seemed so extreme based on the previous posts. After some thought, I assumed your questions about eating babies was based on a misunderstanding. So I explored the entire thread.

I thought your first question to me was where does man fit under the science of biology. Regardless of whether a single person on this forum embraces the science, I gave you what the state of the science states. It is not important to you or me who embraces it.

Look at your last post in this context and I think most of your questions are moot.

 

[M-5]

Commercialfarmer,

Reading your last response revealed a point that I want to explain. Following is the post I wish to explain:

Man is top of food chain everything below us is " just " pets or food , people that value animals as equal to humans are coo coo for coco puffs

I disagree.

The statement he made that I responded to with a disagreement is bolded. It says people. It does NOT say "if you value animals as equal to humans". When I responded that I disagree, I meant that I do not consider people who value animals as equal to humans as mentally defective. Why? Because I don't make those kind of personal judgements. I was not referring to myself. I have shot more game than you may ever see. I send cattle to stockyards for the production of food. I kill varmints such as black vultures, coyotes, etc.

In reading your last post, my first impression was that you were drinking. Not joking you because it seemed so extreme based on the previous posts. After some thought, I assumed your questions about eating babies was based on a misunderstanding. So I explored the entire thread.

I thought your first question to me was where does man fit under the science of biology. Regardless of whether a single person on this forum embraces the science, I gave you what the state of the science states. It is not important to you or me who embraces it.

Look at your last post in this context and I think most of your questions are moot.

seems as if your the one drinking , You quoted me but addressed it to CF . I stand by my assumption , People that value a animals life as equal to a human is a few fries short of a happy meal.

 

[Bright Raven]

Commercialfarmer,

Reading your last response revealed a point that I want to explain. Following is the post I wish to explain:

I disagree.

The statement he made that I responded to with a disagreement is bolded. It says people. It does NOT say "if you value animals as equal to humans". When I responded that I disagree, I meant that I do not consider people who value animals as equal to humans as mentally defective. Why? Because I don't make those kind of personal judgements. I was not referring to myself. I have shot more game than you may ever see. I send cattle to stockyards for the production of food. I kill varmints such as black vultures, coyotes, etc.

In reading your last post, my first impression was that you were drinking. Not joking you because it seemed so extreme based on the previous posts. After some thought, I assumed your questions about eating babies was based on a misunderstanding. So I explored the entire thread.

I thought your first question to me was where does man fit under the science of biology. Regardless of whether a single person on this forum embraces the science, I gave you what the state of the science states. It is not important to you or me who embraces it.

Look at your last post in this context and I think most of your questions are moot.

seems as if your the one drinking , You quoted me but addressed it to CF . I stand by my assumption , People that value a animals life as equal to a human is a few fries short of a happy meal.

I quoted you because it is the only place in the thread where he could make the assumptions he did in his last post. Here is an excerpt:

If species equality is so, you must not have a problem with women being locked into paddocks and selling their offspring in the local sale ring. If species equality is so, the fattening and slaughter of children for consumption by cannibals is acceptable. Or does your own conscience argue against the silly argument you've tried to make?

 

[True Grit Farms]

Different. :nod:

 

[cow pollinater]

Why? Because I don't make those kind of personal judgements.

When I have a little more time I'll do some digging around with the search function and show you in your own words where you have. Milkmaid, Hillsdown, hihgrit, and myself come to mind but there are plenty of other examples including some recent ones. The pattern I've seen is you're quick to blame everyone else but completely ignorant to your own hypocrisy.

 

[M-5]

Why? Because I don't make those kind of personal judgements.

When I have a little more time I'll do some digging around with the search function and show you in your own words where you have. Milkmaid, Hillsdown, hihgrit, and myself come to mind but there are plenty of other examples including some recent ones. The pattern I've seen is you're quick to blame everyone else but completely ignorant to your own hypocrisy.

don't worry he will disagree !

 

[Mod2]

Enough, does it really matter who can pee the furthest?

 

[Bright Raven]

Enough, does it really matter who can pee the furthest?

It does if you are peeing on your shoes.

Just a joke.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Enough, does it really matter who can pee the furthest?

Men.