<<You have not however, backed up your claim that the care given to 1808
was more apelike than manlike. You say chimp behavior is not a point of
contention. But chimps are apes and their behavior is 180 degress out of
phase with the treatment chimps (apes) give to sick comrades.
Since chimps are apes and ape behavior is in question, Chimp behavior
is at issue.>>
Once again, it was an offhand remark. I had in mind the noise and jumping up
and down to GET RID OF PREDATORS, not the care, or lack thereof, of the
injured. Here is the entire context:
<< If she was by a water source, able to move, albeit painfully, had the
community fending off predators, etc. ... then you have another scenario, one
that looks more like ape than man.>>
You see, in context what LOOKS more ape like is the fending off of predators
and NOT caring for the injured...the issue of ape infliction of pain is
another, and irrelevant matter.
That's why my offhand remark is being rather blown out of proportion here.
There is no big statement being made to "back up." You have created a false
issue. I in no way intended to convey that it looks like 1808 was harmed by
her own kind. Never said that, don't believe it. We don't need to talk about
it anymore.
Now, my challenge to you: Go back over the substantive points that were raised
re: your assumptions in my last post on that subject. I'd like to hear you on
all of them, and especially the answer re: the ossification of blood clots.
Thanks.
Jim