"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "pearl" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >>
> >> [..]
> >
> >> >> So what? No predator would dare attack a band of hominid
> >> >> warrior-hunters.
> >> >
> >> > Yeah... you're soooo intimidating...
> >>
> >> Not me, a band of hominid hunters. You're damn right they were
> >> intimidating.
> >
> > lol. Early |bi-pedal| hominids stood between 3 to 5 feet tall.
> > Terrifying!
> >
> >> > moreso than large animals with
> >> > teeth that deliver a real bite and sharp kicking power. Those sticks
> >> > you're waving about are sooo scary to *packs* of large predators.
> >> >
> >> > You are living in some fantasy-land scenario, dutch. For real.
> >> >
> >> > Run!
> >>
> >> You're the one living in the fantasy world miss little green men.
> >
> > You can't even get your oh-so-tired ad hominem factually correct.
>
> "Little green men" is just a shorthand for the long list of your ridiculous
> beliefs.

Ipse dixit.

> >> Hominid
> >> hunter bands would NEVER be attacked by any other animal, except other
> >> hominids. Your perception that they were like sheep, weak and vulnerable is
> >> absurd, if they had been we would not be here today. Wild animals attack
> >> vunerable individuals.
> >
> > Like an animal being run to exhaustion? You've got company.....
>
> Huh?

That's right. And you wouldn't make it that far.

> > 'The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus
> > afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today.
> > There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats
> > and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors.
> > Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth
> > and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his
> > social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting
> > them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs."
>
> Of course man would not hunt animals that were too large or dangerous, no
> predator does. Of course hominids were prey,

And your small band running about the countryside were different, how?

> that does not mean they were
> not also predators. Australopithecus afarensis were also apparently quite
> small, and being such an ancient species probably lacked the capabilities of
> later hominids.

What 'capabilities'? And bi-pedalism developed before any hunting.

> I love the supreme arrogance of Sussman in this paragraph,
> "The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human
> evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology
> of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when
> you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is
> just not the case.""
>
> In one broad stroke he accuses the rest of the scientific community of
> basing their findings on religion and speculation, and suggests a novel
> approach, "really examine the fossil.. evidence". What a colossal ego the
> man must possess! *I* am the first archeologist to properly examine fossil
> evidence!

What arrogance yourself. Who are you? What are *your* qualifications?

"We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls,
bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our
hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them."

> > Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were
> > preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks
> > on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium
> > into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation
> > rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys
> > today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well.
> >
> > Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern
> > human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization,
> > developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's
> > ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from
> > trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman.
> >
> > "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without
> > physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact,
> > all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in
> > permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation
> > pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living.
> > In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators
> > and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them
> > by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups
> > is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to
> > being preyed upon."
> >
> > http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011
>
> As you always do, you dig up a tiny minority opnion that fits your bias and
> present it as indisputable fact.

Argumentum ad populum. Another of those fallacies you rely on, ditch.

> >> >> >> > '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.
> >> >
> >> > Where do you get this crap from?
> >>
> >> That's the million dollar question you need to answer.
> >
> > I need to guess what your sources are. Interesting.
>
> Everything below is thoroughly referenced

'beyondveg'... riiight.

> Paleontological evidence shows
> humans have always been omnivores

Also from 'beyondveg':

'Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general
feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that
includes significant amounts of all three types of foods:
fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology
is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed
inappropriate for mammals.'

'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] '

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What kind of "evidence" are we talking about here?

Your point? I have already posted the following repeatedly.

".. while early humans ate some meat, we do not know how much
meat they ate, nor whether they got the meat by hunting or scavenging.
It is not until much later, around 100,000 years ago, that we have good
evidence about human hunting skills, and it is clear that humans then
were still very ineffective big-game hunters. Human hunters of 500,000
years ago and earlier must have been more ineffective. .." - The Rise
and Fall of the Third Chimpazee, Jared Diamond, 1991, pp.33-34

'Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two
million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until
after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and
paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method
of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011

> >> >> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Man does or rather, did use his adaptations, but not as you claim.
> >>
> >> Man developing the ability to hunt with spears is no different than a
> >> lion
> >> developing large teeth and claws. It's the same process of natural
> >> selection, one is not more "natural" than the other. That whole line of
> >> argument is bullshit.
> >
> > Your whole line of argument is demonstrably bullshit. And QED.
>
> The prevailing view of anthropology is demonstrably bullshit. Okey-dokey.

'Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature,
previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose,
body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our
species history and origins. With advances in dating methods,
including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is
now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously,
anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional
views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such
as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even
though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that
their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions"
(The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that
they will persist in making them.

Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a
reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food.
....'
http://tinyurl.com/dahps

> >> >> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> > Yes. it is. <start ad hominem spiel-->>
> >> >
> >> >> 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. <<-- end ad hominem spiel
> >>
> >> > Yep... and I didn't even bother to read it first...
> >>
> >> I have read enough of your crap. It's always the same nonsense.
> >
> > Keep on running, ditch.
>
> I have indulged in some of the same massive pasting that you seem to think
> lends credibility to your ideas. I expect you to ignore it.

You seem to think it lends credibility to your ideas. Think again.

'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives...in-health.html

I expect you to ignore this, as ever.