"Laurie" > wrote in message abs...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > Read this:
> Hi Perl--
> You can't really expect that meatarian propagandists will actually
> READ real science, can you?
> Their motto is: "I have my mind made up; so don't confuse me with the
> facts."
> Their only contribution in ng's is to illustrate the intellectual
> degeneracy created by the consumption of dead, rotting , animal
> corpses. So, they teach by their negative example.
> Wait for noBalls to jump in and illustrate this point; he is my boy.
> Always ready to illustrate the complete lack of intellectual
> development of these silly corpse-suckers.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
> Even the BBC has noted their intellectual defects.
Hi Laurie. Check this out for a "smile", from a past encounter
with this "
" aka ....
From: pearl Thurs, Feb 14 2008
On Feb 14, 2:16 pm, wrote:
> > Now if you please, describe the information that is "twisted" on that
> > page, which is provided with specific and ample references.
>
> "My pleasure. All the cites are from that page..."
>
> 'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
> would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
> not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
> in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
> allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
> "frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
> several other populations, present and past, to feed
> extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
> pp. 696-697]'
>
> Immediately following the paragraph above, billings
> writes:
>
> "The first sentence above, carnivorous adaptation,
> must be understood in context: as a comment on the
> Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It claims that there is
> no major change in gut surface areas as the Expensive
> Tissue Hypothesis suggests. It does not mean there is
> absolutely no adaptation to faunivory [eating of some
> animal foods]: the major adaptation to faunivory in
> humans was previously identified as a reduction in
> size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. [1985]
> and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote does
> not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers."
>
> Let's see (emphasis added #).....
>
> ' The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
> Refinement needed in analytical techniques used in
> earlier study. The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
> provides an extension and analytical refinement of
> Martin et al. [1985].
> ..
> Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:
> ..
> Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations.
> (BV heading)
>
> From MacLarnon et al. [1986, p. 297]:
> ...[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the
> approach using logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3
> and 5) is particularly interesting in that it suggests a
> marked departure of Cebus[Capuchin monkey] and
> Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates
> lacking any special adaptation for folivory ...in the
> direction of faunivorous non-primate mammals....
>
> 5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering
> purposes suggests that Cebus and Homo possess
> gastrointestinal tracts that have become adapted in
> parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with
> notable reduction in size of caecum relative to body
> size. Nevertheless, # because of the artificiality of
> most modern human diets, it cannot be concluded
> with confidence that the small human sample examined
> to date reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular
> kind of diet. The results obtained so far are suggestive
> but by no means conclusive.#
>
> (billings goes on to acknowledge this, and elaborate
>
> Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests,
> but is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human
> GI tract is adapted for the consumption of animal foods.
>
> Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The
> gut dimensions of animals can vary significantly between
> wild and captive animals (of the same species, of course).
> Gut dimensions can change quickly (in captivity or in the
> wild) in response to changes in dietary quality. For
> information on this topic, consult Hladik [1967] as cited
> in Chivers and Hladik [1980]; also the following sources
> cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and Savory [1975]; Gross,
> Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation]; Koong et al.
> [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray, Tulloch,
> and Winter [1977].'
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml
>
> "But he'd said... "It does not mean there is absolutely no
> adaptation to faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the
> major adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
> identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and colon,
> per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]."
> - as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!
>
> So there's some (more) food for thought for you, hari."
>
> Not at all, this but shows you are not familiar with normal scientific
> discourse on complex topics such as this. He makes his points and decribes
> what he thinks its strengths and areas of continuing uncertanity up for
> discussion. What in this is "twisted"? If you were really familiar with
> scientific exchange you would have known this is par for the course.
He lies in an effort to deceive, stupidly. "Birds of a feather....".
83. From: pearl Thu, 14 Feb 2008
...
> > - as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!
Just to drive the point home..
'identify
v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies.
v.tr.
1. To establish the identity of.
2. To ascertain the origin, nature, or definitive
characteristics of.
3. Biology. To determine the taxonomic
classification of (an organism).
4. To consider as identical or united; equate.
...'
http://www.answers.com/identified&r=67
suggest
tr.v., -gest·ed, -gest·ing, -gests.
1. To offer for consideration or action; propose: ..
2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association;
evoke: ..
...
SYNONYMS suggest, imply, hint, intimate, insinuate.
These verbs mean to convey thoughts or ideas by
indirection. Suggest refers to the calling of something
to mind as the result of an association of ideas: ...
...'
http://www.answers.com/suggest
"scientific discourse among scholars." Hah!
84. From: 14 Feb 2008
> If you would like one at a time to take up other individual topics then it
> would be welcome. As to the current point of "twisted" you have but
> illustrated your lack of knowledge and/or experience with typical normal
> scientific discourse among scholars.
Pull the other one. If you won't even acknowledge "a bare-faced lie
because you regard /that/ source as a credible one (it supports what you
want to believe and/or your agenda), what's the point in discussing
anything with you? All you do is spout disgusting smear, and
demonstrate exactly what you accuse others of - picking and choosing to
suit yourself."
Whose lie, mine or the "twisted" author? You mistake being "twisted"
with a conclusion not agreeing with your own dearly held cultural norm.
The author made no attempt to decieve nor mislead nor slant his
discussion because of any cultural norm, he found the evidence based on
his analysis supporting a different conclusion then the one he is
dealing with. The reasons for his analysis and conclusion are there for
all to see step by logical step in an accepted and normal scientific
manner. That is what bypractice and definition adds no support to your
claim of "twisted" in the least.
...
Quibbling about the meaning as used in such scientific discussion of
such terms as "suggestive" will not do. Were you familiar with the
practices of normal scientific discourse, such terms are normal fare.
85. From: pearl Fri, 15 Feb 2008
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
97. From: 15 Feb 2008
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?"
With out doubt
98. From: pearl Fri, 15 Feb 2008
On Feb 15, 8:52 pm, wrote:
> "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> True or False?"
> With out doubt.
What? Is it true or false? It can't be both.
99. From: 15 Feb 2008
> "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> True or False?"
> With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
100. From: pearl Sat, 16 Feb 2008
On Feb 15, 10:45 pm, wrote:
> > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> > True or False?"
> > With out doubt.
> "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
> Correct, without doubt.
What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?
101. From: 16 Feb 2008
> > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> > With out doubt.
> "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
> Correct, without doubt.
"What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
normal english usage.
102. From: pearl Sat, 16 Feb 2008
On Feb 16, 3:07 pm, wrote:
> > > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> > > With out doubt.
> > "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
> > Correct, without doubt.
> "What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
> Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
> normal english usage.
Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.
You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.
Enjoy.
103. From: 16 Feb 2008
> > > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> > > With out doubt.
> > "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
> > Correct, without doubt.
> "What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
> Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
> normal english usage.
"Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.
You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.
Enjoy."
"Irrelevant", was it not you who based an entire critique of a web site
of 240 pages based on the use of two words on one page?
"Credible", was it not you who revealed however unwillingly one's
ignorance of the basic science of human evolution anddietary habits
through time and space as held in mainstream science?
Was it not you who revealed however unwillingly that' one's real talent
lies in picking and choosing returns from a search enjine inquiry that
fits your agenda?
"Enjoy", my pleasure, now you can take your balls and go home, although
I read you in fact have none.
You and anyone can make food choices based on whatever one chooses. But
please don't start with a recieved cultural food preference and pretend
one can work backwards to find human evolutionary justification for it.
Humans eat whatever they can get their hands on, that is why they have
thrived in allplaces on the globe.
Now to really make your day. Going against my own rules not to reveal
personal information, I'm a vegitarian in my food choices.
104. From: pearl Sat, 16 Feb 2008
Local: Sun, Feb 17 2008 1:54 am
On Feb 16, 11:30 pm, wrote:
> > > > "S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
> > > > With out doubt.
> > > "What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
> > > Correct, without doubt.
> > "What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
> > Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
> > normal english usage.
> "Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.
> You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.
> Enjoy."
> "Irrelevant", was it not you who based an entire critique of a web site
> of 240 pages based on the use of two words on one page?
You wanted evidence - you got it, and you couldn't handle it.
> "Credible", was it not you who revealed however unwillingly one's
> ignorance of the basic science of human evolution anddietary habits
> through time and space as held in mainstream science?
I did no such thing. I even explained it to you.
> Was it not you who revealed however unwillingly that' one's real talent
> lies in picking and choosing returns from a search enjine inquiry that
> fits your agenda?
Your standard 'defense' when you can't address the evidence.
> "Enjoy", my pleasure, now you can take your balls and go home, although
> I read you in fact have none.
You're a joke. Caught out good and proper.
> You and anyone can make food choices based on whatever one chooses. But
> please don't start with a recieved cultural food preference and pretend
> one can work backwards to find human evolutionary justification for it.
The proof is in the nutritional research, if nothing else.
> Humans eat whatever they can get their hands on, that is why they have
> thrived in allplaces on the globe.
They've done what they had to to survive.
> Now to really make your day. Going against my own rules not to reveal
> personal information, I'm a vegitarian in my food choices.
Good for you.
http://tinyurl.com/63e2wt
---------------
A "vegitarian" who said "we can enjoy a nice lunch of stir fried beef".
Another flesh-industry propagandist, as if there was ever any doubt.
> Laurie
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science