"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >>
>> >> "pearl" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
>> >> > ...
>> > <..>
>> >> Requesting that a poster snip some of 42kb of included text is hardly
>> >> being
>> >> a control freak.
>> >
>> > Leaving the context intact was warranted.
>>
>> How so? He did not respond to 98% of it. In fact when he did respond all
>> he
>> did was cry "Ad hominem, Ad hominem!"
>
> To show the extent of the evasion and lies, and Paul said more than just
> that.
>
>> >> >> >> >>> 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.
>> >>
>> >> Being able to successfully run down prey (yes, a man can outrun a
>> >> horse)
>> >
>> > No, a man cannot successfully outrun a horse.
>>
>> Yes he can..
>>
>> LOS ANGELES TIMES "When it comes to long-distance running, however, a
>> healthy human jogger can outrun most animals, sustaining a pace of 24km a
>> day or more for extended periods of time."
>
> In the race described below, the horse runs 27km in one hour and 28
> minutes.
>
> Left eating dust. Endurance hunting is acknowledged as unusual and rare.
>
> The way I've seen it done (on a t.v docu') is tracking on the run in
> desert a
> medium-size animal (a Kudu - type of antelope) in the hot mid-day sun, not
> allowing the animal time to rest and recover. Try that on
> predator-inhabited
> grassland, through abundant growth, and it'll be you who attracts
> attention..
So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid warrior-hunters.
>> > 'An American long-distance runner has proved that two legs are
>> > sometimes
>> > faster than four by beating a horse in a 50-mile race in the desert.
>> > ..
>> > The 42-year-old runner completed the race in five hours and 45 minutes.
>> >
>> > ***** Advantage
>> >
>> > He was able to take advantage of rules saying the horse must make
>> > two 40-minute food and water breaks. *****
>> > ...'
>> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/an...00/1804830.stm
>> >
>> > Get within sight in pursuit, and he's *away*!
>>
>> Not if he is surrounded.
>
> You won't get anywhere near, and it'll be you who's probably surrounded.
See above. Man in his element fears no animal.
>> >> then surround and kill it with a spear is all the physical capability
>> >> required. Surviviors can run the longest distance, throw spears the
>> >> most
>> >> accurately, and work well in teams. There was no need to develop
>> >> lion-like
>> >> claws and teeth, therefore it didn't happen. In fact such mutations
>> >> would
>> >> probably be considered unattractive and be selected out.
>> >
>> > So let me get this straight... you are claiming that humans developed
>> > the ability to outrun large animals in distance but not speed and not
>> > the faintest indication of claws and fangs to sieze and then eat them,
>> > nor any other biological adaptation pertaining to carnivorous habits.
>>
>> Endurance is a biological adaptation. Lions developed through natural
>> selection, so did man.
>
> See what you've snipped.
It doesn't matter. There is only one kind of natural selection. Man using
his adaptations is no different than a lion using his.
>> > Lets look at another example:
>>
>> Let's not, since you are an stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic
>> facts.
>
> Since you are the stubborn ass who won't accept the most basic facts.
That's not true. Unlike you I am not unwilling to accept facts that don't
fit an agenda. You have this "animal rights" idea that precludes you from
accepting any facts that don't favour that conclusion, and causes you to
pollute this group with reams of selectively gathered data to support your
bias.