[L'ennemi.]

[ QUOTE ]
This is interesting, because I never expected my views could logically right. It's just the way I instinctively felt. But you make the first attempt to systematically break it down logically. So, let's see where I'm messed up...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a small precision. It was very clear to me that you did not expected your view to be rationnal and that it was just the way you felt, and there certainly nithing wrong with that.
But since you asked if you were wrong in your views, I tried to break it down logically because it made more sense than to argue about your ethics. Your view coul only be wrong if they were in contradiction with your beliefs, not with mine.

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm. I have stated (or meant to state), that I believe humans are the highest order of animal in the evolutionary food chain. Therefore, I see nothing inherently wrong with humans eating whatever animal they choose (that's not human). I suppose the dumber the animal, the better. But humans have won the food chain race. So I don't think I can logically say we can't eat another animal.

[/ QUOTE ]
you're speaking about the food chain race. The basis of the food chain is necessity. Predators eat to survive. Since we are at the top of the food chain we can eat whatever we want, including animals. But the problem is that we don't need to eat animals to survive; We do it because we can, Your justification seems to imply that are justified in killing animals just because we are at the top, not because we can. If it gives us a right of life and death; there notinh wrong about killing cats at Halloween.
Of course all this reasoning is voided if you need to eat an animal to survive.
That's why there is definitely an ethical problem. Either the life or an animal is worthless to us and we can kill him
so our meal tastes better, or his life matters. I guess you could introduc degrees but in matter a life, it could be tricky.