My good friend! There is no hate for you. Most of us agree with you completely from what I've seen.

I hate to point it out, but *technically* we're not the top of the food chain. That would be the carnivores. The ones with really big teeth. Tigers, for example.

That's not really how the food chain works... It depends on what level of consumer you are. Also, carnivore=/=predator. Dogs are carnivores, but they're more scavengers (like vultures). Humans are omnivores, but unless you're a hunter, you can't really call us predators. Though I may be confusing my meanings. So, basically, the "top of the food chain" is the animal that eats the animals that eat the animals (to the nth degree) that eat the plants. So, I suppose you could argue both sides: humans are capable of eating the animals with the most animals "below" them (like tigers), so they're at the top, OR because humans mainly eat primary consumers like cows or secondary consumers like pigs, that we're more somewhere in the middle. Take your pick. (Note: all of this is off the top of my head and may contain inaccuracies.)

I would argue that we are not top of the food chain due to the fact if we're taken by surprise by any large carnivore (tiger, shark, lion, alligator) we will get eaten, whereas taken by surprise a tiger/shark/lion/alligator would kill whatever attacked it. Essentially to be top of the food chain you have to have no predators (them of the large pointy teeth). We have several. Admittedly guns do make this *slightly* more complex, but the fact is it's only in the last few hundred years that seeing a pride of lions has become no longer a reason to pray to the ancestors (give or take the odd crazy Roman who was there to catch the buggers so other humans could be fed to them). The few millennia before that we were, and still technically are, a prey species...

Well, actually, no. None of those animals naturally eats humans. We have no natural predators. The predators you mentioned eat humans only out of desperation, mistake, or some kind of abnormality (like rabies in other animals that attack humans). Dogs have been known to do this. Also, attacking something that is attacking you is a matter of defense, not hunger. A horse or a cow could pretty easily kill a human if threatened, but they won't eat it. I also think your 1-to-1 comparison is unfair. Lions and sharks typically hunt alone, so they have to be strong by themselves. Humans and dogs are group animals, so they work together to get their food. A group of humans could (and have) kill a lion. Guns are just a physical manifestation of our intelligence. Other animals use their teeth, talons, size, or other methods to get their food, while we use our brains. It's what we've used to survive over all these years. Remember, it's not really "survival of the fittest", but rather "survival of whatever is most suited to its environment". Our brains give us an edge over many other animals to adapt. I personally don't see that as wrong. I'd also like to note that you made the mistake of confusing carnivores and predators again. To be honest, I think that objectively, parasites that live off of humans would probably be considered the top of the food chain (though humans, without natural predators, are high up there.) They don't need big teeth or hunting to do it, either. :)

I did say *technically* with good reason. I'm aware guns cloud the issue, but from a purely biological sense we are not top of the food chain. Nothing does, or has ever stalked, the larger felids for lunch. The same cannot be said for us, hence *technically* not top of the food chain. "we have no natural predators" yes we do, we evolved in Africa and like every other species in Africa larger mammals than us liked to eat us. If it is feline with big teeth it will have eaten us. Same goes for say, hyenas. And crocodiles, Sobek wasn't an Egyptian deity for nothing, splash about in the Nile for too long and you'll lose a leg. (earlier hominid and fully human remains which show evidence of being dinner back this up) On a different note, lions do not typically hunt alone and therefore do not have to be exceptionally strong in their own right, they hang out in prides of three to thirty individuals (although six is about average) and even the males are more inclined to be in pairs than on their own. They don't hunt humans now because they've recently learned not to, doesn't mean you wouldn't have been lunch in the not so distant past. If you study the human past a few hundred years of not being eaten really doesn't compare to the thousands of years of being dinner. Again *technically* not the top of a food chain. Not that most food chains have proper tops anyway. Food chains are simplistic, and food webs are more accurate. (potentially no one is top of a food web?)

I don't see why guns should be ignored. It's not as though they were given to us by aliens-- we used our abilities to make ourselves better fighters. Like I said, from a biological standpoint, our brains are what made us able to survive and compete. A gun is just the result of a brain. No, we do not have predators. Humans are considered an apex predator. Look it up. Egyptian deities seem irrelevant, as they also believed dung beetles are sacred, if I recall correctly. Besides, lions are just noble looking animals, and watching them hunt must have been exhilarating. But we are not naturally their prey-- first, humans are not very nutritious; second, prey tends to reflect its predator's abilities. That's how evolution works. If lions become faster, so do zebras. Now, you could use the brain argument against me here, but then you'd have to acknowledge guns as a tool that makes us more above lions on the food chain. This is not to say that lions NEVER eat humans (like I said, there are some exceptions), but we are not their natural prey. Likewise, people have been known to kill lions and animals much bigger than them. Also, lionesses are the ones that hunt, not lions. But you're right, I was mistaken-- lionesses hunt in groups. However, the ones that have killed humans are the "rogue" male ones (and typically sick or injured as well.) And like I said, something's ability to kill something else does not necessarily make it the "top of the food chain"-- if it did, humans' intelligence would make them above lions, while unarmed, we would be below cows. And where would whales fit in? Would the fight take place in the ocean or on land? Etc. If you are describing a trend, then we haven't had a trend of being prey in quite some time. Rogue man-eaters are outliers. However, we have had a trend of increasing ability to kill other animals, not just for a few hundred years, but for several thousand. The arrow, for example, has been around for tens of thousands of years. Then there's spoken language, which gives us significantly more ability to organize and attack other animals. And what about the fact that much of the human race hasn't been in Africa for a long time? We've had "bigger" brains than everyone else for awhile. Like I said, weapons are just an extension of that (other animals have been seen to use tools in the wild-- would you argue that using their brains to obtain food doesn't count toward their place on the food chain, either?) Sure, it's a short time compared to evolution as a whole, but that just counts toward out ability to adapt faster than many other animals. I'd have to agree that there is no single "top of the food chain"-- I think it's more like several "tops" than one, each for its own ecosystem. Although, personally, I'd still say that the parasites that inhabit apex predators are probably at the top of every chain. :)