Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"Since we've not used our teeth much in the manner since the Stone Age, it's logical to assume that evolution would reflect the canine's increasing obselesence." - Skylance
Actually, evolution doesn't just do away with things that aren't used, unless the thing in question leads to early death. Human canine teeth would only get smaller if that made people more attractive sexually, or if big canine teeth cause people to die young.
Anyway, I know your point was that the purpose of canines isn't to chew through meat. It's just a slippery slope to use "evolution" as evidence for either side of what is really a moral issue. Choosing to eat meat or choosing to eat vegetables at this stage has zero to do with cause or effect of human evolution, unless one of the two makes people more fertile or more likely to die young.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
