I doubt we could guess at this one - sure killing directly requires some
sort of features such as speed, stealth, claws, teeth etc, but creatures
who feed dominantly by scavenging require other features - superb sense
of smell (like vultures), and in some cases, an ability to get a share
of a great prize (crows around a carcass guarded y raptors or
carnivores).  It also requires adaptations internally to be able to
tolerate decomposed flesh.  Who's to say what feature set is more lately
evolved?  (Maybe someone who has studied such things can say - but I
doubt that a generalizaion can be made across all classes of creatures.
What might be generally true for some vertebrates may not be true for
other animals such as molluscs).
Also, if our goal is to make scavengers more noble, (falling into our
anthropomorphic world-view) - being more lately evolved does not
necessarily make a 'better' animal. I don't think evolution has some
destiny - creatures incredibly adapted to today's environment may be a
failure in the next.

Nora
Calgary, Alberta
CANADA

Paulino de Souza wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I am not sure about this one. I think it is easier to
> eat dead meat then to kill a prey, thus I would guess
> that carnivory first evolved as scavanging, and
> returning to primitive state is not very uncommon in
> evolution. But all these notions of "exciting"
> "defaming" are only human aesthetic judgements.
> Predators have an obvious appeal as mighty animals,
> but that is it, nothing to do with its importance for
> its environment.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paulino
>
> --- Kay Lavalier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > Andrew Vik
> > [log in to unmask]
> >
> > Dear Nora:
> >
> > I agree with you 100%. Scavengers do a very
> > important job on this planet. They
> > just aren't as exciting as predators are. But we
> > must realize, most scavengers
> > have evolved from predators, not the other way
> > around. I do not believe in
> > de-evolution, the idea that life forms can regress
> > to a more primitive state.
> > Therefore, scavengers could be thought of as an
> > improved predators.
> >
> > Yours, Andrew
> >
> > NORA BRYAN wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew
> > > Interesting choice of phrase -  "defaming".  It's
> > odd how we tend to think
> > > of scavengers as somehow less worthy of our
> > admiration.  I guess it's a
> > > natural reaction (maybe we picture ourselves
> > eating roadkill and get a
> > > little grossed out at the idea!).   Of course we
> > know logically that
> > > scavengers are an extremely important part of the
> > natural cycle.  Sometimes
> > > when I see a dead animal I feel sad, but then I
> > feel better when I see the
> > > various birds and animals making use of the
> > carcass to feed themselves and
> > > their young.  Death feeds life.
> > >
> > > Nora
> > > Calgary, Alberta
> > > CANADA
> > >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
> http://im.yahoo.com