"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
>
> >> >>>> Crikey mate, learn to snip will you?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Looked like it ain't wanted here.
> >
> > You're absolutely right, Paul, it wasn't.
>
> As the great "paster/waster of bandwidth" I know you believe that no amount
> of repetition of the same old same old is excessive as long as it's your
> drum that's getting beaten, but usenet protocol says that one should include
> the minimum amount necessary to provide context for your comments.

As the great complainer about "control freaks", you need to reel your head in.

> >> >>> But I will
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you, and I take issue with your accusation of
> >> >> "Argumentum ad Hominem".
> >
> > The quote:
> >
> > In The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg observes:
> > "Man is neither a hunter nor a killer. Carnivorous animals are
> > provided with teeth and claws with which to seize, rend, and
> > devour their prey. Man possesses no such instruments of
> > destruction and is less well qualified for hunting than is a horse
> > or a buffalo. When a man goes hunting, he must take a dog
> > along to find the game for him, and must carry a gun with which
> > to kill his victim after it has been found. Nature has not equipped
> > him for hunting."
> >
> > What part of that can you refute?
>
> All of it.

All you've said is that man can outrun large animals (haw) and use tools.

> > You can't negate any part of it;
> > therefore, like you, your colleague resorts to attacking the person.
>
> Nature, meaning natural selection, equipped man ideally for hunting of game,

Why are you so bad at it, then.

'It has long been held that big game hunting is THE key development
in human evolutionary history, facilitating the appearance of patterns
in reproduction, social organization, and life history fundamental to
the modern human condition. Though this view has been challenged
strongly in recent years, it persists as the conventional wisdom, largely
for lack of a plausible alternative. Recent research on women's time
allocation and food sharing among tropical hunter-gatherers now
provides the basis for such an alternative.

The problem with big game hunting

The appeal of big game hunting as an important evolutionary force
lies in the common assumption that hunting and related paternal
provisioning are essential to child rearing among human foragers:
mother is seen as unable to bear, feed and raise children on her
own; hence relies on husband/father for critical nutritional support,
especially in the form of meat. This makes dating the first
appearance of this pattern the fundamental problem in human
origins research. The common association between stone tools
and the bones of large animals at sites of Pleistocene age suggests
to many that it may be quite old, possibly originating with Homo
erectus nearly two million years ago (e.g. Gowlett 1993).

Despite its widespread acceptance, there are good reasons to be
skeptical about the underlying assumption. Most important is the
observation that big game hunting is actually a poor way to support
a family. Among the Tanzanian Hadza, for example, men armed
with bows and poisoned arrows operating in a game-rich habitat
acquire large animal prey only about once every thirty hunter-days,
not nearly often enough to feed their children effectively. They
could do better as provisioners by taking small game or plant
foods, yet choose not to, which suggests that big game hunting
serves some other purpose unrelated to offspring survivorship
(Hawkes et al. 1991). Whatever it is, reliable support for children
must come from elsewhere.

The importance of women's foraging and food sharing

Recent research on Hadza time allocation and foraging returns
shows that at least among these low latitude foragers, women's
gathering is the source (Hawkes et al. 1997). The most difficult
time of the year for the Hadza is the dry season, when foods
younger children can procure for themselves are unavailable.
Mothers respond by provisioning youngsters with foods they
themselves can procure daily and at relatively high rates, but that
their children cannot, largely because of handling requirements.
Tubers, which require substantial upper body strength and
endurance to collect and the ability to control fire in processing,
are a good example.

Provisioning of this sort has at least two important implications:
1) it allows the Hadza to operate in times and places where they
otherwise could not if, as among other primates, weaned offspring
were responsible for feeding themselves; 2) it lets another adult
assist in the process allowing mother to turn her attention to the
next pregnancy that much sooner. Quantitative data on time
allocation, foraging returns, and changes in children's nutritional
status indicate that, among the Hadza, that other adult is typically
grandmother. Senior Hadza women forage long hours every day,
enjoy high returns for effort, and provision their grandchildren
effectively, especially when their daughters are nursing new
infants (Hawkes et al. 1989, 1997). Their support is crucial to
both daughters' fecundity and grandchildren's survivorship,
with important implications for grandmothers' own fitness.
....
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes.../oconnell.html

> he gave him supreme intelligence to outwit his prey and the ability to
> invent and use weapons and tools. The successful homo sapiens was a long
> distance runner, able to outlast any large animal. While an animal such as a
> lion was adapting by selection to have larger teeth, strong shoulders and
> jaws, to be fleet of foot to overtake prey in short wind-sprints, man was
> developing his own strengths.

Being able to run (away) and make tools, doesn't make us a natural predator,
just as flying in airplanes doesn't make us birds, and scuba-diving doesn't
make us fish. The 'supreme intelligence' (rotfl) is from outwitting predators.

> The most adaptable, intelligent and cunning
> survived. Developing large teeth and claws would never have evolved in man
> because it was not one of the requirements of the successful homo sapiens.

I expect that you agree with this:

"The beast of prey is the highest form of active life, ... It represents a mode
of living which requires the extreme degree of the necessity of fighting,
conquering, annihilating, self-assertion. The human race ranks highly because
it belongs to the class of beasts of prey. Therefore we find in man the tactics
of life proper to a bold, cunning beast of prey. He lives engaged in aggression,
killing, annihilation. He wants to be master in as much as he exists."
- Nazi philosopher Oswald Spengler in 1931

> <snip usual nonsense>

Yes, dutch, you are without doubt The Grand Master of snipping.