I was going to ignore additional posts, concentrating on the four answers
I discussed, but I love debating Linda so much that I couldn't resist
answering her post.  The main reason is when we debate in person, she
always interrupts me; this way I can say what I want without intrusion,
although I am sure I won't get the last word! ;-)
 
I won't copy Linda's post.  If I did, this reply would be too long, so
just look her original.  I hate to accuse Linda of nit picking, but while
quibbling about precise definitions in a scientific paper has some merit,
on the FML it is pointless.  Converting a scientific paper into a paper
that meets the language constraints of the majority of FML readers, while
meeting Bill's very necessary limitations on line length and number of
posts, can be difficult.  I am ALWAYS trying to decide what I will cut
out to meet line length requirements.  I have noticed nearly EVERY
complaint lodged against me (by Linda and others) has been the result
of cutting explanatory text to shorten line length.  Reducing text
from precise scientific terminology to a more inexact lay terminology
introduces imprecision: the root of Linda's eloquent objections.  It is a
fine line to walk between the two styles of writing, and I am not always
successful.  Nonetheless, most of the objections are moot because while
they may cause a minor clarification, they do not illustrate a fatal flaw
in reasoning (you may disagree).
 
Still, Linda brought up one point that deserves a detailed response.  I
think what Linda was trying to say is, and please correct me if I have
misunderstood, that if the knowledge of a ferret's nutritional needs are
unknown, how do we know the natural diet is a better one?
 
This is a fantastic question, and I am pleased Linda recognized it.  The
implication of Linda's question suggests an evolutionary diet may NOT be
the best diet for a specific animal.  I don't think Linda really believes
that, given the last part of her post.  I think what Linda is trying to
do is to break my chain of argument in an attempt to disprove or minimize
my conclusion that a kibble diet is unsound (this is the point I would
attack).  Unfortunately, the argument misses the point because even if
the evolutionary diet is not optimal, ferrets are still better adapted to
a natural diet than a modern artificial construct containing processed
nutrients in amounts in excess of a ferret's nutritional requirements.
In other words, even if the natural diet was not perfect, because
polecats have obviously adapted to it for at least 10 million years, it
is STILL the standard to measure all other diets.
 
Ferrets are so well adapted to a diet of flesh that they have lost all
their molariform teeth, excepting a few small molars used to crack hard
objects, chiefly snail shells, insect and crustacean exoskeletons, and
bones.  They have a simplistic stomach, lost a functioning caecum, and
have an extremely fast gastrointestinal transit time.  They have a
stomach with a very low pH (acidic), and a pancreas and hepatic system
designed to process high amounts of protein.  They have a hormonal and
enzymatic system designed to digest flesh.  They have relatively few
bacteria in their gut, and are extremely sensitive to bacterial
overgrowth in that region.  They have reduced requirements for fiber in
their diet.  They have lost the ability to synthesize numerous amino and
fatty acids, and have high requirements for trace nutrients found aplenty
in animal carcasses.  In short, they are an animal superbly adapted to a
diet of flesh and bone: the consummate carnivore.  Regardless of the
exact composition of nutrients found in prey animals, the diet is STILL
the standard of measurement because it reflects the one the ferret is
best adapted to consume.
 
At another level, the objection misses the point because it creates a
set of implications that cannot be tested.  Hypotheses are not actually
tested; rather, scientists test the implications of a set of hypotheses
(null and alternative), using generated data to falsify one or more
possibilities.  You can compare kibble to a natural diet, generate data,
and make conclusions, but how can you test a natural diet against some
nebulous "other" possibility?  It is not an alternative hypothesis
unless you can test it; if you want to imply the evolutionary diet is
suboptimal, then you accept the burden of proof to show it's failings.
In other words, it is not enough to simply imply the evolutionary diet
may not be optimal; you need to supply some evidence other than
supposition to show such a hypothesis has merit.  Just because it may
or may not be true in giant pandas (or ANY other genus) doesn't make it
true in ferrets.  A herbivorous diet in pandas, separated by at least 14
million years from other carnivores, is a poor analog for a strict
carnivorous diet in polecats that evolved as primary, obligate
carnivores.
 
Excellent debate, Linda; I had to really think to make a reply.  If we
were facing each other in person, we could dissect this down to infinite
detail and maybe I could convince you, but space is limited, and we are
probably boring FML membership.  Most of your other points will be
covered in future posts, and I will put off answering them until then.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 3948]