I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we probably would be healthier if our diet more closely resembled what primates eat.

 

Actually, we don't eat so different from primates, or at least not if we were in the same environment. If you look at the amazonas native tribes, their main diet consisted always of animals hunted in the woods, wild found vegetables and fruits, and even insects and the like. Things like the manjok did not get cultivated in the way they do it now until the conquistadores came in - it was not a development that the natives "invented". So, yes, I agree, a more "natural" diet would not do us any bad. Funny that many of us take more time to look into their dog's nutrition and feed themselves still on junkfood :biggrin:.

As for the wolves, it is proven that they can live in captivity up to 20 years. So, I would say that there are some circumstances in the wild that make the "average life expectancy" shorter. Which those are, is hard for me to say, but I would as personal view say some circumstances that have to do with humans interfearing with their habitats. I don't know how many wolves get shot a year or run into cars, but that shortens the "average" life expectancy.

 

Funny that many of us take more time to look into their dog's nutrition and feed themselves still on junkfood :biggrin:.

This is definitely the case in my situation!

As for the wolves, it is proven that they can live in captivity up to 20 years.

I did notice that they live longer in captivity, but I don't really know what they are fed and what supplements they get, so I focused just on those found in the wild, but it's a good point.

Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot do that let alone humans and bananas.

Hmm.. I probably shouldn't even go there ...

Wolves may eat plant matter in the wild for a number of reasons we don't know why.

I guess this is kind of my point. At the risk of sounding like a hippie, I tend to believe that our bodies naturally crave dietary elements that we need or are deficient in. RFD once mentioned that they might just eat such things for the flavor, but I suspect there's a nutrition-based drive somewhere in there.

Wolves in the wild are subject to injuries, diseases, infections, worms, etc. and have no human there to take care of them or take them to a vet. This has got to be a huge factor in why they do not live as long in the wild.

I'm sure it plays a part, but like I mentioned in my OP, many raw feeders claim that their dogs are so healthy that they never need medical attention. If the wolves eat the same diet, then they should be equally healthy, so the lack of human medical intervention should be a relatively small causal factor for their shorter lifespan.

Another thing is simple old age. My 11 year old Dane is not capable of catching prey now and has been that way for a few years. She, like all animals including humans, has slowed down in her old age. That is fatal to a wolf in the wild. Not to domestic animals.

Excellent! This had not occurred to me; it makes perfect sense and could easily explain the life expectancy difference.

As far as your other points, RFD, they seem to boil down to 2 issues: 1) Dogs and wolves are genetically identical. I would still disagree here. 1% genetic difference is pretty big, and I have seen some studies that explain how the two are biologically different. (of course, I'm sure there are experts who disagree, so I'm just throwing this out there). 2) Dogs are incapable of digesting plant matter. From what I understand, they are able to digest plant matter as long as the cellulose layer is breached. So small berries that they swallow whole will not be digested, but anything they chew should be. (yeah they might not chew as well those of us with molars, but it should be enough for digestive purposes).

As far as benefits go, I add crushed cranberries to create a more acidic environment in the bowels to reduce stones. That would be at least one example of how plant matter can be beneficial - tho I'm sure that's debatable too, lol.

Anyway, since I'm getting ready for next month's feeding, I find this discussion very interesting and timely. One thing I have not yet read here is a concrete reason for supporting the wolf-model. I know, I know, there are 2 pages already. But they mostly consist of "it's what nature intended" and "why not?". Obviously, these answers satisfy many people, but they just don't do it for me.

I really wanted to see some facts about the wolf-model that would make a reasonably convincing case in favor of it, but so far, all we have is circumstantial evidence. But perhaps that's all there is. After all, kibble seems to have a lot of science and facts behind it, but I still wouldn't use it. It would be interesting to see how the prey model measures up to some kind of objective standard (maybe something like the AAFCO - tho I don't know enough about their standards to trust it).

 

I think the reason you feed raw is because it is healthier and it just so happens that it's the ideal diet for dogs due to the fact that wolves are the closest extant species related to dogs.

Why not compare them to wolves? Its the most logical comparison there is. They have the same physiology, morphology (for the most part since some breeds have been selectively bred to be "different"), biology, etc. Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot do that let alone humans and bananas. Some people say that if two species can interbreed and produce viable offspring that they are essentially the same species (I don't believe in this species concept/theory). But the fact that wolves and dogs can successfully interbreed is a very strong indication of how closely they are related.

The biggest difference between dogs and wolves is the subject of behavior. Wolves have much more complex and different behaviors. They have to because they are wild compared to the "immature" domesticated dog. Is this behavioral difference enough to negate all their similarities? I personally think it's not.

Wolves may eat plant matter in the wild for a number of reasons we don't know why. In my experience with raw feeding communities is that dogs tend to not do well with added plant matter compared to feeding an exclusively carnivorous diet. Also, dogs fed an exclusively well rounded diet of meat, bones and organs thrive on this so why add anything to the mix? I can see your point of "if it doesn't hurt the dog then why not just play it safe?" well....my dogs get diarrhea when I give them veggies or fruit.

 

They have the same physiology, morphology (for the most part since some breeds have been selectively bred to be "different"), biology, etc. Wolves and domestic dogs are so closely related that they can interbreed. Humans and chimps cannot do that let alone humans and bananas. Some people say that if two species can interbreed and produce viable offspring that they are essentially the same species (I don't believe in this species concept/theory). But the fact that wolves and dogs can successfully interbreed is a very strong indication of how closely they are related.

Interbreeding ≠ "it's what nature intended."

Wolves may eat plant matter in the wild for a number of reasons we don't know why. In my experience with raw feeding communities is that dogs tend to not do well with added plant matter compared to feeding an exclusively carnivorous diet. Also, dogs fed an exclusively well rounded diet of meat, bones and organs thrive on this so why add anything to the mix? I can see your point of "if it doesn't hurt the dog then why not just play it safe?" well....my dogs get diarrhea when I give them veggies or fruit.

Dogs not doing well with plant matter ≠ "it's what nature intended."

Dogs thriving on only meats = "why not?"

Her dogs getting diarrhea from veggies or fruit ≠ "why not?"

Her dogs getting diarrhea from veggies or fruit = "why not."

Wolves in the wild are subject to injuries, diseases, infections, worms, etc. and have no human there to take care of them or take them to a vet. This has got to be a huge factor in why they do not live as long in the wild.

You went on to say AFTER this, again, about your argument that wolves should be healthier in the wild and not require any vet care. You seem to be mistaken when you say that we all brag about not having to pay for vet care for our animals, because really, we mean, we don't have to have teeth cleanings done on our dogs, they don't develop things like diabetes or IBD, they aren't getting allergies as often, and other FOOD related illnesses. I seem to remember that Nat and Jon did have to take their dane, Bailey, to the vet when she impaled herself on a piece of metal. I know Ryou had to get stitches when his neck got infected from a minuscule scratch inflicted when he was attacked by another dog. These are not food related illnesses. However, I will brag that since putting my dogs on a raw diet, I've never had to take them to the vet for food related issues. These things happen in the wild as well, and those wolves are unable to seek medical attention.

sure it plays a part, but like I mentioned in my OP, many raw feeders claim that their dogs are so healthy that they never need medical attention. If the wolves eat the same diet, then they should be equally healthy, so the lack of human medical intervention should be a relatively small causal factor for their shorter lifespan.

This can be considered a misinterpretation of our post, which you accused Rannmiller of falsely accusing you of.

The wolves on the preserve we work with here at the clinic live to be around 20.

They eat raw.

Just sayin.

This entire statement ≠ "it's what nature intended" or "why not?"

This entire statement = conclusive evidence...or affirmative information.

I am going to say that it is unfair to compair life expectancy between dogs & wild wolves because I do believe that the conditions they are in and exposed to everyday play a HUGE role in their lives. Hunting for their food, often times in deep/heavy snow, being exposed to all weather conditions and dealing with other wild sometimes dangerous animals. Our dogs are handed their meals, most live indoors out of weather conditions and are protected from the harm of wildlife. That has to play a huge factor.

Again...affirmative information.

DNA evidence done by Robert Wayne proves that there is no other animal other than wolf in the dogs DNA makeup. That means that wolves didn't breed with something else to create dog. When you breed 2 wolves, the offspring is always a wolf. If, through selective breeding, the next generation of wolves looks different than the previous ones, it doesn't mean they aren't wolves.

SOoooooo .... dogs ARE wolves. Hence, should eat the same diet.

Two wolves being bred to produce another wolf ≠ "it's what nature intended."

But dogs/wolves are 99.08%. MUCH MUCH closer. This is closer than some races of humans.

We are not discussing ancestrial origin or similarity between species ... we are discussing the same species. A dog is a subspecies of wolf. Wolf is canis lupus and dog is canis lupus familiaris. "The English word dog, in common usage, refers to the domestic pet dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The species was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Linnaeus in 1758.[10] In 1993, dogs were reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
Dog - New World Encyclopedia

Oh look, actual scientific names applied... ≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended"

Good point! However, the #1 killer of wolves is the bullet. Wolves eat prey that can kill them. If a wolf is injured, in most cases he is dead very shortly afterward. Then there is the lack of food thing. There are also other preditors. There are many things other than lack of vet care that causes shorter lifespan of wolves. Another thing is simple old age. My 11 year old Dane is not capable of catching prey now and has been that way for a few years. She, like all animals including humans, has slowed down in her old age. That is fatal to a wolf in the wild. Not to domestic animals. If you only counted domestic dogs that are as fast and agile as they were in their prime, they would probably have shorter lifespans than wolves. Most domestic dogs are incapable of catching prey even in their prime.

≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended."

Here you are again, going overboard with your over thinking. Why not go back to the orginal bacteria ... in that case, every species should eat the same thing.

Why not? It's what nature intended.

They have thrived for a million years on a PMR diet.

≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended."

*cough* People attribute lifespan in wolves to veterinary care because wolves are exposed to many more hazards, such as broken bones, open and gaping wounds that fester and get infected, not just because of life threatening diseases. Remember also that wolves are prone to many illnesses that are not food related as well. They're also prone to dying from weather than is far too cold for them, or weather that is far too hot. There is starvation, and when a wolf is starved, their immune system is likely to be compromised, and they'll be more prone to diseases that food may relate to. They do not have care for worms or anything like that. Heck, they can be trampled by a deer and die!

Okay, I'm done quoting back, but I've certainly quoted back enough evidence that people have given a lot more reasons as to why dogs and wolves are compared than just that they're 99.98% genetically identical...or 99% or 98%. No matter which way you look at it, people have told you that the dog's jaw is hinged to break through bones, not chew plant matter, that anything a dog takes in that's small enough to swallow whole, they're likely to swallow it whole. And by the way, in the wild, wolves don't have large fruits like melons. They're limited to berries and grasses and the wildflowers and the likes. They're not going to sit there and chew those, and they're not going to get HALF of the nutrition they should from it because they haven't HARDLY broken the cellulose layer that you speak of. Also, people have told you that when studies have been done on wolf scat, most of the time those berries come out looking just as they did going in. We have told you that the digestive tract of a dog/wolf is built for carnivorous meals, not veggies or fruit. Yet you continue to tell us that we give inconclusive evidence and only negative arguments. This is why we get offended. This is why we accuse you of being blind and not reading our replies.

 

Wolves in the wild are subject to injuries, diseases, infections, worms, etc. and have no human there to take care of them or take them to a vet. This has got to be a huge factor in why they do not live as long in the wild.

 

The wolves on the preserve we work with here at the clinic live to be around 20.

They eat raw.

Just sayin.

 

I put my responses in bold to make the text easier to read I guess



I wish I could have thanked that post a thousand more times

As far as your other points, RFD, they seem to boil down to 2 issues: 1) Dogs and wolves are genetically identical. I would still disagree here. 1% genetic difference is pretty big, and I have seen some studies that explain how the two are biologically different.

They are genetically identical enough to interbreed. That's pretty darn identical if you ask me! That means that their body types have to be so similar that they can create offspring that is genetically compatible enough to function. Heck, their offspring can even reproduce! That's more than we can say for mules (horse-donkey mix)!

As someone else pointed out, the difference in genes among the races of humans can be even further apart than that. Would you call us different species then? Would you say that perhaps tribespeople of Africa should no longer be considered human because their DNA may be 2% different from European peoples' DNA? That seems completely preposterous to me!

We use the wolf-model because wolves are exactly identical to dogs internally. They may not look or act exactly identical on the outside, but they sure do on the inside! All canines have the exact same digestive system. Period. End of story. I'm sorry, I'm trying to stay calm about this but I really don't get why this point is so hard for you to understand. Canine digestive system, dogs, wolves, etc, and their food.

Where are these studies stating that the two are biologically different? I'd really love to see it.

2) Dogs are incapable of digesting plant matter. From what I understand, they are able to digest plant matter as long as the cellulose layer is breached. So small berries that they swallow whole will not be digested, but anything they chew should be. (yeah they might not chew as well those of us with molars, but it should be enough for digestive purposes).

Dogs don't really chew anything they can swallow whole. Their jaws are not designed for it. I'm pretty sure that if I handed my dogs each a cranberry, if they didn't just spit it out, they would probably just swallow it whole, thus deriving no nutritional value from it whatsoever.

And to say that they eat plants because they are craving their nutrients rather than because they love the taste is like saying that the reason I just ate too much ice cream is because my body must have been ice cream-deficient (a theory I would love to be true, but alas the cellulite in my thighs disagrees with me).

As far as benefits go, I add crushed cranberries to create a more acidic environment in the bowels to reduce stones. That would be at least one example of how plant matter can be beneficial - tho I'm sure that's debatable too, lol.

That's great if you have a dog that is prone to developing bladder stones, then I would definitely encourage that practice. However, none of my dogs are prone to that problem and have been on PMR for 2 1/2 years (except the puppy, she's only been on it for 11 months because that's as long as I've had her) and have never had any issues with that.

Anyway, since I'm getting ready for next month's feeding, I find this discussion very interesting and timely. One thing I have not yet read here is a concrete reason for supporting the wolf-model. I know, I know, there are 2 pages already. But they mostly consist of "it's what nature intended" and "why not?". Obviously, these answers satisfy many people, but they just don't do it for me.

Maybe if you actually read and paid attention to what everyone else stated and look at it more objectively, you would see that people have said far, far more than "it's what nature intended" (pretty sure Amanda said that to basically mean "... because they are carnivores!") and "why not?" Natalie said "why not?" and then explained why not! You can't just take tiny snippets of an entire response out of context and expect to extrapolate the entire meaning from a couple of words you chose to actually pay attention to.

Why not? Because of all of the reasons I outlined above. Let me put it in a format you seem to understand best A) They are only different by less than 1% which is closer related than most human races are to each other; B) they are so closely related they can interbreed and form viable offspring; C) all canine share the exact same digestive system so comparing a wolf's digestive system and what they eat in the wild to that of a dog's digestive system (i.e. THE EXACT SAME THING) makes complete and total logical sense. That's like asking why we would dare to compare the photosynthesis process between that of a maple leaf and an oak leaf - because they are the exact same thing!

Geez, now you have me sounding like RFD did when I first joined this forum, no wonder he got so frustrated

I'm really sorry if this sounds mean in the slightest (I really don't mean to be at all), but I feel like you are just chasing your tail here, going around and around, completely missing the point. I'm just hoping the way I have explained it makes a little more sense to you so that you can put your worries at ease and educate your friends better.

After all, kibble seems to have a lot of science and facts behind it, but I still wouldn't use it.

Well thank goodness for that :wink:

It would be interesting to see how the prey model measures up to some kind of objective standard (maybe something like the AAFCO - tho I don't know enough about their standards to trust it).

Not only are their standards ridiculous (they'd have to be to say that Ol' Roy measures up), but there's no money for the dog food companies for PMR so we will likely never see such studies, unfortunately.

I think we probably would be healthier. BTW: Chimps eat meat as well as all the vegetable matter they eat.

Just so ya know, meat/animal based proteins only comprise about 5% of a chimp's diet. Just had to throw that in there. :wink: But that is completely off the subject.

 

Good discussion

I am going to say that it is unfair to compair life expectancy between dogs & wild wolves because I do believe that the conditions they are in and exposed to everyday play a HUGE role in their lives. Hunting for their food, often times in deep/heavy snow, being exposed to all weather conditions and dealing with other wild sometimes dangerous animals. Our dogs are handed their meals, most live indoors out of weather conditions and are protected from the harm of wildlife. That has to play a huge factor.

And as Natalie said......why NOT compare them to wolves. Its the closest we can get. And sure, wolves will supplement their diet with veggies & fruit. But, give it the option of chosing a fresh carcass or a plant with berries on it and I'll bet you ten to one it will go for the fresh carcass. Same goes for dogs. Put a bowl of fresh meat/bone/organ down on the floor next to a bowl of veggies & fruit and I bet it goes for the meat.

Can they eat it? Yes. Is it necessary for their health & nutrition?......I don't think so.

We can eat frozen pizza, candy & pop for years on end and live a long life. Is that what is ultimatley the best for us? No. Eating a more proper, species appropriate diet is and is proven to help us live a longer more healthful life.

So, I will feed my dogs what I believe is a species appropriate diet to help them endure a healthy life. And species appropriate to me, is following a wolves diet because that is the closest we can come to in comparison. Also the fact that wild DOGS, not wolves....did eat the same way for many years before being domesticated by humans.

Thats enough evidence for me to believe its species appropriate.

 

Hehe, you are fun. I like you! :biggrin:

But for those that do care (just for discussion's sake), I wonder why they always point to the wolf. Yes, the wolf is an ancestor to the domestic dog and shares up to 99% of their DNA.

The dog is not "decended" from wolves. The dog is not a cousin to the wolf. The dog is not related to the wolf. The dog IS the wolf. Yes, they look different because of selective breeding but they are in fact actual wolves. They have the same digestive system, same all of their systems. Dogs just look different exernally. Internally they are the same.

DNA evidence done by Robert Wayne proves that there is no other animal other than wolf in the dogs DNA makeup. That means that wolves didn't breed with something else to create dog. When you breed 2 wolves, the offspring is always a wolf. If, through selective breeding, the next generation of wolves looks different than the previous ones, it doesn't mean they aren't wolves.

SOoooooo .... dogs ARE wolves. Hence, should eat the same diet.

But depending on which studies you read, we as humans share up to 98.5% of our DNA with chimps.

But dogs/wolves are 99.08%. MUCH MUCH closer. This is closer than some races of humans.

Should we eat exclusively what a chimp eats?

I think we probably would be healthier. BTW: Chimps eat meat as well as all the vegetable matter they eat.

Is 98.5% enough of a similarity? Some studies say we are 95% similar (about the same for dogs vs. coyotes/jackals).

I don't discuss coyotes/jackals ... They are entirely different animals. I only discuss wolves/dogs. Coyotes & jackals are too far away on the tree of life to be a part of such discussions.

My point is, ancestral origin and similarity between species seems to make for an extremely weak argument when choosing a diet.

We are not discussing ancestrial origin or similarity between species ... we are discussing the same species. A dog is a subspecies of wolf. Wolf is canis lupus and dog is canis lupus familiaris. "The English word dog, in common usage, refers to the domestic pet dog, Canis lupus familiaris. The species was originally classified as Canis familiaris and Canis familiarus domesticus by Linnaeus in 1758.[10] In 1993, dogs were reclassified as a subspecies of the gray wolf, Canis lupus, by the Smithsonian Institution and the American Society of Mammalogists."
Dog - New World Encyclopedia

Let's take a closer look at the wolf. They live for 8-10 years in the wild (on a prey model diet) which is less than most dogs. I've heard people attribute this short lifespan to lack of veterinary care. But that doesn't jive. People who feed prey model to their dogs often boast about how their dog rarely (indeed if ever) need veterinary care because they are so healthy. This should apply to the wolves as well, right?

Good point! However, the #1 killer of wolves is the bullet. Wolves eat prey that can kill them. If a wolf is injured, in most cases he is dead very shortly afterward. Then there is the lack of food thing. There are also other preditors. There are many things other than lack of vet care that causes shorter lifespan of wolves. Another thing is simple old age. My 11 year old Dane is not capable of catching prey now and has been that way for a few years. She, like all animals including humans, has slowed down in her old age. That is fatal to a wolf in the wild. Not to domestic animals. If you only counted domestic dogs that are as fast and agile as they were in their prime, they would probably have shorter lifespans than wolves. Most domestic dogs are incapable of catching prey even in their prime.

So if you discount ancestry (as I do), then what else is left to support the wolf model?

As previously mentioned ... they are the same animal.

If they had longer lifespans than dogs, then sure, maybe. But they don't.

I guarantee you if they lived in the same conditions, a wolf would outlive a domestic dog by a long shot.

So is it back to ancestry?

No, its all the living conditions previously mentioned.

If so, I wonder why people stop at the wolf. Dogs and wolves diverged anywhere from 10,000 to 140,000 years ago depending on the study you choose. If we're going to go that far back, then why not go a little further? Why not go back to the Leptocyon, father of canids, an ancestor that did eat plant matter. Just food for thought.

Here you are again, going overboard with your over thinking. Why not go back to the orginal bacteria ... in that case, every species should eat the same thing.

But let's just say for the sake of discussion that the wolf model is indeed ideal. Now we're getting back to the omnivore topic - some argue that wolves don't eat plant matter. Yet:

"Wolves will supplement their diet with fruit and vegetable matter; they willingly eat the berries of mountain ash, lily of the valley, bilberries, blueberries and cowberry. Other fruits include nightshade, apples and pears. They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.[97]"

While I don't believe everything in Wikipedia, this quote references a study published by the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation. While that might not mean much to some, at the very least, it shows that there is some disagreement among experts regarding a wolf diet.

No one has denied that wild wolves eat sugary fruits and berries just as we eat sugary ice cream and cake. Ice cream and cake have no nutritional value to us just as the sugary fruits and berries have no nutritional value to wolves. Most of those fruits and berries come out the back end looking exactly as they did going in the front end.

So ... where does that leave us? Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because:

1) they are genetically similar?

No, because they are genetically identical.

or 2) wolves are healthier?

Yes, I think they are. They have thrived for a million years on a PMR diet.

As discussed above, these are weak arguments. And even if you concede that the wolf model is best, there is disagreement about whether wolves are exclusive carnivores.

There is no doubt that wolves are exclusive carnivores. I say this because eveything in a wolf's body points to digesting meat, bones, and organs only. There is nothing in their body to aid in the digestion of plant matter. Just because they eat a few fruits and berries when in season proves nothing except they like the taste of sugar.

For the record, I am a raw feeder, but not because "that's what the wolves eat". I don't use that argument to justify my choice to my skeptical friends and family because it just doesn't make any sense to me for the reasons above.

Perhaps it makes more sense to you now. :smile:

I really would love to see a convincing reason why people use the wolf diet. It would make things much easier for me. But even as a raw feeder, objectively, I can't buy into that line of reasoning. Yet.

You now know why my dogs have eaten a raw diet for almost 9 years. They are all perfectly logical reasons to feed PMR. I can't find a logical reason to feed plant material. Some say for additional nutrients but no one can tell me that those nutrients are. Thats a very weak argument to me.

 

I'm going to derail a bit here, and correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I am concerned, all canids (wolves, foxes, jackals, coyotes, etc.) are carnivorous.

They may eat plants and berries, and we may never know why. Maybe it just tastes good to them, maybe it's just easier to pick at if they are tired from a hunt, but the point is that the majority of their diet still consists of meat/bones/organs.

Saying that wolves live 8-10 years because of diet, when they can live up to 20 years eating similarly in a zoo just goes to prove that diet is not why their life-spans are short in the wild. Let's take a pack of dogs, release them into the everglades, and see how long they live. Sure, it's an extreme example, but regardless of what they eat, it won't be long will it? An appropriate diet may keep them strong and less prone to dieing from disease, but it won't help them not get eaten by a gator, attacked by a venomous animal, or poisoned, etc.

Going back to all canids, they eat different animals because of their location on earth and/or their size (won't see a fox taking down a bison). One may eat mostly lizards, and the other mostly deer, but as different as their prey are, the nutritional differences are closer than to any plant matter. So, given that said fox which eats usually lizards, gets a good supply of a small animal it can hunt (mice, birds, chickens) it should be much better off than having to rely on plants.
What if the lizards it eats became extinct? It doesn't automatically mean the fox will too, or that will go vegan. If there are other critters in the area, chances are it will move on to hunting those.

Now, dogs are a subspecies of the wolf. SO, Dogs are wolves, Gray wolves, arctic wolves, Arabian wolves, are all wolves. They can reproduce with each other, they have the same internal anatomy, which includes their digestive system. They are all canids as well, therefore they should consume a similar diet.
An arctic wolf may not eat the same as a Mexican wolf because of where they live, but both being a subspecies of wolf, they should still thrive if you were to feed them both the exact same thing. So, since the dog is also a subspecies of wolf, and on top of that, a canid, then basing a diet off of what wolves eat is perfectly logical.

 

What about the wolves of the Great Bear Rain Forest who's diet - primarily in the fall - consists of spawning salmon? They frequent the shore line eating a diet of salmon, squid, seals, clams, crabs and anything else you would find along the shores of the Queen Charlottes here in coastal BC. These wolves are also referred to as "The Salmon Eating Wolf"

The Arctic wolf will eat mice when hares and caribou are not in abundance.

 

If you don't like the dog/wolf diet comparison, how about dogs now / dogs 300 years ago?

Correct me if I'm not right, but if kibble has been around about 50 years, and dogs have been fed some sort of cooked scraps lets say max 250 years prior to that (when food has been scarce I would think that dogs mostly had to find their own), wasn't the stuff dogs have been eating prior to scraps pretty much the same stuff than what wolfs eat now? I doubt that any cave man would had been cooking anything for their dogs. If they had dogs around with the help of food I'm pretty sure that it was raw bones (with meat).

So because dogs "survived until the great kibble" showed up, doesn't it kind of mean that it worked?

 

But for those that do care (just for discussion's sake), I wonder why they always point to the wolf. Yes, the wolf is an ancestor to the domestic dog and shares up to 99% of their DNA. But depending on which studies you read, we as humans share up to 98.5% of our DNA with chimps. Should we eat exclusively what a chimp eats? Is 98.5% enough of a similarity? Some studies say we are 95% similar (about the same for dogs vs. coyotes/jackals). Is 95% similarity enough to justify using the same diet? How about 60%? - that's how much humans share with a banana. Is that enough? Should we just eat what a banana eats? My point is, ancestral origin and similarity between species seems to make for an extremely weak argument when choosing a diet.

99.98%, not 99%.

Let's take a closer look at the wolf. They live for 8-10 years in the wild (on a prey model diet) which is less than most dogs. I've heard people attribute this short lifespan to lack of veterinary care. But that doesn't jive. People who feed prey model to their dogs often boast about how their dog rarely (indeed if ever) need veterinary care because they are so healthy. This should apply to the wolves as well, right? Of course other factors like occasional difficulty in finding food, adverse weather conditions, etc. can all play a role, but I doubt that they make such a huge difference in life expectancy. (In fact, some raw feeders recommend fasting to replicate such challenges). So if you discount ancestry (as I do), then what else is left to support the wolf model? If they had longer lifespans than dogs, then sure, maybe. But they don't. So is it back to ancestry?

*cough* People attribute lifespan in wolves to veterinary care because wolves are exposed to many more hazards, such as broken bones, open and gaping wounds that fester and get infected, not just because of life threatening diseases. Remember also that wolves are prone to many illnesses that are not food related as well. They're also prone to dying from weather than is far too cold for them, or weather that is far too hot. There is starvation, and when a wolf is starved, their immune system is likely to be compromised, and they'll be more prone to diseases that food may relate to. They do not have care for worms or anything like that. Heck, they can be trampled by a deer and die!

"Wolves will supplement their diet with fruit and vegetable matter; they willingly eat the berries of mountain ash, lily of the valley, bilberries, blueberries and cowberry. Other fruits include nightshade, apples and pears. They readily visit melon fields during the summer months.[97]"

While I don't believe everything in Wikipedia, this quote references a study published by the Smithsonian Institution Libraries and National Science Foundation. While that might not mean much to some, at the very least, it shows that there is some disagreement among experts regarding a wolf diet.

Oh yeah, because if you had the choice between surviving off of berries and grass and flowers, would you be willing to go out and expend all of your energy on finding and THEN chasing down a deer that you may or may not kill? That's why they invented McDonald's. That's why they invented boxed foods. When it's possible, I'm sure the wolves would much rather spend their time foraging on fruits and veggies and mating and taking care up pups than going out to hunt when they could, very well, come back empty handed. Not only that, but if you were stuck in the wilds and didn't have the energy to catch a hare, and you were starting to starve, would you not eat a pile of maggots?

So ... where does that leave us? Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier? As discussed above, these are weak arguments. And even if you concede that the wolf model is best, there is disagreement about whether wolves are exclusive carnivores.

Neither of those reasons are why we are trying to advocate for dogs being fed on a wolf modeled diet. We advocate feeding such a diet because it is what they were designed to eat. It is what mother nature intended.

And since we're at it, perhaps we should also take into consideration the fact that maybe a wolf's diet hinders them? Maybe when they eat all of those berries and grasses and flowers, their health gets worse because of it? Perhaps they are malnourished because they're not getting the proper nutrients?

 

99.98%, not 99%.
And since we're at it, perhaps we should also take into consideration the fact that maybe a wolf's diet hinders them? Maybe when they eat all of those berries and grasses and flowers, their health gets worse because of it? Perhaps they are malnourished because they're not getting the proper nutrients?

Well, if we do this, it would open up a whole can of worms. Perhaps their diet's plant matter component hinders them. Sure. Or perhaps it's the meat .. maybe they need an all veggie diet. Or maybe eating fish exclusively would be even better. It's an open-ended discussion that would mostly be in the realm of speculation, I suspect.

 

Might I also point out the increase of human longevity through the years due to the progress in medical sciences. Back in the middle ages, people were dying in their late thirties to early forties because they didn't have the medical attention that we do now, and they certainly didn't live with running water or closed sewers. They dumped their feces right out their bedroom windows into the streets. They ate just as we do now, if not...a lot healthier.

 

A dog's digestive system is exactly that of a wolf, just a different size. Humans have selectively bred dogs for appearance, size, behavior.. but not a particular digestive system.. so it remains the same as the wolf's. The fact remains that dogs are largely incapable of extracting nutrients from plant matter in raw form.. as you can see by the dental and digestive aspects of the dog's body. No grinding molars, no side-to-side jaw movement, no sectioned stomach, no extended caecal appendix, no longer intestine. This tells me that a dog is a carnivore.

The point of feeding a raw diet is to avoid processing, so why would I cook (process) inappropriate foods to feed to my dog just so he can extract SOME nutrition from it, when all needed nutrients in correct amounts are found in animal tissue?

The fact that people feed a prey model diet for a dog's whole lifespan with no nutrient deficiencies and an absence of chronic western diseases which are found in kibble fed dogs tells me this is the way to go. Plant matter is just not needed and indeed can be detrimental to a dog's health in large quantities.

As for the wolf vs dog lifespan.. wolves have to contend with a lot more than our furry friends. Extremes in temperature can cause repressed immune system and death. Distemper in wolves is endemic in some populations - I read an article that said the Yellowstone wolf population declined almost 30% in one year due to distemper. Starvation, predation and disease all play a major part as well as just slowing down.. An old wolf is not going to be able to hunt like a younger wolf and may die.

As others have pointed out.. this has been told over and over.. get rid of your selective reading! :twitch:

 

It was pretty clear to me that Cosmographer wanted to start a friendly debate, so I don't see the need to get snarky. However, I know some people can't help it, especially when you feel so strongly about something.

Let there be peace! eace:

 

Actually, Rannmiller's frustration identifies what could be a valid point: that I, as instigator of this discussion, am not replying to every counter-argument.

I do indeed pick and choose which counter-arguments I respond to. Otherwise, I would end up spending all day on these forums (and I spend way too much time on here already! :biggrin1: )

But my choice of which counter-arguments I address has nothing to do with ignoring those I don't like, or anything of the sort. I will address a counter-argument if:
1) I feel it makes particularly good sense and deserves recognition or
2) It deserves a concession on my part or
3) If it makes a point which I feel is a valid argument and has not been offered by others in some form

I may not respond if:
1) The counter-argument is not on point (bc don't want to get sidetracked) or
2) Others have offered counter-arguments that are similar or are based on the same underlying principle or
3) The counter-argument, while relevant, is inconclusive or not pivotal to the discussion.

So if anyone else out there feels that I am ignoring their posts to support my own agenda, rest assured I'm not. I've read every post thus far, some which I feel make good points, a few, not so good. But I just don't have time to respond to each point, example, anecdote, fact, etc. And remember, I WANT to hear evidence supporting a prey model. It helps me explain it to those who challenge me, and it makes my food preparation much easier! :thumb: I support the raw diet - just not the reasons that most people offer for going raw (in other words, those 2 categories I talked about in the previous post).

 

I support the raw diet - just not the reasons that most people offer for going raw (in other words, those 2 categories I talked about in the previous post).

I'm sure I missed it... but can you explain why you feed the raw diet? Since you do not feed it because 1) "it makes sense" and 2) "it's what nature intended"

ETA -- NM, I found it!

1) dogs on it seem to be healthier, 2) most kibbles are demonstrably unhealthy in many ways, 3) raw is more nutritious than cooked under most (but not all) circumstances, and 3) the dogs love it!

So why do you need anymore than that?

As a breeder, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot MAKE people feed PMR. I can explain everything to them, show them the science, facts, proof, etc. But when it comes down to it, they either want to feed because they understand and agree... Or they don't. It takes dedication to feed this diet -- and if you don't know why you're feeding and don't really agree that kibble is bad and PMR is good, then you're not going to feed it.

So many breeders say "it costs too much" or "it takes up too much time". Excuses like that show me that they don't really want to feed it... Because if they did, they would forgo those "costs" and "time" and do what is best for their dogs. But they don't.

(that's why I'm awesome... Teehee!)

 

Cosmo - Going back to your original question, the comparison to grey wolves is the best comparison we have. The domestic dog (Canis lupis familiaris) is a subspecies of the grey wolf (Canis lupus lupus), and the grey wolf is its nearest extant relative.

Most comparisons are imperfect. My point on the omnivore thread was simply: we don't know how accurate or inaccurate the dog to grey wolf comparison is. How satisfied you are with the comparison depends largely on the degree to which you conflate inference with fact. I'm satisfied enough in practice - I feed my dog raw - but not satisfied intellectually - I'm impatient with the slow rate of research in this area.

 

When I win the lottery I'm going to start an independently funded scientific study on raw feeding vs kibble diets.

Cosmographer- you seem to be a fairly bright person....but impossible to satisfy. I don't know what else there is for anyone here to say to you about this whole topic. Guess you'll have to continue your own research, just keep reading!

 

Your independently funded scientific study would satisfy me! :biggrin:

Actually, I did point out the kind of facts I'm looking for (ie. nutrition data), but the only thing that comes close that I could find so far is the AAFCO standards which someone confirmed to be unreliable (which I kind of suspected).

We have lots of great anecdotal evidence expressed thus far, but to use an analogy, it's kind of like saying "chicken soup is good for colds because my grandma says so, is nutritious, and I know these people who drank chicken soup and got over their cold super fast". I'm not saying that these examples are worthless. In fact, they indicate that there may indeed be something to chicken soup that is good for colds. But everyone would agree that these are not conclusive arguments.

For an argument to be conclusive, I would expect either an observational study of same breed, same health condition dogs on PMR, BARF, and kibble with a statistically valid sample size over a period of at least a few years; or scientific data saying dogs require XYZ nutrients in ABC amounts, and that PMR supplies all of this.

Maybe there are other conclusive or near conclusive arguments out there, but these are the only two I can think of for now.

 

Rannmiller. xxshaelxx, I'm not going to dissect all of your posts and show how you are wrong or off-topic on most of your points. That will take too much time. I will however, take 1 of xxShaelxx's post and demonstrate how it off topic or wrong. You can then analyze the logic and apply that to all of your other posts.

Dogs not doing well with plant matter ≠ "it's what nature intended."

Wrong. If you use the "dogs not doing well on plant matter" argument, then it does fall into the "not nature intended" category.

Her dogs getting diarrhea from veggies or fruit ≠ "why not?"

One person's experience with diarrhea is a pathetic reason for switching to PMR. When my vet challenges me on not including veggies, you really expect me to say "well, I know of one person whose dog gets diarrhea when on veggies"? Come on! I've read a lot more about raw dogs getting diarrhea than dogs who consume some veggies. That argument is totally inconclusive, but even if it were, it would fall into BOTH categories.

You seem to be mistaken when you say that we all brag about not having to pay for vet care for our animals ...
This can be considered a misinterpretation of our post

. Actually, this point is off-topic, but I'll answer anyway just to clear up something. I never said you all brag. In fact, I wasn't referring to either of your posts. In my months of research leading up to the switch, I encountered many many such examples fo raw fed dogs not needing vet care. I definitely wasn't referring to you two on this point. Perhaps these other people did not clarify their position like you did. You state afterwards that vet-visits for food-related issues are rare. If that's what these other people intended to say, then you are correct on this point. But who knows what they really meant to say.

This entire statement ≠ "it's what nature intended" or "why not?"
This entire statement = conclusive evidence...or affirmative information.

I assume you're referring to the lack of need for food-related vet care? If so, that is not evidence. It is not conclusive. It is only an example. There is a huge difference between fact and example. However, even as an example, it probably DOES fall into the "nature intended" category. If they are healthier on a diet, it is naturally the best one for them because it best suits their physiology.

Again...affirmative information.

Yes, it is affirmative information. But again, it's not an affirmative argument or fact. Only affirmative examples.

Two wolves being bred to produce another wolf ≠ "it's what nature intended."

Not sure where you're going with this one ...

Oh look, actual scientific names applied... ≠ "why not?" or "it's what nature intended"

Obviously, people point out scientific name similarity to prove that they are biologically similar or identical. Therefore, it DOES fall into the "nature intended" category.

I think I might have missed some of your other points bc when I hit the "quote" option, I don't see the quotes you're referring to. But perhaps my response to your concluding paragraph will be a good example:

Okay, I'm done quoting back, but I've certainly quoted back enough evidence that people have given a lot more reasons as to why dogs and wolves are compared than just that they're 99.98% genetically identical...or 99% or 98%. No matter which way you look at it, people have told you that the dog's jaw is hinged to break through bones, not chew plant matter, that anything a dog takes in that's small enough to swallow whole, they're likely to swallow it whole. And by the way, in the wild, wolves don't have large fruits like melons. They're limited to berries and grasses and the wildflowers and the likes. They're not going to sit there and chew those, and they're not going to get HALF of the nutrition they should from it because they haven't HARDLY broken the cellulose layer that you speak of. Also, people have told you that when studies have been done on wolf scat, most of the time those berries come out looking just as they did going in. We have told you that the digestive tract of a dog/wolf is built for carnivorous meals, not veggies or fruit. Yet you continue to tell us that we give inconclusive evidence and only negative arguments. This is why we get offended. This is why we accuse you of being blind and not reading our replies.

Just about every single point you mentioned here falls under the "it's what nature intended" category. Surely, you realize that. I accept all of those points as valid arguments (some are debatable, but still a good argument). To repeat myself: the "its what nature intended" argument IS an affirmative argument, just one that is not very satisfying to me. Personally, that category is not conclusive for me, nor should it be for anyone. It's a good argument, but not a conclusive one. Imagine people using that example for all kinds of behavior or habits that we don't like -
"mom, it's ok for me to eat bugs because my teacher says its what nature intended for primates." :biggrin:

I give full credit to "nature intended" category of arguments. But don't expect me to say they are conclusive, because they are not. They are supportive of PMR, but you certainly can't win on that type of argument in court. (And perhaps therein lies the problem. As a former attorney, maybe I expect a higher, almost courtroom standard type of argument which just may not exist in the realm of dog food).

Oh, PS. Rannmiller, I'm not cherry-picking by ignoring your request for evidence that dogs and wolves are biologically slightly different. Researching for myself already takes up a lot of time, and I'm not going to waste time trying to re-dig up material to satisfy you. Besides: 1) it's not really relevant bc even if you are right, it still falls under the "nature intended" category and 2) I did point out that there is some disagreement by the experts on this so it wouldnt be conclusive evidence in any case.

 

As danemama pointed out, you are clearly impossible to please and refuse to look at any of the facts we have put before you. You can insult us by calling facts "anecdotal evidence" all you want, but that's the truth of it.

For the record, my dogs also get diarrhea when fed any significant amount of fruit/veggies.

I take great offense to you telling us that you want us to conduct studies and provide years of data and research that doesn't exist to help you figure out whatever it is you are asking about, but you tell me it's not worth your time to find a tiny bit of evidence you told me already exists that you already read? That is completely disrespectful. You asked why we use the wolf model. We told you. Now you want a study on PMR and in fact all types of raw feeding? No. You asked for why we use the wolf-model as our explanation of PMR and we told you why. You got your answer already.

It seems like you are just trolling at this point and I am not going to participate any further.

 

If I had to choose between "impossible to please" and "impossible to teach logic to", I would choose the former every time :lol:.

Edit: You know, despite you're trolling behavior, I really do believe that you mean well. But I think you get so defensive and frustrated that you overlook some very obvious logical equations.

Whenever I enter a debate, I do so wanting to be wrong. If I can be proven wrong or even just "not as right as I thought", I've learned something and I'm better for it. Case in point, RFD's lifespan counterpoint has effectively destroyed one of my primary arguments against raw feeding, and I am very grateful for it.

However, some people (which I suspect includes you) enter into a debate wanting or trying to win. This causes frustration which in turn, can throw logical reasoning out the window. While this may fall on deaf ears, I urge you to try entering debates hoping to lose. It's not about being right or wrong but learning from every source possible.

Edit #2: I take back my statement about your trolling behavior. People involved in online debates who can no longer articulate their arguments often resort to dismissing the opposition as trolls. While I'm as tired of the same old arguments as you, I got plenty of articulation left in me so no need for me to go down that path yet, hehe.

 

Edit #2: I take back my statement about your trolling behavior. People involved in online debates who can no longer articulate their arguments often resort to dismissing the opposition as trolls. While I'm as tired of the same old arguments as you, I got plenty of articulation left in me so no need for me to go down that path yet, hehe.

Umm...no, it's because they generally are trolls...

Rachel has plenty of articulation left, but it's useless trying to use it on someone who won't actually read our posts and get the points we're making that are FACTS. Actual, scientifically proven FACTS.

 

I, too, am over this. There have been many scientifically proven FACTS laid down on the table before you, and you continue to ignore them and post for your own blind and selfish needs.

I, too, feel as though all you are doing now is trolling, and it'd take too much energy to "prove you wrong," because you're the kind of person who thinks you're always right, even when the facts are slapping you in the face.

 

Cosmo, I'm not going to address all your statements in your last few posts because most of them have been answered already. Like someone said, you refuse to see points when they are laid out perfectly for you.

Feeding veggies: The scientific side ... AGAIN .... look at the dog's body and tell me what you see there that indicates any part of the body is there to help digest plant matter. Every part of his digestive system is designed to digest meat, bones, and organs. BTW: There is nothing unhealthy about eating bugs. Custom is why we don't. They have a lot of protein.

My experience ... When I first began feeding a raw diet, I fed BARF. Not the paddies but a real BARF diet where you measured meat, RMB's and veggies. I fed my dogs a "veggie slop" every Tuesday evening. Veggie slop was a pureed mixture of different veggies. Every Wednesday my dogs had diarrhea, without fail. That alone kinda told me something.

I don't understand why you are so adamant about scientific studies proving the worth of a PMR diet and don't one time ask for studies proving the worth of feeding commercial foods. It's been proven over and over with hundreds of studies that processed foods are not as healthy as fresh whole foods, yet you continue to ask for MORE studies proving the same thing. Why don't you start a campaign to write the dog food companies asking them for scientific proof that their products are as healthy as fresh whole foods?

I don't know why you can't look at evidence and come to a logical conclusion without the need for "scientific studies". What you are asking for doesn't exist. We have told you about all we can on this subject. I don't know what else there is. Tell us what else we can tell you other than pointing out some study which doesn't exist.

One more thing ... makes you kinda weird in my mind ... why on earth would anyone enter an argument HOPING to loose? I don't understand anyone wanting to loose at anything in life. I always want to win regardless of what I'm doing. I always want to be successful in whatever endeavor I undertake.

 

Hi RFD, where've you been for the past couple of pages! :biggrin:

Cosmo, I'm not going to address all your statements in your last few posts because most of them have been answered already. Like someone said, you refuse to see points when they are laid out perfectly for you.

Feeding veggies: The scientific side ... AGAIN .... look at the dog's body and tell me what you see there that indicates any part of the body is there to help digest plant matter. Every part of his digestive system is designed to digest meat, bones, and organs.

I feel like we're going in circles here. I see the point you and others are making, but it is you guys who fail to see my point: that just because something is not what nature intended doesn't mean that it can't be good for them. I'm not trying to prove this, just to explain why the physiology argument is not convincing for me.

I don't understand why you are so adamant about scientific studies proving the worth of a PMR diet and don't one time ask for studies proving the worth of feeding commercial foods.

Why should I? I'm already sold on the idea that commercial pet food/kibble is bad for the dogs, and I already have lots of facts to back me up (ie unhealthy ingredients, fillers, etc.). When I make my argument to non-raw feeders, I will use these facts to make my point against kibble. But I have yet to find facts of similar caliber to make my point for raw. Hence my original post. Your question makes me wonder if you have gotten caught up in defending raw and have forgotten that I am a dedicated raw feeder.

One more thing ... makes you kinda weird in my mind ... why on earth would anyone enter an argument HOPING to loose? I don't understand anyone wanting to loose at anything in life. I always want to win regardless of what I'm doing. I always want to be successful in whatever endeavor I undertake.

LOL. I enjoy being proven wrong because it's a learning opportunity. Imagine you are trying to prove to someone that 2+2 = 4. When you do win the argument, do you feel happy or triumphant? I wouldn't. I'd be bored. However, what if he proves me wrong with some complex mathematical equation that disproves my position? Well, I'd be pretty excited to learn more. That's probably the best example I can give. If everyone had responded to my post saying "you know what, you're right!" I would probably never visit this board again, lol.

 

Bugs ARE healthy. I went to Africa a couple years ago and had some traditional food which had grasshoppers in it :biggrin:

And I think the reason why people are getting annoyed and fed up with your debate is you are talking like you know everything and are doing it in a really condescending way. These 'scientific studies' are done by pet food manufacturers so they can claim dogs are omnivores and therefore justify the feeding of mostly grains and veggies in their dog foods. There is no money in prey model raw, so there are no studies. Until you can get your head around that, you are never going to be satisfied.

The fact that your dog does 100x better on PMR than on kibble should tell you everything you need to know - that dogs don't need vegetables.

The only great dane over are 13 I have ever met was fed raw, no veggies ever in his life.. and he is still going at age 15!

 

Cosmo,

Going back to your original question, which was distilled down to, "Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier?"

The answer to your nebulous multiple-choice question is "Neither".

Fundamentally, it's the PHYSIOLOGY of the wolf that scientifically determines that it is a carnivore. Their entire body is designed to eat and process meat and it is horribly inefficient at processing plant matter. The same is true for felines and ferrets.

Forget about DNA for a moment but consider that domestic dogs basically exhibit the same PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS of the digestive system of a wolf. Ergo, dogs are carnivores.

So the correct answer to your question is a choice that was never included in the question, which is, "Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because..." they are both physiologically carnivores that are of the same basic size and have the same basic physical characteristics."

If you want to get technical, I'm sure most raw feeders with Pomeranians, Chihuahuas, or other toy breeds, don't feed a meal suitable for a wolf. It's probably more like a meal suitable for a small cat or ferret. But they are all carnivores nonetheless. The term "wolf" is simply used in common parlance when discussing the raw feeding of dogs simply because they are both canines and both carnivores.

Your lack of the correct choice in the original question convoluted this simple fact and created arguments that were flawed from the beginning. You have the art of sophistry down to a science, but your counter points to the fundamentals here hold no water.

Let's move on.

Jay

 

Cosmo,

Going back to your original question, which was distilled down to, "Dogs should eat the same diet as wolves because: 1) they are genetically similar? or 2) wolves are healthier?"

The answer to your nebulous multiple-choice question is "Neither".

Fundamentally, it's the PHYSIOLOGY of the wolf that scientifically determines that it is a carnivore. Their entire body is designed to eat and process meat and it is horribly inefficient at processing plant matter. The same is true for felines and ferrets.

Jay, I appreciate your efforts to clarify what you feel to be a misunderstanding. However, I am confounded by how you can believe that similar or identical genetics does not result in similar or identical physiology. Your point is that the physiology is similar. I don't see how that is a different from being "genetically similar". Sure, not everything that has the same physiology will have the same genetics, but as many people here have argued, same genetics will result in same physiology. So your point fits very neatly into choice #1.

 

Unless someone posts something provocative or enlightening, this will probably be my final post in this thread as there has been no new idea, fact, or point made for quite awhile.

That said, I think several people here have gotten offended for no reason. I would like to take this opportunity to summarize the line of argument in this thread:

1) I ask for evidence backing up PMR
2) People provide 1 affirmative argument (nature's intent) and several negative arguments.
3) I say that for me, that 1 affirmative argument is not conclusive.
4) Some people get upset and get snarky and claim there are lots of affirmative arguments presented.
5) I explain that all these so-called "arguments" are really part of the same argument I identified earlier: nature's intent.
6) People get upset and start attacking me and making accusations.

I began this thread in the spirit of learning, not to challenge people's opinions. My point was "please give me reasons that will encourage me to go PMR". When I only partially and not wholly accepted the reasons given, people got all upset and defensive as if I was attacking their feeding choices. Example - Me: Please give me some reasons to go PMR. Them: Here are reasons A, B, and C. Me: Those aren't convincing for me. Can you give me any others? Them: No, these reasons are fine, and if you don't accept them, then you suck.

When you strip down all the rhetoric and sidetracks, this is what it all boils down to. Those attacking me as being impossible to please, or being intent on winning the argument, or being a troll, etc. are only doing so because I do not accept for myself their reasoning. In other words, these people are saying "if you don't validate my choices, you are ____ " (fill in the blank). I think it is clear that if anyone here is obsessively defensive about their way of doing things, then it is these people. Talk about hypocrites!

Anyway, that's ok because there are always a few immature hotheads on every forum. I appreciate the bona fide explanations and reasonings that were given by many of the level-headed people who kept the discussion civil and educational in the spirit it was intended, rather than mouthing off because someone doesn't agree with you. Just because I haven't accepted your reasons in whole doesn't mean that I disagree with or disapprove of your choice. Just that it's not right for me at this point. eace: