Well, when I say that parental care and loving is not necessarily automatic this is not the same as saying that the only alternative is to have a homicidal reaction to children. Many children have survived unloving parents. If I say I do not like someone it is a failure of logic to conclude that I must hate them. It may well mean I am simply indifferent. ...While many animals can generate sound, only humans have developed the intricate language system. But as I demonstrated, this is not so- unless I am simply lying or have been given false information. In fact, often the language is non-vocal. What is true is that humans are considerably more efficient in this respect and therefore our languages convey greater amounts of information, particularly abstract information. We are also more adept at storing such information for later retrieval. In these aspects I indicated complete agreement with you. ...there is no proof that the song contains any long term data, or that data is percived as language. My comment re whales was in response to your assertion that animals did not communicate, not the long term storage of such communications. There are many forms of communication, some more complex than others. But information exchange is the defining characteristic of language. I doubt that any serious student of animal psychology rejects the concept of animal languages. In fact, one definition of language defined by Webster's Dictionary is "the means of communication used by animals: the language of birds." ...The other feature of humanity is the ability to overwhelm our genetic responces with conditioned ones. Conjecture? ...two eyes that face forward are solely there to "range" prey. One could equally say that they are to range predators or potential obstacles while moving rapidly through dense environments. In any case, visual ranging via binocular vision is hardly a necessity for carnivores. The cat is one of nature's supreme predators. But the same gene that imparts its distinctive colouration to the Siamese cat has destroyed it's binocular vision. If you carefully observe this cat about to pounce you will see it shift it's head from side to side. That it is how it "ranges". This technique can be used equally well with eyes on the side of the head although the shifting would be somewhat greater. Furthermore, there are animals with binocular vision that are not carnivores- many in the simian family and related to humans. ...Canine teeth exist to rip flesh and eat meat. And compared to true carnivores ours are dismally inadequate to the purpose. Our molars, the ability to move our jaws sidewise and other aspects of our physiology all point to a design for chewing, which is not a feature generally found in pure carnivores. Our intestinal tracts are also very long compared to those of full fledged carnivores- a modification to accomodate our vegetable diet. We are not "designed" to be predators but omnivores. This makes us creatures of opportunity, therefore giving us greater flexibility and survival potential. Indeed, a great many humans past and present, especially in the "third world", consumed and continue to consume predominantly vegetarian diets- not necessarily by choice but by the decree of circumstance. ...Society is the missing factor. No creature has developed a more complex society in the history of our world, and our social structure has become so prevelent that it is bound to be effecting our natural selection at this point. This is a tough one. Societal influence can indeed be blamed or credited for many things. But the more we learn about other animals the more complex their interactions, or societies, are revealed to be. Certainly in many respects they are different, sometimes radically so. But less complex? That's a rather shakey conclusion. As for the prevalence of our social structure being bound to affect our natural selection that is also a tenuous hypothesis. The problem is that evolution takes time, and lots of it. When I said earlier that the portrayal of big heads was relatively recent I was speaking of several hundred years. In contrast, dke was thinking in terms of his(?) childhood. Veritas777 spoke in terms of 100 or 200 years ago and considers that quite a while back. The difference between our impressions was only a matter of scale and I was thinking of art history as comprising at least a millenia. Likewise, lasting social change also takes a great deal of time. In my own short life span of a half century plus in a limited geographic locale I have seen social changes come and go. They might almost be termed fads. Ancient societies have existed far longer than our current one only to fade away in time. Social engineering notwithstanding, there is no good reason yet to believe that our current social conditions will withstand either time or ourselves. Does the name Ozymandias ring a bell? If not, here are the conlcuding lines of Shelley's poem: ------ And on the pedestal these words appear: "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. ------- This was a poet who truly understood the nature of both time and man's arrogance. - Jack