Say Anything Blog

God exists. I had lunch with Him just the other day. I both thanked and cursed Him for creating women. We thumb wrestled (He won) and then parted ways. He was a nice fellow.

I was going to ask Him why so many of His Creations that are said to be made “in His image” are evil and sadistic bastards, but I didn’t want to hear or see His answer.

You see, if He is a malevolent God, then the answer is self evident. If He is a benevolent God, then He would have disappeared into a puff of logic. There would have been no way to describe how a benevolent God could create such Hell-bound demons unless those Creations aren’t really made “in His image”. Free will only goes so far. Some Creations are just plain evil.

At the end of the day though, I wondered if I was really talking to God or just some crazy old guy.

Have fun with life guys. This might be all there is. At the same time, hold onto your faith if it brings you happiness and security.

-an amused agnostic.

Lik
Did you even see the argument? It took me a little while to type dude - Maybe just pick a premise and pretend to have a problem with one for my amusement?
PS - I see you are adopting my cynical wise ass style. Congrats. Don’t you just feel better now?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Yes Sparkie, I saw your presented argument. I really don’t have much to say about it. I am simply an agnostic who hopes that there is some kind of higher power out there that rewards virtuous behavior and punishes the evil. I hope that’s true, but my belief of that scenario is zero.

PS - I see you are adopting my cynical wise ass style. Congrats. Don’t you just feel better now?

Huh? I wouldn’t call my somewhat existentialist beliefs to be cynical at all. In actuality, I find this existence and whatever it may entail to be all quite amusing and amazing at the same time.

I was just attempting to make one or two of you chuckle at my response. I won’t get into a heated debate about whether a higher being, or a God, if you will, exists. That kind of debate may be fun for some, but it doesn’t interest me much to argue with believers.

Existentialism seems to be pretty athiest to me. Satre’s freedom was a bit more than most Christians would take responsibiliy for. And Camus’ piece, ‘Picture Sisyphus Happy’ - a central existentialist piece - also seems to have an implicit denial of higher order as such… otherwise we wouldn’t have to imagine the poor guy rolling the boulder as being happy. Not to say Camus’ piece wasn’t cool. I’m a bit less of a Sartre fan. I think he’s a bit liberal with the freedom he ascribes to us. I guess he recanted lots of his views as he aged though.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

(2) But there is natural evil (suffering not caused by human decision) in the world.

Evil is the quintessential human creation; it is about human decision.  This assumption is wrong, therefore the rest of the chain of your logic is wrong.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Natural evil, as defined in the premise you chose, is not about human decision. You’ll have to attack it in a different manner.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Or, to fix the argument one could also just rephrase (2) as:
(2) But there is suffering not caused by human decision in the world.
...and replace ‘natural evil’ with ‘suffering not caused by human decision’. I think the argument would still hold water after that simple replacement to address your concerns.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Please give some examples.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Here’s the whole thing rephrased as I suggest:

(1) If God exists, then by definition he is the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of the world.
(2) But there is suffering not caused by human decision in the world.
(3) Either God doesn’t know about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, or he knows about it but cannot prevent it, or he knows about it and could prevent it if he chose to but chooses not to prevent it.
(4) If God does not know about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, then he is not omniscient.
(5) If God knows about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, but cannot prevent it, then he is not omnipotent.
(6) If God knows about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, and could prevent it if he chose to, but chooses not to prevent it, then he is not perfectly benevolent.
------------------------------------------------
(7) Either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not perfectly benevolent.
(8) God does not exist.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Still no examples to support your hypothesis that there is such a thing as “suffering not caused by human decision”.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108: How about hurricanes? (Remember, if you disagree with me, you agree with Al Gore! Choose carefully.....)

Example: A giant icicle falls off the gutter and stabs out a cute kitten’s eyeball in a very painful way. That would be an example of ‘suffering not caused by human decision’.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

It’s a supposition not by definition that God is benevolent. Benevolence is not a requirment of creation.

Therefore, lack of benevolence does not prove God does not exist, simply that he is not a nice God. I don’t think he ever claimed to be untill Christ began to intersede. A Christian re-write to make him more acceptable?

Well Margie I guess this would be aimed at Christians then… or those who believe God is “the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of the world”.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Dave: I don’t consider weather to be evil.

Margie: You attempt to apply human standards to God.  Whether God is seen as benevolent or not is a human evaluation, and has nothing to do with God, only our personal perception of God at any given moment.

Sparkie: Who built the roof?  Who built the house in that location? Who let the kitten out of the house at that particular time?  Who didn’t remove the icicles before they could fall and cause damage?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I guess this would be aimed at Christians then…

About that; why don’t you aim any of your hatred at Buddhism, Hinduism or Islam(the most intolerant and autocratic of all the major religions)?  You also speak of Christianity as being monolithic, when it clearly isn’t.  Among the Catholics, there are the Roman Catholics and the various Eastern branches; the Protestants are another distinct group, with many subgroups.  When you try to generalize about “Christians”, you misspeak.  It’s a false construct.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108.
You are just being difficult. Replace the roof with a tree. Replace the kitten with a squirrel. So what?
Also.
We have moved beyond evil now and we are on to simply “suffering not caused by human decision”. Dave wasn’t saying the hurricane is evil he was saying its causally responsible for “suffering not caused by human decision”. After all we are addressing your concern that there are “still no examples to support your hypothesis that there is such a thing as “suffering not caused by human decision”.”.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I simply meant that listing benefience as one of the criteria in proving God’s existence was flawed. I thought we were speaking of God as an entity, not necessarily the Christian God.

Implying that nothing happens, good or bad, on this planet without the intercession of humans is pretty egotistical.

When you try to generalize about “Christians”, you misspeak.  It’s a false construct.

I’ll be goddamned. I thought people who believe Jesus Christ is the son of God are “Christians”? They aren’t?
I am speaking of a Christian god. Not necc a Episcopal, Baptist, Weslyean, Anglican, or Catholic God, but just a Christian God.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Margie
Maybe not a Christian God, but I am speaking to anyone who believes God to be “the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of the world”.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

You may construct that generalization, but it has no meaning.  You have a naive concept of what Christianity is; one aspect of it(especially of Protestant Christianity), is the individual independence.  Many Protestant Christians don’t attend church regularly, and aren’t members of a particular congregation.  It is a decentralized religion(no Pope; no ayatollahs, either).

Save America; boycott the MSM.

BTW, there is no such thing as a “Christian God”.  There are only different human perceptions of God.
Organized religion is the politics of spirituality.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

You may construct that generalization, but it has no meaning.

What? Are you saying the word ‘Chirstian’ does not refer to someone who believes Jesus Christ is the son of God? C’mon r108. We can’t have you running amuck. I’m doing my best not to mount personal attacks and stick to the content of the arguments, but you are really enticing me by saying ‘Christianity’ is some construct I made up. We all know what it is. You fool no one with your slithering.
Christianity is defined as: “Christianity is a monotheistic religion centered on Jesus of Nazareth, and on his life and teachings as presented in the New Testament. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah and thus refer to him as Jesus Christ.” Just like I said.

And what about the poor squirrel with no eye in severe pain? Did that provide an adequate example?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

When you speak of spirituallity without the influence of organized religion, you are refusing to define the characteristics of the God you percieve exists. Is he then merely a vague presence that you know inside is there, but do not know a lot about? I mean this in a curious way, not defamatory. I respect everyones beliefs, but seem always to be looking for some more substantial reasoning to justify belief.

rob, you hold the a Bible to be the actual words of God?

p.s.: I love your philosophy about God so far.

Also. We have moved beyond evil now and we are on to simply “suffering not caused by human decision”. Dave wasn’t saying the hurricane is evil he was saying its causally responsible for “suffering not caused by human decision”.

Only if it strikes an area inhabited by humans.  If it’s in the middle of the ocean, no harm done.

After all we are addressing your concern that there are “still no examples to support your hypothesis that there is such a thing as “suffering not caused by human decision”.”.

You asserted that there is such a thing as “suffering not caused by human decision”, which was part of your premise that evil exists outside of human perception.  I questioned whether or not that is a valid concept, and you still have not proven that it is.  It is one of your basic premises, and it is not proved to be valid.

I don’t necessarily regard a squirrel being struck by an icicle as being evil.  It is simply a natural occurrence.  Maybe I don’t like squirrels; if I did like them, then the “evil element” is still human decision.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

When you speak of spirituallity without the influence of organized religion, you are refusing to define the characteristics of the God you percieve exists.

Spirituality is primary to organized religion.  It is beyond my power to define God; otherwise I would be greater than God, which is not the case.

Is he then merely a vague presence that you know inside is there, but do not know a lot about? I mean this in a curious way, not defamatory.

God is not a person.

I respect everyones beliefs, but seem always to be looking for some more substantial reasoning to justify belief.

For the third time, if God could be proved by argument, then God would be subservient to argument.  This is not the case. What you regard as belief is knowledge to me.  I don’t expect you to possess that knowledge.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

aNON:

rob, you hold the a Bible to be the actual words of God?

p.s.: I love your philosophy about God so far.

I’m assuming you are addressing me.  I hold parts of the Bible to be the Word of God.  Not being a person, God doesn’t speak in a way that could be recorded on tape or disk, for instance.  Physical reality is only a very tiny part of God.  Try reading a “Red Letter” edition of the New Testament sometime, and tell me what you experience.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Can an emotional reaction to something you read be trusted in forming a belief this important? I cried when I read Bambi, but I still recognize the need to kill animals for the purpose of human survival. I’m glad for your certain knowledge, but you are right, I am not capable of it.

I don’t necessarily regard a squirrel being struck by an icicle as being evil.

Great. Do you deny the squirrel suffers? We have amended the argument so that it no longer refers to evil ok? Are you reading any of these posts? Please read the ninth post to see the argument we are now addressing.

Only if it strikes an area inhabited by humans.

By this you seem to imply that only humans are capable of suffering. Is that what you believe?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

I hold parts of the Bible to be the Word of God.

How can that possibly be given your definition of God?  Explain.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

By this you seem to imply that only humans are capable of suffering. Is that what you believe?

Absolutely.  Suffering requires the ability to contemplate your own existence.  This is a human ability.  BTW, I don’t regard suffering as being “evil”. It is a subjective phenomenon, by definition.
Whatever happens, a human being is necessary to define it as being either “good” or “evil”.
You asserted, as an essential element of your original argument, that there is such a thing as “natural evil” which lies outside human decision.  You have so far failed to prove that, nor have you given any valid examples of it.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Actually, none of the three requirments listed is necessary to prove the existence of a Creator. A creator need not have complete knowledge or control or good intentions toward that which is created. Ask Henry Ford

Can an emotional reaction to something you read be trusted in forming a belief this important?

It’s not an “emotional reaction” for me.  Your premise is wrong here.

I cried when I read Bambi, but I still recognize the need to kill animals for the purpose of human survival.

Bambi is a fictional character, invented by a human author.

I’m glad for your certain knowledge, but you are right, I am not capable of it.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

How can that possibly be given your definition of God?  Explain.

I hold these truths to be self-evident.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

BTW, I can’t define God; only my experience of God.  I have said that a number of times already.  In any case, you can’t disprove the existence of God by nit-picking my arguments.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I don’t believe that God’s existence can ever be proven or disproven, that it will forever be a matter of personal belief. It does interest me to hear of how these beliefs were arrived at.

Actually, none of the three requirments listed is necessary to prove the existence of a Creator. A creator need not have complete knowledge or control or good intentions toward that which is created. Ask Henry Ford

Good point, Margie!

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I don’t believe that God’s existence can ever be proven or disproven, that it will forever be a matter of personal belief. It does interest me to hear of how these beliefs were arrived at.

If we can’t accept just natural evelotion as the basis of our existence, then how about this hypothesis; An all powerful being was playing with his toys one day and caused us to come into existence, by whatever methods, then lost interest in this particular toy. As creditable as any other explaination.

You asserted, as an essential element of your original argument, that there is such a thing as “natural evil” which lies outside human decision.

No I didn’t. I said it wasn’t my argument, that it was old, but that I thought it a good vehicle for futher discussion. I have defended it for ‘devil’s advocate’ purposes (no pun intended). I even conceeded that your objection to (2) was pefectly reasonable and I reformulated the argument to account for your objection. I agree that the use of ‘natural evil’ is question begging. I am in no way committed to the original argument - I was happy to reformulate it so you could find another objection. I guess you just lost your mind at that point or something. What’s going on? Are you still ok? Let’s discuss the following argument now because r108 has successfuly given reason to reformulate premise (2):

(1) If God exists, then by definition he is the omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent creator of the world.
(2) But there is suffering not caused by human decision in the world.
(3) Either God doesn’t know about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, or he knows about it but cannot prevent it, or he knows about it and could prevent it if he chose to but chooses not to prevent it.
(4) If God does not know about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, then he is not omniscient.
(5) If God knows about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, but cannot prevent it, then he is not omnipotent.
(6) If God knows about the suffering not caused by human decision in the world, and could prevent it if he chose to, but chooses not to prevent it, then he is not perfectly benevolent.
------------------------------------------------
(7) Either God is not omniscient, or God is not omnipotent, or God is not perfectly benevolent.
(8) God does not exist.

Suffering requires the ability to contemplate your own existence.

So if I torture a kitten it does not suffer?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

(2) But there is suffering not caused by human decision in the world.

Still not proven.

It has never been my contention that God is perfectly benevolent, or benevolent at all.  That is a human consideration, so your modification of your argument has made it meaningless to me.

If the kitten has the ability to contemplate its own existence, then it can suffer. Otherwise, it only feels pain, then dies.  Why would you do something like that?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

number 8 is not a reasonable conclusion of number 7 as the original definition of God was flawed, assuming we are refering to the entity responsible for our creation.

Margie: Right on!

Save America; boycott the MSM.

number 8 is not a reasonable conclusion of number 7

actually they are both logical and they follow from 1-6. Your problem is with 1 and not 7 or 8.

as the original definition of God was flawed, assuming we are refering to the entity responsible for our creation.

ok. like i said earlier this is not a challenge to people who believe that god is not benevolent, omnicient, or omnipotent. those people are just blasphemers. i am addressing non-blasphemous believers in God. Is that fair?

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

ok. like i said earlier this is not a challenge to people who believe that god is not benevolent, omnicient, or omnipotent. those people are just blasphemers. i am addressing non-blasphemous believers in God. Is that fair?

What are your qualifications to speak about blasphemy?  You are an atheist, by your own admission.
Benevolence is a human evaluation, as I said before.  Since it is a key element of your argument, you stand refuted.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Generally speaking, the three aspects of God are considered to be:

Omniscient, Omnipotent and Omnipresent.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

what i’m saying is that most christians believe people who think god is not benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent are blasphemers. and i am not addressing blasphemers. that’s all. i said nothing about whether or not i am a blasphemer.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

What qualifies you to judge whether or not blasphemy has taken place?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

that’s right r108. i don’t know what blasphemy is. i don’t even exist. nothing does. just egos and God.

i’m done here. it was fun. i think i would’ve gone after 5 or 6 if i was you guys but hey, i’m not. i hope everyone doesn’t hate me and that they had fun thinking about this stuff.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie:  It’s not about you; it’s about your ideas.  I certainly don’t hate you, as I don’t come from an emotional perspective.  I do find it interesting that you are cutting and running from your own blog post, though.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

i’ll keep going all day i just feel we have reached an impass and that you are unwilling to either read or register the content of my previous posts. you kept beating the ‘evil’ horse well after it had begun to necrofy.
thanks for not hating me. cheers.

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

Sparkie: Since you have already admitted that your argument is really a “devil’s advocate” argument, which means you don’t really believe it, your credibility is limited here.  Furthermore, when several key premises have been thoroughly refuted, you simply shift your argument, further illustrating your insincerity.
What you call an “impasse” is really a thorough refutation.  We are waiting for a good argument that doesn’t shift around like the changing tides.
What’s to hate? We are just talking about ideas here.  Of course, for someone who is a supporter of a totalitarian ideology, hate might be understandable.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

r108: I adjusted one premise and you countered it by claiming that kittens can’t suffer and making up a false definition of suffering, confusing it with existential suffering. I am not about to veer off onto that sideroad. Sorry. That is an impass. I believe that when I torture a kitten it suffers. You don’t. And!?!
Margie’s objection was also great. She’s right. She’s just not my intended audience. Outside attacks shouldn’t be seen as thorough refutations.
Again… I don’t care if the argument falls. I’m not that moved by it. I just think its cool…

Yun Chu said, “You must strictly not express in words what is very significant. Both dragon and snake are killed in one blow.”

r108: I adjusted one premise and you countered it by claiming that kittens can’t suffer and making up a false definition of suffering, confusing it
with existential suffering. I am not about to veer off onto that sideroad.

Prove that a kitten is capable of suffering, by any definition you make up. I refuted your premise about “natural evil”.

Sorry. That is an impass. I believe that when I torture a kitten it suffers.

Why on Earth would you torture a kitten?  That’s grotesque.

You don’t. And!?!
Margie’s objection was also great. She’s right. She’s just not my intended audience.

When you make a reader post, all of us are your “intended audience”.

Outside attacks shouldn’t be seen as thorough refutations.

They are if they refute you.

Again… I don’t care if the argument falls. I’m not that moved by it. I just think its cool…

You think it’s “cool” to make arguments for the sake of argument, without expressing your real beliefs. That is actually cowardice and insincerity.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

Why on Earth would you torture a kitten?  That’s grotesque.

Dave: As someone who claims to be for “animal liberation”, I would think you would be outraged by Sparkie’s comment.  I know that kittens can’t suffer, but that doesn’t mean that I would torture a kitten.  You again show your weakness in thinking, and your hypocrisy.  Partisanship is more important to you than your supposed “animal liberation” values.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I know that kittens can’t suffer, but that doesn’t mean that I would torture a kitten.

I ask again: Why? Is it--just perhaps--that you actually do know that a kitten can suffer?

If not, I suggest you act on your beliefs. Take your dog and slowly beat it to death with a baseball bat. Post it on the Net for all to see.

Or, just admit that you’re arguing for the sake of arguing--that you know full well that all animals (not just humans) can suffer, which is why you won’t torture your dog.

I thought I head somewhere elephants can suffer(?)

"outside attacks?” No ones opinion is valid unless they are believers? That kind of makes the whole discussion moot,anyway. This post seems not to be about the existence of God , but about the existence of a particular kind of God. The question, then, is one of definition, not existence.

Margie: This discussion is about Sparkie’s snarky ego.

Save America; boycott the MSM.

I thought I head somewhere elephants can suffer(?)

Did that information come from an elephant?

Save America; boycott the MSM.

..can human fetus generally suffer?

the BBC on animal suffering, lol.

Person a: I heard somewhere that slaves can suffer.

Person b: Did the information come from the slave?

:laugh:

something interesting about elephants,

Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! 
Elephant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Because of recent vandalism or other disruption, editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users is currently disabled. Such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account.

For other uses, see Elephant (disambiguation).
?Elephant

African Bush (Savannah) Elephant in Kenya.
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Subphylum: Vertebrata

Class: Mammalia

Order: Proboscidea

Family: Elephantidae
Gray, 1821

Genera and Species
Loxodonta
Loxodonta cyclotis
Loxodonta africana
Elephas
Elephas maximus
Elephas antiquus †
Elephas beyeri †
Elephas celebensis †
Elephas cypriotes †
Elephas ekorensis †
Elephas falconeri †
Elephas iolensis †
Elephas planifrons †
Elephas platycephalus †
Elephas recki †
Stegodon †
Mammuthus †

Elephantidae (the elephants) is a family of pachyderm, and the only remaining family in the order Proboscidea in the class Mammalia. Elephantidae has three living species: the African Bush Elephant, the African Forest Elephant (until recently known collectively as the African Elephant), and the Asian Elephant (also known as the Indian Elephant). Other species have become extinct since the last ice age, which ended about 10,000 years ago.

Elephants are mammals, and the largest land animals alive today. The elephant’s gestation period is 22 months, the longest of any land animal. At birth it is common for an elephant calf to weigh 120 kg (265 lb). An elephant may live as long as 70 years, sometimes longer. The largest elephant ever recorded was shot in Angola in 1956. It was male and weighed about 12,000 kg (26,400 lb).[1] The smallest elephants, about the size of a calf or a large pig, were a prehistoric variant that lived on the island of Crete until 5000 BC, possibly 3000 BC.

Elephants are increasingly threatened by human intrusion, with the African elephant population plummeting from 1.3 million in 1970 to roughly 600,000 in 1989, to 272,000 in 2000 and then to between 400,000 and 660,000 in 2003.[2] The elephant is now a protected species worldwide, placing restrictions on capture, domestic use, and trade in products such as ivory.

Contents [hide]
1 Zoology
1.1 Varieties
1.1.1 African Elephant
1.1.2 Asian Elephant
1.2 Body characteristics
1.2.1 Trunk
1.2.2 Tusks
1.2.3 Teeth
1.2.4 Skin
1.2.5 Legs and Feet
1.2.6 Ears
1.3 Evolution
1.4 Diet
1.5 Social behavior
1.6 Self-awareness
1.7 Homosexuality
1.8 Communication
1.9 Reproduction, calves, and calf rearing
1.9.1 Reproduction
1.9.2 Motherhood and calf rearing
1.9.3 Elephant calves
1.9.4 Allomothers
2 Usefulness to the environment
3 Threat of extinction
3.1 National parks
4 Humanity and elephants
4.1 Harvest from the wild
4.2 Domestication and use
4.3 Elephant traps
4.4 Elephants in culture
4.4.1 Pop culture
4.4.2 Religion and philosophy
4.4.3 Politics and secular symbolism
4.5 Elephant rage
4.5.1 Musth
4.5.2 Other causes
5 Rogue elephant
6 See also
7 References
8 Footnotes
9 External links

Zoology

Comparative view of the human and elephant frames, c1860.
Varieties
It has long been known that the African and Asian elephants are separate species. African elephants tend to be larger than the Asian species (up to 4 m high and 7500 kg) and have bigger ears. Male and female African elephants have long tusks, while male and female Asian Elephants have shorter tusks, with tusks in females being almost non-existent. African elephants have a dipped back, smooth forehead and two “fingers” at the tip of their trunks, as compared with the Asian species which have an arched back, two humps on the forehead and have only one “finger” at the tip of their trunks.

There are two populations of African elephants, Savannah and Forest, and recent genetic studies have led to a reclassification of these as separate species, the forest population now being called Loxodonta cyclotis, and the Savannah (or Bush) population termed Loxodonta africana. This reclassification has important implications for conservation, because it means where there were thought to be two small populations of a single endangered species, there may in fact be two separate species, each of which is even more severely endangered. There is also a potential danger in that if the forest elephant is not explicitly listed as an endangered species, poachers and smugglers might thus be able to evade the law forbidding trade in endangered animals and their body parts.

The Forest elephant and the Savannah elephant can hybridise successfully, though their preference for different terrains reduces the opportunities to hybridise. Many captive African elephants are probably generic African elephants as the recognition of separate species has occurred relatively recently.

Although hybrids between different animal genera are usually impossible, in 1978 at Chester Zoo, an Asian elephant cow gave birth to a hybrid calf sired by an African elephant bull (the old terms are used here as this pre-dates current classifications). The pair had mated several times, but pregnancy was believed to be impossible. “Motty”, the resulting hybrid male calf, had an African elephant’s cheek, ears (large with pointed lobes) and legs (longer and slimmer), but the toenail numbers, (5 front, 4 hind) and the single trunk finger of an Asian elephant. The wrinkled trunk was like an African elephant. The forehead was sloping with one dome and two smaller domes behind it. The body was African in type, but had an Asian-type centre hump and an African-type rear hump. The calf died of infection 12 days later. It is preserved as a mounted specimen at the British Natural History Museum, London. There are unconfirmed rumours of three other hybrid elephants born in zoos or circuses; all are said to have been deformed and did not survive.

African Elephant
Main articles: African Bush Elephant and African Forest Elephant

Female African Elephant with calf, in Kenya.The mammals of the genus Loxodonta, often known collectively as African elephants, are found in several regions throughout the continent, after which they are named. In recent years, Loxodonta has received the attention of the world because of its dwindling numbers. Today there are approximately 600,000 African elephants in the world.[3] Some believe this represents a stable population and that measures to protect them are unnecessary. Others argue that while elephants are locally overabundant in certain areas, it is impossible to ignore the fact that the overall population has dropped by a staggering amount. As recently as 1979 there were an estimated 1.3 million African elephants. Now less than one half of that population exists. This decline is attributed primarily to poaching and habitat loss.

Yet, the total African elephant population appears to have been more or less stable for more than a decade (despite being down tenfold from a half century ago). Some regions of Africa are dealing with local elephant overpopulations, while most regions are not. When reporting 2002 estimates of 460,000 (probable) to 560,000 (possible) African elephants, researchers noted that this represented an increase over their 1998 figures (360,000 probable, 500,000 possible) suggestive of modest population growth. However, this apparent increase could have been an artifact of the much larger area represented in the 2002 survey – or “many other factors unrelated to overall elephant numbers” (From IUCN’s African Elephant Status Report 2002, page 17: http://iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/aed/pdfs/aesr2002.pdf). The papers presented in Pachyderm magazine (journal of the African Elephant, African Rhino and Asian Rhino Specialist Groups) through June 2006 do not give any indication of a recent boom in elephant population [1]. A “comprehensive African Elephant Status Report (AESR) is … expected to be published some time in 2006” based on their current data.

African elephants are distinguished from Asians in several ways. The most noticeable difference is the ears. Africans’ ears are much larger and are shaped like the continent of their origin. The African elephant is typically larger than the Asian and has a concave back. Both males and females have external tusks and are usually less hairy than their Asian cousins.

Until the late 20th century, scientists recognized one species of African elephants, Loxodonta africana, and two subspecies, or races, within the species. Recent DNA analysis has led scientists to reclassify the two races as distinct species.

Today, Loxodonta africana refers specifically to the Savanna Elephant, the largest of all the elephants. In fact, it is the largest land animal in the world, standing up to 13 ft (4 m) at the shoulder and weighing approximately 15,400 lb (7,000 kg). The average male stands about 3 m (10 ft) high at the shoulder and weighs about 5500–6000 kg, female being much smaller. Most often, Savanna Elephants are found in open grasslands, marshes, and lakeshores. They range over most of Africa, south of the Sahara Desert.

The other, less numerous species is the Forest Elephant, recently reclassified as Loxodonta cyclotis. Compared with the Savanna Elephant, its ears are usually smaller and rounder, and its tusks are also thinner and straighter and are not directed outwards so much. The Forest Elephant can weigh up to 10,000 lb (4,500 kg) and stand about 10 ft (3 m) tall. Much less is known about these animals than their savanna cousins because environmental and political obstacles make them very difficult to study. Normally they inhabit the dense African rain forests of central and western Africa, though occasionally they do inhabit the edges of forests and overlap territories with bush elephants.

Asian Elephant
Main article: Asian Elephant

An Asian elephant swimming.Today scientists estimate the world population of Asian elephants, also called Indian Elephants or Elephas maximus, to be approximately 40,000, less than one-tenth the number of African elephants. Perhaps the Asian elephants’ decline has been less noticeable because it has been more gradual. The causes of this decline are much the same as that of the African.

Elephant In Sri LankaAs with the Loxodonta, there are distinct subspecies of Elephas maximus. In general, the Asian elephant is smaller than the African. It has smaller ears, shaped like the subcontinent of India, and typically, only the males have large external tusks. An Asian elephant can also be distinguished by the large bulges of depigmentation on the skin.

The first subspecies is the Sri Lankan Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus maximus). Found only on the island of Sri Lanka, a small country off the southeast coast of India, it is the largest of the Asians. There are only an estimated 3,000-4,500 members of this subspecies left today in the wild, although no accurate census has been carried out in the recent past. Large males can weigh upward to 12,000 lb and stand over 11 feet tall. Sri Lankan males have very large cranial bulges, and both sexes have more areas of depigmentation than are found in the other Asians. Typically, their ears, face, trunk, and belly have large concentrations of pink-speckled skin. There is an Orphanage for elephants in Pinnawala Sri Lanka, which gives shelter to disabled, injured elephants. This program plays a large role in protecting the Sri Lankan Elephant from extinction.

Another subspecies, the Mainland Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus indicus) makes up the bulk of the Asian elephant population. Numbering approximately 36,000, these elephants are lighter gray in colour, with depigmentation only on the ears and trunk. Large males will ordinarily weigh only about 11,000 lb but are as tall as the Sri Lankan. The mainland Asian can be found in 11 Asian countries, from India to Indonesia. They prefer forested areas and transitional zones, between forests and grasslands, where greater food variety is available.

The smallest of all the elephants is the Sumatran Asian Elephant (Elephas maximus sumatranus). Population estimates for this group range from 33,000 to 53,000 individuals. It is very light gray and has less depigmentation than the other Asians, with pink spots only on the ears. Mature Sumatrans will usually only measure about 10 ft (3 m) at the shoulder and weigh less than 9,000 lb. An enormous animal nonetheless, it is considerably smaller than its other Asian (and African) cousins and exists only on the island of Sumatra, usually in forested regions and partially wooded habitats.

In 2003 a further subspecies was identified on Borneo. Named the Borneo pygmy elephant, it is smaller and tamer than other Asian elephants. It also has relatively larger ears, longer tail and straighter tusks.

Body characteristics

Trunk

An elephant can use its trunk for a variety of purposes. This one is wiping its eye.The proboscis, or trunk, is a fusion of the nose and upper lip, elongated and specialized to become the elephant’s most important and versatile appendage. African elephants are equipped with two fingerlike projections at the tip of their trunk, while Asians have only one. According to biologists, the elephant’s trunk is said to have over forty thousand individual muscles in it[2], making it sensitive enough to pick up a single blade of grass, yet strong enough to rip the branches off a tree. Some sources indicate that the correct number of muscles in an elephant’s trunk is nearer to one hundred thousand. [3]

Most herbivores (plant eaters, like the elephant) are adapted with teeth for cutting and tearing off plant materials. However, except for the very young or infirm, elephants always use their trunks to tear up their food and then place it in their mouth. They will graze on grass or reach up into trees to grasp leaves, fruit, or entire branches. If the desired food item is too high up, the elephant will wrap its trunk around the tree or branch and shake its food loose or sometimes simply knock the tree down altogether. The trunk is also used for drinking. Elephants suck water up into the trunk (up to fifteen quarts [14.2 liters] at a time) and then blow it into their mouth. Elephants also inhale water to spray on their body during bathing. On top of this watery coating, the animal will then spray dirt and mud, which act as a protective sunscreen.

This appendage also plays a key role in many social interactions. Familiar elephants will greet each other by entwining their trunks, much like a handshake. They also use them while play-wrestling, caressing during courtship, and for dominance displays - a raised trunk can be a warning or threat, while a lowered trunk can be a sign of submission. Elephants can defend themselves very well by flailing their trunk at unwanted intruders or by grasping and flinging them.

An elephant also relies on its trunk for its highly developed sense of smell. Raising the trunk up in the air and swivelling it from side to side, like a periscope, it can determine the location of friends, enemies, and food sources.

Tusks
The tusks of an elephant are its second upper incisors. Tusks grow continuously; an adult male’s tusks will grow about seven inches a year. Tusks are indispensable to an elephant: they are used to dig for water, salt, and roots; to debark trees, to eat the bark; to dig into baobab trees to get at the pulp inside; and to move trees and branches when clearing a path. In addition, they are used for marking trees to establish territory and occasionally as weapons.

Like humans who are typically right- or left-handed, elephants are usually right- or left-tusked. The dominant tusk, called the master tusk, is generally shorter and more rounded at the tip from wear. Both male and female African elephants have large tusks that can reach over 10 ft (3 m) in length and weigh over 200 lb (90 kg). In the Asian species, only the males have large tusks. Female Asians have tusks which are very small or absent altogether. Asian males can have tusks as long as the much larger Africans, but they are usually much slimmer and lighter; the heaviest recorded is 86 lb (39 kg). The tusk of both species is mostly made of calcium phosphate in the form of apatite. As a piece of living tissue, it is relatively soft (compared with other minerals such as rock), and the tusk, also known as ivory, is strongly favoured by artisans for its carvability. The desire for elephant ivory has been one of the major factors in the dramatic decline of the world’s elephant population.

Some extinct relatives of elephants had tusks in their lower jaws also (e.g. Tetrabelodon), or instead (e.g. Dinotherium).

Teeth
Elephants’ teeth are very different from those of most other mammals. Over their lives they usually have 28 teeth. These are:

The two upper second incisors: these are the tusks.
The milk precursors of the tusks.
12 premolars, 3 in each side of each jaw.
12 molars, 3 in each side of each jaw.
Unlike most mammals, which grow baby teeth and then replace them with a permanent set of adult teeth, elephants have cycles of tooth rotation throughout their entire life. After one year the tusks are permanent, but the other teeth are replaced five times in an elephant’s life. The teeth do not emerge from the jaws vertically like with human teeth. Instead, they have a horizontal progression, like a conveyor belt. New teeth grow in at the back of the mouth, pushing older teeth toward the front, where they wear down with use and the remains fall out. When an elephant becomes very old, the last set of teeth is worn to stumps, and it must rely on softer foods to chew. Very elderly elephants often spend their last years exclusively in marshy areas where they can feed on soft wet grasses. Eventually, when the last teeth fall out, the elephant will be unable to eat and will die of starvation. Were it not for tooth wearout, their metabolism would allow them to live much longer. Rupert Sheldrake has proposed this as an explanation for the elephant graveyards. However, as more habitat is destroyed, the elephants’ living space becomes smaller and smaller; the elderly no longer have the opportunity to roam in search of more appropriate food and will, consequently, die of starvation at an earlier age.

Tusks in the lower jaw are also second incisors. These grew out large in Dinotherium and some mastodons, but in modern elephants they disappear early without erupting.

Skin

Skin of an African elephantElephants are called pachyderms, which means thick-skinned animals. An elephant’s skin is extremely tough around most parts of its body and measures about 2.5 cm (1 in) thick. However, the skin around the mouth and inside of the ear is paper thin. Normally, the skin of an Asian is covered with more hair than its African counterpart. This is most noticeable in the young. Asian calves are usually covered with a thick coat of brownish red fuzz. As they get older, this hair darkens and becomes more sparse, but it will always remain on their heads and tails.

The species of elephants are typically grayish in colour, but the Africans very often appear brown or reddish from wallowing in mud holes of coloured soil. Wallowing is actually a very important behaviour in elephant society. Not only is it important for socialization, but the mud acts as a sunscreen, protecting their skin from harsh ultraviolet radiation. Though tough, an elephant’s skin is very sensitive. Without regular mud baths to protect it from burning, as well as from insect bites and moisture loss, an elephant’s skin would suffer serious damage. After bathing, the elephant will usually use its trunk to blow dirt on its body to help dry and bake on its new protective coat. As elephants are limited to smaller and smaller areas, there is less water available, and local herds will often come too close over the right to use these limited resources.

Wallowing also aids the skin in regulating body temperatures. Elephants spend every day fighting an uphill battle to stay cool. They have a very difficult time releasing heat through the skin because, in proportion to their body size, they have very little of it. The ratio of an elephant’s mass to the surface area of its skin is many times that of a human. Elephants have even been observed lifting up their legs to expose the soles of their feet, presumably in an effort to expose more skin to the air. Since wild elephants live in very hot climates, they must have other means of getting rid of excess heat.

Legs and Feet
An elephant’s legs are great straight pillars, as they must be to support its bulk. The elephant needs less muscular power to stand because of its straight legs. For this reason an elephant can stand for very long periods of time without tiring. In fact, African elephants rarely lie down unless they are sick or wounded. However, Indian elephants lie down frequently.

The feet of an elephant are nearly round. African elephants have three nails on each hind foot, and four on each front foot. Indian elephants have four nails on each hind foot and five on each front foot. Beneath the bones of the foot is a tough, gelatine-like material that acts as a cushion or shock absorber. Under the elephant’s weight the foot swells, but it gets smaller when the weight is removed. An elephant can sink deep into mud, but can pull its legs out readily because its feet become smaller when they are lifted.

An elephant is a good swimmer and climber, but it can neither trot, run, jump, nor gallop. It has only one gait, a sort of gliding shuffle, which it can step up to the speed of a human sprinter. There are few animals that can travel farther in a day then the elephant.

Ears

An Elephant sanctuary at Punnathur kotta, Kerala, south India.The large flapping ears of an elephant are also very important for temperature regulation. Elephant ears are made of a very thin layer of skin stretched over cartilage and a rich network of blood vessels. On hot days, elephants will flap their ears constantly, creating a slight breeze. This breeze cools the surface blood vessels, and then the cooler blood gets circulated to the rest of the animal’s body. The hot blood entering the ears can be cooled as much as ten degrees Fahrenheit before returning to the body. Differences in the ear sizes of African and Asian elephants can be explained, in part, by their geographical distribution. Africans originated and stayed near the equator, where it is warmer. Therefore, they have bigger ears. Asians live farther north, in slightly cooler climates, and thus have smaller ears.

The ears are also used in certain displays of aggression and during the males’ mating period. If an elephant wants to intimidate a predator or rival, it will spread its ears out wide to make itself look more massive and imposing. During the breeding season, males give off an odor from a gland located behind their eyes. Joyce Poole, a well-known elephant researcher, has theorized that the males will fan their ears in an effort to help propel this “elephant cologne” great distances.

Walking at a normal pace an elephant covers about 2 to 4 miles an hour (3 to 6 km/h) but they can reach 24 miles an hour (40 km/h) at full speed.

Evolution
Although the fossil evidence is uncertain, some scientists believe there is genetic evidence that the elephant family shares distant ancestry with the Sirenians (sea cows) and the hyraxes. In the distant past, members of the hyrax family grew to large sizes, and it seems likely that the common ancestor of all three modern families was some kind of amphibious hyracoid. One theory suggests that these animals spent most of their time under water, using their trunks like snorkels for breathing. Modern elephants have retained this ability and are known to swim in that manner for up to 6 hours and 50 km.

In the past, there was a much wider variety of elephant genera, including the mammoths, stegodons and deinotheria. There was also a much wider variety of species.[4][5]