Talk:Ruminant: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:16, 28 August 2007

- Ruminants are the world's second biggest producers of methane, which is considered to be an extremelly efficient greenhouse gas when free in the atmosphere. Maybe there should be something on this topic in the article. See Natural gas and Methane.

Ruminants contains different components to their digestive systems than monogastrics, it is made up of a mouth, oesophagus, crop, stomach, gizzard, small intestine, caecum, large intestine and anus.

Camels

Are we sure camels chew a cud? (Ruminate). My confusion lies with how Camels are apparently not kosher, yet they have cleft hooves, and here it's claimed they Ruminate. Is there a difference between being a Ruminant and chewing a cud? njaard 21:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The glucose concentration in the rumen is vanishingly small (many many literature souces vouch for this). Rather, cellulose is broken down primarily into acetic acid, propionic acid and butyric acid in the rumen. Could someone with a better facility for the English Language please correct this asap. Please contact me if you would like to know more of the physiology of the rumen (studying this is part of my job). Otherwise, camels do chew cud. Some other mammals chew cud but are not strictly ruminants.(comments by User:Dalekmikey|talk)

Camels hooves are only partialy cleft, they need to be totally seperate to be kosher... maybe a GE camel could be ok? lol212.42.10.194 15:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruminatant

The Colobini ruminate as well Black-and-white colobus, Red colobus and Olive Colobus (Procolobus), so do Red Kangaroos. Kersti Nebelsiek 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

Here's just two objections to the recent change.

Objection #1: Here's a quotation from the cited article, Do Rabbits Chew the Cud?: Carles (1977) compared cows and rabbits and reached the conclusion that rumination should not be defined from an anatomical point of view (the presence of a four-part stomach), but rather on presence of an adaptation for breeding bacteria to improve food. On this basis he stated that "it is difficult to deny that rabbits are ruminants." In other words, some guy of dubious credibility says we should abandon the anatomical, scientific point of view in favor of one that is only concerned with the end result. Hey, while we're at it, maybe we can redefine people with weak bones as avians.

How is the modern English definition of ruminant a factor here? --Ed Brey 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection #2: When all else fails, blame the translation. According to the second cited article, Are Rabbits Erroneously Called Ruminants in the Bible?, 'chew the cud' is the English rendition of the Hebrew MA 'ALEH GERAH, which literally means "raising up what has been swallowed." Isn't it perfectly obvious that "raising up" means regurgitating in this context? How can anyone claim that reingesting droppings is somehow "raising them up"? They're not being raised up, they're going down a second time. The plain meaning of the text is unmistakable to anyone who reads it without preconceived notions of inerrancy.

How do you explain that the cecotrope goes down a second time without first somehow being raised up? At so you other claims, do you have any sources do back them up? The statement beginning with "The plain meaning of the text is unmistakable..." is an ad hominin attack that I'd ask you to retract; it basically says that anyone who doesn't see it your way is close-minded. --Ed Brey 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And so I'm reverting the article. 63.215.29.15 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your desire to improve the article and your examination and questioning of the sources, but how do you justify introducing unsourced material and other guideline violations as an improvement? I've reverted to the properly and sourced formatted version while the discussion continues. --Ed Brey 17:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you put your responses at the end of my reply rather than inside it, as that increases readability.

To your first objection: If you felt the English definition of the word "ruminant" wasn't a factor, you shouldn't have quoted an article that suggested it was.

To your second objection: Are you referring to the rabbit's physical act of lifting the cecotrope before it swallows it? By that logic, if a rabbit ate some grass, excreted it out and I picked up the dropping, then I am "raising it up" and therefore chewing my cud. Clearly, the author of the passage wasn't talking about lifting it up with hands or teeth, but raising it up through regurgitation. Why do I say this is clear? Because it's the simplest explanation that best fits the context of the passage.

As for being guilty of engaging in ad hominem attacks...hmm. I said that "the plain meaning of the text is unmistakable to anyone without preconceived notions of inerrancy." I think the gist of that remark is true; you've certainly not convinced me otherwise. However, I probably should have said "the plain meaning of the text is fairly clear in my opinion," so, okay, I apologize.

Personally, I think having no sources is far better than having bad sources. I also think that sourcing is unneccessary for something as perfectly straightforward as this. Rabbits don't chew their cud; Leviticus 11:6 says they do; therefore, the Bible is wrong. Who do I need to quote? The Scriptural reference speaks for itself.

But let's skip to the end of this debate, shall we? Apparently, you're not going to tolerate an article on ruminants that says the Bible is wrong. I'm certainly not going to tolerate an article on ruminants that says the Bible is right. I strongly doubt there's any diplomatic way to phrase the facts that will please either of us. So let's just delete everything about religion from the article. This is an article on ruminants, after all, not an article on ruminants in the Bible. 209.247.5.49 23:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 To your second objection: Are you referring to the rabbit's physical act of lifting the cecotrope before it swallows it? By that logic, if a rabbit ate some grass, excreted it out and I picked up the dropping, then I am "raising it up" and therefore chewing my cud. Clearly, the author of the passage wasn't talking about lifting it up with hands or teeth, but raising it up through regurgitation. Why do I say this is clear? Because it's the simplest explanation that best fits the context of the passage.
-As for being guilty of engaging in [[ad hominem]] attacks...hmm. I said that "the plain meaning of the text is unmistakable to anyone without preconceived notions of inerrancy." I think the gist of that remark is true; you've certainly not convinced me otherwise.  However, I probably should have said "the plain meaning of the test is fairly clear in my opinion," so, okay, I apologize.
+As for being guilty of engaging in [[ad hominem]] attacks...hmm. I said that "the plain meaning of the text is unmistakable to anyone without preconceived notions of inerrancy." I think the gist of that remark is true; you've certainly not convinced me otherwise.  However, I probably should have said "the plain meaning of the text is fairly clear in my opinion," so, okay, I apologize.
 Personally, I think having no sources is far better than having bad sources. I also think that sourcing is unneccessary for something as perfectly straightforward as this. Rabbits don't chew their cud; Leviticus 11:6 says they do; therefore, the Bible is wrong. Who do I need to quote? The Scriptural reference speaks for itself.