On 11 Jun, 15:36, Laurie > wrote:
> > Dragonblaze wrote:
> > > I'm not evading anything, ...
Evading, and now lying.
I am pointing out that as a human falsely claiming you
are a “omnivore” (without ANY substantiation!), you do not
follow the undeniable pattern for ALL NATURAL “omnivores” –
that of killing, dismembering, and eating RAW your animal prey.
Why don’t you follow your “omnivorous” instincts and
follow the pattern consistent in all the animal kingdom?
You are avoiding this critical issue to protect your
ego and ‘defend’ your cultural conditioning; clearly, this
means we are NOT natural “omnivores”, humans are cultural
omnivores, conditioned to do so by a sick, deranged, culture
that has isolated itself from Nature through the
misapplication of technology -- starting with fire and
tools, in this case.
Of course, if you had any sincere interest in the
issue, you could simply ask your local two-year-old to eat a
mouse or kitten raw, and s/he will explain to you that such
behavior is not right. Now, why, we ask, does a
two-year-old have deeper insight than you?
I’ll answer that one for you, too. The child is
closer in touch with its instincts because its ego has not
been programmed into all those false beliefs that plague,
control, and dominate you, thus preventing you from honest
evaluation of the facts.

Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the
questions.

> Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please -
if you can.
Personal insults are no substitute for fact-based
rational arguments. Does someone really need to tell you that?

> I like raw beef, and consume it quite often.
The question is: do you kill, dismember, and eat your
animal prey raw, with your NATURAL physiological tools? Do
you just chew on an ox’s ass, and tear off and eat a chunk –
like the REAL “Omnivores” do? NO, you hire some one to do
the killing, and you use knives to cut the corpse into tiny
slices.
WHY?? Because you can’t bite off pieces like REAL
“omnivores” do. You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish
one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.

> You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd
rather be an animal than a vegetable like you.
Your false paradigm can not be supported with personal
insults.
In fact, High IQ correlates with being vegetarian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

> We've been that even before we became homo sapiens.
The length of time engaging in this tragedy is
irrelevant; the important issue is did we “adapt” to
omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that
we “adapted” to flesh–eating, in fact the epidemiology
clearly proves that to thinking individuals.
Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by
which ANY species can “adapt” to a diet differing from its
natural one, and you certainly can not present any.

> Evidence for my claim will be presented later on.
There is NO evidence supporting your claims.

> [bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]
ALL my claim are strongly supported by well over 700
citations to the contemporary scientific literature, while
you have NO evidence supporting your cultural propaganda. NONE!
You vulgarity and lack of intellectual functioning are
caused by your bodily toxicity and excess cortisol created
by consuming way too much protein.
http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm

> Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
bogus "research" …
Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults
are all you have, in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, …
One could present well-reasoned counter arguments IF
they could prepare any, but you CAN NOT, so all you can
offer us mindless unsupported propaganda, lies, insults, etc.

> [clueless ranting snipped]
Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?

> You would not know science if it bit you in the rear,
judging from the nonsense you spout.
More insults; notice that NO attempt is ever made to enter
into polite, academic discussion. Why? Because she does
not have the ability.

> … pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
peddle.
IF it were “crackpot” one should be able to refute it
with a few judicious citations, yet you can not refute
anything I say. Insults, in case no one ever told you, are
not refutations.

> Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
when compared to herbivores?
Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT
“herbivores”!
http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm

> EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...
More juvenile insults. Of course one familiar with
the subject matter should be able to present an intelligent
summary, but you can not.

> > You seem to have a great difficulty understanding the
> > profound difference between the verbs: to DO, as in
> > culturally-conditioned behavior, and to BE, as in genetic
> > code and its biochemistry.
> > Humans are CULTURAL omnivores, quite certainly
NOT NATURAL omnivores.
> > Could you really not grasp this concept on your own?
As usual, no response to a critical point; do you
really not comprehend the difference between “do” and “be”?

> I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not
available....
My site, as I have indicated before, constrain well
over 700 citations to the current scientific literature that
fully support my claims.
This, while YOU have ZERO citations. That is really
pathetic.

> … you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
You don’t know what a citation is, and that is why you
missed over 700 citations on my site, or is it just easier
to LIE about that?

> I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.

> Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets,
Meat-eaters have significantly more disease that those on
plant-based diets.
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
There are several hundred studies cited here for you
to ignore like a fool.

>> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
>> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans.
> > ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly
that: raw, plant-based diets. Thus, they would not leave
any evidence of their diets just like chimps, today, do not
leave any evidence of their diets.
Isn’t this obvious?

> You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, …
You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt
to protect your ego from dealing honestly with the facts.

>>> … other primates supplement their diet with meat or
fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that
reason.
We are frugivorous apes, not ‘other’ primates.

> Your faith shields you from reality, just like any other
faith-head.
The reason you generate nothing but lies and insults
is that is all you know.
I am patiently waiting for some attempt to refute
anything I say with fact and logic, but you can not handle
that. You are a fraud, a lying propagandist with no sign of
intellectual ability.

> And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
about to be challenged later.
It’s always “later”.

>> > > to explain how and why your alleged vegans switched
>> > > to a diet including animal ingredients.
> > Well known! I am surprise that you don’t know even
this trivial fact.
> > The foolish migration out of the Tropics into cold
areas
> > that produced NO plant foods (fruits) during winter, and
> > the survival gambit to eat animals, the only thing living
> > locally. Try to review your "archaeological data" in an
> > honest way.

> Chimps still live in the tropics … and both eat
either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
“Meat” is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human
commodity; don’t you know even this?
The lie that “chimps eat flesh” is easily refuted by the facts.
http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm

> You're the one making the claim, so you prove it.
YOU claim human ARE omnivores, yet you can not offer
any science that suggests so. Your claims are unsupported
and fraudulent.

> I have YET to see any valid evidence from you.
There are well over 700 citations n my site; having
serious vision problems in addition to intellectual and
moral ones?

> … if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.
Typical insult to hide the fact that you cannot
support your idiotic claims.

>> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
>> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
>> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
> > And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
> > Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
> > BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
> > Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this
some sort of juvenile joke?
Notice – NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the
intellectually incompetent.

> - and something else I will present later.
Oh yeah – LATER.

> Chimps supplement their diet with animals.
Research indicates that animals are not consumed by
all adults, as they would for nutritional purposes. The
facts indicate that flesh is distributed to some females in
exchange for sexual favors, quite similar to human “dating”.
http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm

> Scavenging freshly-killed carcasses would not be carrion
eating, and well within human tolerance.
Not only does this not make any sense, but the human
has a strong instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don’t believe
it – try eating some road kill that has been ripening in the
sunshine for a couple of days. Let’s see if YOU can eat
putrefying corpses.

> But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out
of all
recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie
creationist would do.
More lies and insults; what a dunce!

> … some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
to find any.
Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have
not seen, or you would not be lying about the lack of citations.

>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge). Start with
>> > > this article:
> > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> > NOT related to natural human diet.
> Okay....
What’s this; recognition of the fact that I am right,
while you are wrong??

> The results suggest that early hominids regularly
exploited relatively open environments …
After humanoids wandered OUT OF THEIR NATIVE ecosystem
into areas that did not produce the tropical fruits that
made up the great majority of their diet, they HAD to change
their diet to a deficient compromise for survival. That did
NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change to
efficiently process the compromised diet. There are NO know
mechanisms whereby any species can change their fundamental
biochemistry to properly handle a diet that is different
than the ‘natural one’.

> M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, …
Anthro-apologist are frauds!
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a

>. What else can I debunk for you today?
Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your
unsupported claim that human “evolved” to eat flesh, why
modern “degenerative diseases” are all linked to flesh-eating?
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
Do a Pubmed search for <meat
the-disease-of-your-choice> and hundreds of references will
appear that show that disease is strongly correlated with
flesh-eating.

> Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
animal ingredients,
No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! The study
correlated the amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in
western studies more flesh correlated with more disease.
Here’s a couple of examples.
http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
http://ecologos.org/meatcan.htm

> … done a critique of Campbell's
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
“problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen …”
“became socially closed-off, and began having occasional
irrational bursts of anger.”
“I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week
that were becoming disabling …”
This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.

> … I'm not interested in China Study.
Of course, it challenges your ego. Disinterest is
simply avoidance.

>Says a committed faith-head. Such irony....
Insults show who you really are. Such absurdity.

Laurie

--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

but you're naturally stupid.



oh, and inept.




OH and stuck at home still making "special" time with dad.

sad, you could have learned about doors... and their knobs that hold the
freedom you so desire.



"Laurie" > wrote in message
abs...
> On 11 Jun, 15:36, Laurie > wrote:
> > > Dragonblaze wrote:
> > > > I'm not evading anything, ...
> Evading, and now lying.
> I am pointing out that as a human falsely claiming you are a
> “omnivore” (without ANY substantiation!), you do not follow the
> undeniable pattern for ALL NATURAL “omnivores” – that of killing,
> dismembering, and eating RAW your animal prey.
> Why don’t you follow your “omnivorous” instincts and follow the
> pattern consistent in all the animal kingdom?
> You are avoiding this critical issue to protect your ego and ‘defend’
> your cultural conditioning; clearly, this means we are NOT natural
> “omnivores”, humans are cultural omnivores, conditioned to do so by a
> sick, deranged, culture that has isolated itself from Nature through the
> misapplication of technology -- starting with fire and tools, in this
> case.
> Of course, if you had any sincere interest in the issue, you could
> simply ask your local two-year-old to eat a mouse or kitten raw, and s/he
> will explain to you that such behavior is not right. Now, why, we ask,
> does a two-year-old have deeper insight than you?
> I’ll answer that one for you, too. The child is closer in touch with
> its instincts because its ego has not been programmed into all those false
> beliefs that plague, control, and dominate you, thus preventing you from
> honest evaluation of the facts.
>
> Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the questions.
>
> > Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please -
> if you can.
> Personal insults are no substitute for fact-based rational arguments.
> Does someone really need to tell you that?
>
> > I like raw beef, and consume it quite often.
> The question is: do you kill, dismember, and eat your animal prey
> raw, with your NATURAL physiological tools? Do you just chew on an ox’s
> ass, and tear off and eat a chunk – like the REAL “Omnivores” do? NO, you
> hire some one to do the killing, and you use knives to cut the corpse into
> tiny slices.
> WHY?? Because you can’t bite off pieces like REAL “omnivores” do.
> You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.
>
> > You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd
> rather be an animal than a vegetable like you.
> Your false paradigm can not be supported with personal insults.
> In fact, High IQ correlates with being vegetarian
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
>
> > We've been that even before we became homo sapiens.
> The length of time engaging in this tragedy is irrelevant; the
> important issue is did we “adapt” to omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
> There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that we “adapted” to
> flesh–eating, in fact the epidemiology clearly proves that to thinking
> individuals.
> Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by which ANY species
> can “adapt” to a diet differing from its natural one, and you certainly
> can not present any.
>
> > Evidence for my claim will be presented later on.
> There is NO evidence supporting your claims.
>
> > [bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]
> ALL my claim are strongly supported by well over 700 citations to the
> contemporary scientific literature, while you have NO evidence supporting
> your cultural propaganda. NONE!
> You vulgarity and lack of intellectual functioning are caused by your
> bodily toxicity and excess cortisol created by consuming way too much
> protein.
> http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm
>
> > Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
> bogus "research" …
> Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults are all you have,
> in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, …
> One could present well-reasoned counter arguments IF they could
> prepare any, but you CAN NOT, so all you can offer us mindless unsupported
> propaganda, lies, insults, etc.
>
> > [clueless ranting snipped]
> Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?
>
> > You would not know science if it bit you in the rear,
> judging from the nonsense you spout.
> More insults; notice that NO attempt is ever made to enter into polite,
> academic discussion. Why? Because she does not have the ability.
>
> > … pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
> peddle.
> IF it were “crackpot” one should be able to refute it with a few
> judicious citations, yet you can not refute anything I say. Insults, in
> case no one ever told you, are not refutations.
>
> > Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
> when compared to herbivores?
> Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT “herbivores”!
> http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
>
> > EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...
> More juvenile insults. Of course one familiar with the subject
> matter should be able to present an intelligent summary, but you can not.
>
> > > You seem to have a great difficulty understanding the
> > > profound difference between the verbs: to DO, as in
> > > culturally-conditioned behavior, and to BE, as in genetic
> > > code and its biochemistry.
> > > Humans are CULTURAL omnivores, quite certainly
> NOT NATURAL omnivores.
> > > Could you really not grasp this concept on your own?
> As usual, no response to a critical point; do you really not
> comprehend the difference between “do” and “be”?
>
> > I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
> seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not available....
> My site, as I have indicated before, constrain well over 700
> citations to the current scientific literature that fully support my
> claims.
> This, while YOU have ZERO citations. That is really pathetic.
>
> > … you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
> present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
> You don’t know what a citation is, and that is why you missed over 700
> citations on my site, or is it just easier to LIE about that?
>
> > I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
> More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.
>
> > Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets,
> Meat-eaters have significantly more disease that those on plant-based
> diets.
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> There are several hundred studies cited here for you to ignore like
> a fool.
>
> >> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
> >> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans.
> > > ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly
> that: raw, plant-based diets. Thus, they would not leave any evidence of
> their diets just like chimps, today, do not leave any evidence of their
> diets.
> Isn’t this obvious?
>
> > You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, …
> You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt to protect your
> ego from dealing honestly with the facts.
>
> >>> … other primates supplement their diet with meat or
> fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that reason.
> We are frugivorous apes, not ‘other’ primates.
>
> > Your faith shields you from reality, just like any other
> faith-head.
> The reason you generate nothing but lies and insults is that is all
> you know.
> I am patiently waiting for some attempt to refute anything I say with
> fact and logic, but you can not handle that. You are a fraud, a lying
> propagandist with no sign of intellectual ability.
>
> > And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
> about to be challenged later.
> It’s always “later”.
>
> >> > > to explain how and why your alleged vegans switched to a diet
> >> > > including animal ingredients.
> > > Well known! I am surprise that you don’t know even
> this trivial fact.
> > > The foolish migration out of the Tropics into cold
> areas
> > > that produced NO plant foods (fruits) during winter, and
> > > the survival gambit to eat animals, the only thing living
> > > locally. Try to review your "archaeological data" in an
> > > honest way.
>
> > Chimps still live in the tropics … and both eat
> either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
> “Meat” is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human commodity; don’t
> you know even this?
> The lie that “chimps eat flesh” is easily refuted by the facts.
> http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
> http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
> http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
> http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
>
> > You're the one making the claim, so you prove it.
> YOU claim human ARE omnivores, yet you can not offer any science that
> suggests so. Your claims are unsupported and fraudulent.
>
> > I have YET to see any valid evidence from you.
> There are well over 700 citations n my site; having serious vision
> problems in addition to intellectual and moral ones?
>
> > … if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.
> Typical insult to hide the fact that you cannot support your idiotic
> claims.
>
> >> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
> >> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
> >> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
> > > And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
> > > Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
> > > BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
> > > Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this
> some sort of juvenile joke?
> Notice – NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the intellectually
> incompetent.
>
> > - and something else I will present later.
> Oh yeah – LATER.
>
> > Chimps supplement their diet with animals.
> Research indicates that animals are not consumed by all adults, as
> they would for nutritional purposes. The facts indicate that flesh is
> distributed to some females in exchange for sexual favors, quite similar
> to human “dating”.
> http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
> http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm
> http://ecologos.org/cbs.htm
> http://ecologos.org/iangilby.htm
>
> > Scavenging freshly-killed carcasses would not be carrion
> eating, and well within human tolerance.
> Not only does this not make any sense, but the human has a strong
> instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don’t believe it – try eating some road
> kill that has been ripening in the sunshine for a couple of days. Let’s
> see if YOU can eat putrefying corpses.
>
> > But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out
> of all
> recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie creationist would do.
> More lies and insults; what a dunce!
>
> > … some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
> to find any.
> Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have not seen, or you
> would not be lying about the lack of citations.
>
> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge). Start with
> >> > > this article:
> > > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> > > NOT related to natural human diet.
> > Okay....
> What’s this; recognition of the fact that I am right, while you are
> wrong??
>
> > The results suggest that early hominids regularly
> exploited relatively open environments …
> After humanoids wandered OUT OF THEIR NATIVE ecosystem into areas
> that did not produce the tropical fruits that made up the great majority
> of their diet, they HAD to change their diet to a deficient compromise for
> survival. That did NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change to
> efficiently process the compromised diet. There are NO know mechanisms
> whereby any species can change their fundamental biochemistry to properly
> handle a diet that is different than the ‘natural one’.
>
> > M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, …
> Anthro-apologist are frauds!
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a
>
> >. What else can I debunk for you today?
> Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your unsupported claim
> that human “evolved” to eat flesh, why modern “degenerative diseases” are
> all linked to flesh-eating?
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> Do a Pubmed search for <meat the-disease-of-your-choice> and hundreds
> of references will appear that show that disease is strongly correlated
> with flesh-eating.
>
> > Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
> animal ingredients,
> No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! The study correlated the
> amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in western studies more flesh
> correlated with more disease.
> Here’s a couple of examples.
> http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
> http://ecologos.org/meatcan.htm
>
> > … done a critique of Campbell's
> http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
> “problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen …”
> “became socially closed-off, and began having occasional irrational bursts
> of anger.”
> “I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week that were
> becoming disabling …”
> This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.
>
> > … I'm not interested in China Study.
> Of course, it challenges your ego. Disinterest is simply avoidance.
>
> >Says a committed faith-head. Such irony....
> Insults show who you really are. Such absurdity.
>
> Laurie
>
> --
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
> http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science

On 17 Jun, 15:52, Laurie > wrote:

Who's lying here? How about a little netkook who snipped all my
references to PROPER scientific sources? Don't worry, hun, my posts
are archived, and can be restored.

I'm also aware that you had to start a new thread to evade my evidence
and questions - and you won't get away just THAT easily. Let's reveal
you just how dishonest you are.

[boring and erroneous rant snipped]

> Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the
> questions.

Take your own advice - and don't delete the ones you have problems
with. Such as, how come my partner does not get colds and I do, while
we both have the SAME diet? You snipped that without even indicating a
snip. Now answer it.

> > Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please -
> if you can.
> Personal insults are no substitute for fact-based
> rational arguments. Does someone really need to tell you that?

Just using your own techniques....

> > I like raw beef, and consume it quite often.
> The question is: do you kill, dismember, and eat your
> animal prey raw, with your NATURAL physiological tools? Do
> you just chew on an ox’s ass, and tear off and eat a chunk –
> like the REAL “Omnivores” do? NO, you hire some one to do
> the killing, and you use knives to cut the corpse into tiny
> slices.
> WHY?? Because you can’t bite off pieces like REAL
> “omnivores” do. You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish
> one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.

How many times do I have to explain to you that since we developed
tools and fire we do not need to? Most people - raw food freaks
excluded - do prefer their food cooked, vegans included.

> > You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd
> rather be an animal than a vegetable like you.
> Your false paradigm can not be supported with personal
> insults.
> In fact, High IQ correlates with being vegetarian
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

Not in your case, obviously.

> > We've been that even before we became homo sapiens.
> The length of time engaging in this tragedy is
> irrelevant; the important issue is did we “adapt” to
> omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
> There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that
> we “adapted” to flesh–eating, in fact the epidemiology
> clearly proves that to thinking individuals.
> Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by
> which ANY species can “adapt” to a diet differing from its
> natural one, and you certainly can not present any.
>
> > Evidence for my claim will be presented later on.
> There is NO evidence supporting your claims.

Don't you forget about them australopithecines....

> > [bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]
> ALL my claim are strongly supported by well over 700
> citations to the contemporary scientific literature, while
> you have NO evidence supporting your cultural propaganda. NONE!

What did I really say? Let's restore it...

"And that was mentioned in response to another of your
"scientifically backed facts" (not that I've seen you post one yet)
where you claimed meat has no flavour of its own."

Care to scientifically back that claim?

And "Let's see them then - some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you
manage
to find any. All I've seen so far are either from encyclopedias - and
had you ever attended university, you would have been told in your
freshman year that they are not a scientific source - or from
uncredited sources."

So, could I see some peer-reviewed sources you use to back your
claims?

> You vulgarity and lack of intellectual functioning are
> caused by your bodily toxicity and excess cortisol created
> by consuming way too much protein.http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm

LMAO! Look who is talking! If you've read my profile, you'll find that
I don't suffer fools gladly. Especially not belligerent evangelistical
vegans. As for my intellectual functions, well, you have your opinion
- even though it is minority of one.

> > Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
> bogus "research" …
> Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults
> are all you have, in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, …
> One could present well-reasoned counter arguments IF
> they could prepare any, but you CAN NOT, so all you can
> offer us mindless unsupported propaganda, lies, insults, etc.

Restoring again... "I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus
"study". Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets, and
thrive on it. Thing is, dearie, we spread all over the globe happily
munching animal diet on the way. I guess you are really clueless as
regards natural selection and what the consquences would be if your
unbacked claims really were true."

> > [clueless ranting snipped]
> Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?

I won't spend my time dealing with irrational ranting.

> > You would not know science if it bit you in the rear,
> judging from the nonsense you spout.
> More insults; notice that NO attempt is ever made to enter
> into polite, academic discussion. Why? Because she does
> not have the ability.

She actually does - and I do have an academic background - but
remember, hun, you started the insults, and my nym actually is fair
clue of what to expect when you annoy me. "A truly wise man never
starts a flame war with a dragon."

> > … pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
> peddle.
> IF it were “crackpot” one should be able to refute it
> with a few judicious citations, yet you can not refute
> anything I say. Insults, in case no one ever told you, are
> not refutations.

Restoring what you failed to address:

"That is clearly an unwarranted assumption. When he says "very
likely"
that means he has NOT actually researched the issue, but is guessing
instead.

I have also noticed how China Study has failed to make any impact on
the scientific community. I have yet to see it cited in any serious
scientific journal. In fact, China Study has basically been
completely
abandoned by the scientific community because it contained data
gathering error, inadequate statistical review, and outright
falsehood
and it isn't peer reviewed That you imagine it to be scientific, is
no
problem of mine, of course."

I HAVE done so, only to have some dishonest bint to snip all my
refutations. Here's one example of your erroneous claims, my
refutation, and your deletion without indication:

" Filthy living conditions, sewage running through the city
> streets, unrefrigerated meat, putrefying dairy, ... are you
> simply IGNORING the important environmental factors involved
> to support a false belief?

Who's avoiding now, eh? You claimed flu-like symptoms are really
"natural detox" - don't remember you saying anything about
environment.

Besides, USA of the 1919 does NOT, repeat NOT qualify - and neither
does England. You're describing conditions that were gone from the
major urban areas of the industrial world by 1919, so try again.

And why just then and not, say 1859, when at least some of those
conditions were still present, and people had flu epidemics, just not
from such a virulent strain?

YOU are ignoring what the environment of 1919-20 really was in let's
say New York, which had 33,000 dead from it. Go do some research
about
just how much sewage they had on the streets..."

> > Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
> when compared to herbivores?
> Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT
> “herbivores”!http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm

Chimps eat meat too - as macagues eat fish.

> > EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...
> More juvenile insults. Of course one familiar with
> the subject matter should be able to present an intelligent
> summary, but you can not.

Give it a go then - see if you can.

[snip]

>
> > I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
> seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not
> available....
> My site, as I have indicated before, constrain well
> over 700 citations to the current scientific literature that
> fully support my claims.
> This, while YOU have ZERO citations. That is really
> pathetic.

Only because some dishonest bint snipped them.

"Dental Evidence for the Diet of Australopithecus

R F Kay *

"Gracile Australopithecus,. being carnivorous in part, had less need
for large grinding teeth."


Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 14: 315-341 (Volume publication date October 1985) " IS a peer-
reviewed citation - something you have yet to produce.

> > … you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
> present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
> You don’t know what a citation is, and that is why you
> missed over 700 citations on my site, or is it just easier
> to LIE about that?

The ones I saw were either uncredited of from encyclopedias. NEITHER
is acceptable as a scientific citation.

> > I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
> More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.

IT's plain the China Study is flawed, see what you snipped.

> > Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets,
> Meat-eaters have significantly more disease that those on
> plant-based diets.http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> There are several hundred studies cited here for you
> to ignore like a fool.

Cite ONE from a peer-reviewed source.

> >> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
> >> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans.
> > > ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly
> that: raw, plant-based diets. Thus, they would not leave
> any evidence of their diets just like chimps, today, do not
> leave any evidence of their diets.
> Isn’t this obvious?

Nope - there was news about chimp archaeology just a few days ago.

> > You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, …
> You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt
> to protect your ego from dealing honestly with the facts.

Anyone who uses as dubious sources as you does not deal honestly with
facts.

> >>> … other primates supplement their diet with meat or
> fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that
> reason.
> We are frugivorous apes, not ‘other’ primates.

Chimps - who eat meat - are 98% genetically matched to us.

> > Your faith shields you from reality, just like any other
> faith-head.
> The reason you generate nothing but lies and insults
> is that is all you know.
> I am patiently waiting for some attempt to refute
> anything I say with fact and logic, but you can not handle
> that. You are a fraud, a lying propagandist with no sign of
> intellectual ability.

Says a faith-head with no skills in evaluating sources - and a
tendency to avoid ANY facts that contradict their beliefs.

> > And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
> about to be challenged later.
> It’s always “later”.

IF you hadn't snipped the bit about the australopithecines, that was
the 'later.' But when research does not back Laurie's opinions, Laurie
snips.

[snip]

> > Chimps still live in the tropics … and both eat
> either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
> “Meat” is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human
> commodity; don’t you know even this?

Meat is animal flesh, that is why lions etc are called carnivores
(literally meat-eaters). Don't you know even THAT?

> The lie that “chimps eat flesh” is easily refuted by the facts.http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets...g/iangilby.htm

Saw it. Am not impressed. It does not change the fact that chimps kill
monkeys and eat their meat.

[snip]
.
>
> > I have YET to see any valid evidence from you.
> There are well over 700 citations n my site; having
> serious vision problems in addition to intellectual and
> moral ones?

Having serious problem with uncredited or non-scientific sources.

> > … if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.
> Typical insult to hide the fact that you cannot
> support your idiotic claims.
>
> >> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
> >> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
> >> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
> > > And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
> > > Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
> > > BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
> > > Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this
> some sort of juvenile joke?
> Notice – NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the
> intellectually incompetent.

Pot. Kettle. Black

[snip]

> *> Scavenging freshly-killed carcasses would not be carrion
> eating, and well within human tolerance.
> * * * Not only does this not make any sense, but the human
> has a strong instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don’t believe
> it – try eating some road kill that has been ripening in the
> sunshine for a couple of days. *Let’s see if YOU can eat
> putrefying corpses.

What part of 'freshly-killed' did you fail to understand?

> *> But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out
> of all
> recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie
> creationist would do.
> * * * More lies and insults; what a dunce!
>
> *> … some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
> to find any.
> * * * Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have
> not seen, or you would not be lying about the lack of citations.

I said PEER-REVIEWED, not some e-mail or encyclopedia article.

> *>> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge). Start with
> *>> > > this article:
> *> > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> *> > NOT related to natural human diet.
> *> Okay....
> * * * What’s this; recognition of the fact that I am right,
> while you are wrong??
>
> *> The results suggest that early hominids regularly
> exploited relatively open environments …
> * * * After humanoids wandered OUT OF THEIR NATIVE ecosystem
> into areas that did not produce the tropical fruits that
> made up the great majority of their diet, they HAD to change
> their diet to a deficient compromise for survival. *That did
> NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change *to
> efficiently process the compromised diet. *There are NO know
> mechanisms whereby any species can change their fundamental
> biochemistry to properly handle a diet that is different
> than the ‘natural one’.
>
> *> M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, …
> * * * Anthro-apologist are frauds!http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a

Of couuurse they are - when their research does not support our lil'
Laurie's ideas./sarcasm off/

> *>. What else can I debunk for you today?
> * * * Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your
> unsupported claim that human “evolved” to eat flesh, why
> modern “degenerative diseases” are all linked to flesh-eating?http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> * * * Do a Pubmed search for <meat
> the-disease-of-your-choice> and hundreds of references will
> appear that show that disease is strongly correlated with
> flesh-eating.

Typical statistical fallacy, as I have already explained - and you
dishonestly snipped.

"Most of the wild animals die too young to manifest any such
[degenerative] diseases.
You can, however, see them in family pets, which have much longer
lifespans than wild animals. The same fallacy has been employed by
food faddists before you, but it is simply not true. They tended to
cite India, which is largely vegetarian, as relatively free from such
diseases - but when you see what the life expectancy and the average
age of death was, the real reason becomes apparent.

We also do quite a few "unnatural" other things, like build houses,
wear clothes or use computers. Do you make a nest in the trees each
night, as that would be "natural" for your vegan species?"

> *> Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
> animal ingredients,
> * * * No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! *The study
> correlated the amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in
> western studies more flesh correlated with more disease.
> * * Here’s a couple of examples.http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death...rg/meatcan.htm
>
> *> … done a critique of Campbell'shttp://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
> “problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen …”
> “became socially closed-off, and began having occasional
> irrational bursts of anger.”
> “I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week
> that were becoming disabling …”
> * * * This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.

Only because he does not agree with you.... As usual.

> *> … I'm not interested in China Study.
> * * * Of course, it challenges your ego. *Disinterest is
> simply avoidance.

Dishonest snipping again. The real one was: "I also am not interested
in Flat-Earth arguments, geocentricity, ID
and other such nonsense for exactly the same reasons I'm not
interested in China Study."

Dragonblaze

must be the kook's love child.



"Dragonblaze" > wrote in message
...
On 17 Jun, 15:52, Laurie > wrote:

Who's lying here? How about a little netkook who snipped all my
references to PROPER scientific sources? Don't worry, hun, my posts
are archived, and can be restored.

I'm also aware that you had to start a new thread to evade my evidence
and questions - and you won't get away just THAT easily. Let's reveal
you just how dishonest you are.

[boring and erroneous rant snipped]

> Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the
> questions.

Take your own advice - and don't delete the ones you have problems
with. Such as, how come my partner does not get colds and I do, while
we both have the SAME diet? You snipped that without even indicating a
snip. Now answer it.

> > Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please -
> if you can.
> Personal insults are no substitute for fact-based
> rational arguments. Does someone really need to tell you that?

Just using your own techniques....

> > I like raw beef, and consume it quite often.
> The question is: do you kill, dismember, and eat your
> animal prey raw, with your NATURAL physiological tools? Do
> you just chew on an ox’s ass, and tear off and eat a chunk –
> like the REAL “Omnivores” do? NO, you hire some one to do
> the killing, and you use knives to cut the corpse into tiny
> slices.
> WHY?? Because you can’t bite off pieces like REAL
> “omnivores” do. You are a fraudulent omnivore, a toolish
> one, a cultural-zombie omnivore.

How many times do I have to explain to you that since we developed
tools and fire we do not need to? Most people - raw food freaks
excluded - do prefer their food cooked, vegans included.

> > You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd
> rather be an animal than a vegetable like you.
> Your false paradigm can not be supported with personal
> insults.
> In fact, High IQ correlates with being vegetarian
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm

Not in your case, obviously.

> > We've been that even before we became homo sapiens.
> The length of time engaging in this tragedy is
> irrelevant; the important issue is did we “adapt” to
> omnivorism, or is it merely cultural?
> There is not one scrap of data that even suggests that
> we “adapted” to flesh–eating, in fact the epidemiology
> clearly proves that to thinking individuals.
> Further, there in not one demonstrated mechanism by
> which ANY species can “adapt” to a diet differing from its
> natural one, and you certainly can not present any.
>
> > Evidence for my claim will be presented later on.
> There is NO evidence supporting your claims.

Don't you forget about them australopithecines....

> > [bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]
> ALL my claim are strongly supported by well over 700
> citations to the contemporary scientific literature, while
> you have NO evidence supporting your cultural propaganda. NONE!

What did I really say? Let's restore it...

"And that was mentioned in response to another of your
"scientifically backed facts" (not that I've seen you post one yet)
where you claimed meat has no flavour of its own."

Care to scientifically back that claim?

And "Let's see them then - some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you
manage
to find any. All I've seen so far are either from encyclopedias - and
had you ever attended university, you would have been told in your
freshman year that they are not a scientific source - or from
uncredited sources."

So, could I see some peer-reviewed sources you use to back your
claims?

> You vulgarity and lack of intellectual functioning are
> caused by your bodily toxicity and excess cortisol created
> by consuming way too much protein.http://ecologos.org/anxiety.htm

LMAO! Look who is talking! If you've read my profile, you'll find that
I don't suffer fools gladly. Especially not belligerent evangelistical
vegans. As for my intellectual functions, well, you have your opinion
- even though it is minority of one.

> > Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with
> bogus "research" …
> Once again, insults instead of reasoned debate. Insults
> are all you have, in addition to lies, obfuscations, evasion, …
> One could present well-reasoned counter arguments IF
> they could prepare any, but you CAN NOT, so all you can
> offer us mindless unsupported propaganda, lies, insults, etc.

Restoring again... "I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus
"study". Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets, and
thrive on it. Thing is, dearie, we spread all over the globe happily
munching animal diet on the way. I guess you are really clueless as
regards natural selection and what the consquences would be if your
unbacked claims really were true."

> > [clueless ranting snipped]
> Nothing intelligent to say; just juvenile insults?

I won't spend my time dealing with irrational ranting.

> > You would not know science if it bit you in the rear,
> judging from the nonsense you spout.
> More insults; notice that NO attempt is ever made to enter
> into polite, academic discussion. Why? Because she does
> not have the ability.

She actually does - and I do have an academic background - but
remember, hun, you started the insults, and my nym actually is fair
clue of what to expect when you annoy me. "A truly wise man never
starts a flame war with a dragon."

> > … pathetic crackpot propaganda one such as the one you
> peddle.
> IF it were “crackpot” one should be able to refute it
> with a few judicious citations, yet you can not refute
> anything I say. Insults, in case no one ever told you, are
> not refutations.

Restoring what you failed to address:

"That is clearly an unwarranted assumption. When he says "very
likely"
that means he has NOT actually researched the issue, but is guessing
instead.

I have also noticed how China Study has failed to make any impact on
the scientific community. I have yet to see it cited in any serious
scientific journal. In fact, China Study has basically been
completely
abandoned by the scientific community because it contained data
gathering error, inadequate statistical review, and outright
falsehood
and it isn't peer reviewed That you imagine it to be scientific, is
no
problem of mine, of course."

I HAVE done so, only to have some dishonest bint to snip all my
refutations. Here's one example of your erroneous claims, my
refutation, and your deletion without indication:

" Filthy living conditions, sewage running through the city
> streets, unrefrigerated meat, putrefying dairy, ... are you
> simply IGNORING the important environmental factors involved
> to support a false belief?

Who's avoiding now, eh? You claimed flu-like symptoms are really
"natural detox" - don't remember you saying anything about
environment.

Besides, USA of the 1919 does NOT, repeat NOT qualify - and neither
does England. You're describing conditions that were gone from the
major urban areas of the industrial world by 1919, so try again.

And why just then and not, say 1859, when at least some of those
conditions were still present, and people had flu epidemics, just not
from such a virulent strain?

YOU are ignoring what the environment of 1919-20 really was in let's
say New York, which had 33,000 dead from it. Go do some research
about
just how much sewage they had on the streets..."

> > Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel
> when compared to herbivores?
> Irrelevant, human are frugivorous apes, certainly NOT
> “herbivores”!http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm

Chimps eat meat too - as macagues eat fish.

> > EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...
> More juvenile insults. Of course one familiar with
> the subject matter should be able to present an intelligent
> summary, but you can not.

Give it a go then - see if you can.

[snip]

>
> > I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
> seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not
> available....
> My site, as I have indicated before, constrain well
> over 700 citations to the current scientific literature that
> fully support my claims.
> This, while YOU have ZERO citations. That is really
> pathetic.

Only because some dishonest bint snipped them.

"Dental Evidence for the Diet of Australopithecus

R F Kay *

"Gracile Australopithecus,. being carnivorous in part, had less need
for large grinding teeth."


Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 14: 315-341 (Volume publication date October 1985) " IS a peer-
reviewed citation - something you have yet to produce.

> > … you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to
> present ANY valid evidence to back your claims.
> You don’t know what a citation is, and that is why you
> missed over 700 citations on my site, or is it just easier
> to LIE about that?

The ones I saw were either uncredited of from encyclopedias. NEITHER
is acceptable as a scientific citation.

> > I'm not interested in some faith-based bogus "study".
> More insults in the service of avoiding the issues.

IT's plain the China Study is flawed, see what you snipped.

> > Humans seem to be bloody healthy on animal-based diets,
> Meat-eaters have significantly more disease that those on
> plant-based diets.http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> There are several hundred studies cited here for you
> to ignore like a fool.

Cite ONE from a peer-reviewed source.

> >> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
> >> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans.
> > > ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly
> that: raw, plant-based diets. Thus, they would not leave
> any evidence of their diets just like chimps, today, do not
> leave any evidence of their diets.
> Isn’t this obvious?

Nope - there was news about chimp archaeology just a few days ago.

> > You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, …
> You are lying, and that is a pathetic way to attempt
> to protect your ego from dealing honestly with the facts.

Anyone who uses as dubious sources as you does not deal honestly with
facts.

> >>> … other primates supplement their diet with meat or
> fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that
> reason.
> We are frugivorous apes, not ‘other’ primates.

Chimps - who eat meat - are 98% genetically matched to us.

> > Your faith shields you from reality, just like any other
> faith-head.
> The reason you generate nothing but lies and insults
> is that is all you know.
> I am patiently waiting for some attempt to refute
> anything I say with fact and logic, but you can not handle
> that. You are a fraud, a lying propagandist with no sign of
> intellectual ability.

Says a faith-head with no skills in evaluating sources - and a
tendency to avoid ANY facts that contradict their beliefs.

> > And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is
> about to be challenged later.
> It’s always “later”.

IF you hadn't snipped the bit about the australopithecines, that was
the 'later.' But when research does not back Laurie's opinions, Laurie
snips.

[snip]

> > Chimps still live in the tropics … and both eat
> either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.
> “Meat” is a butchered, trimmed, and packaged human
> commodity; don’t you know even this?

Meat is animal flesh, that is why lions etc are called carnivores
(literally meat-eaters). Don't you know even THAT?

> The lie that “chimps eat flesh” is easily refuted by the
> facts.http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets...g/iangilby.htm

Saw it. Am not impressed. It does not change the fact that chimps kill
monkeys and eat their meat.

[snip]
..
>
> > I have YET to see any valid evidence from you.
> There are well over 700 citations n my site; having
> serious vision problems in addition to intellectual and
> moral ones?

Having serious problem with uncredited or non-scientific sources.

> > … if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.
> Typical insult to hide the fact that you cannot
> support your idiotic claims.
>
> >> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
> >> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
> >> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
> > > And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
> > > Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
> > > BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
> > > Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this
> some sort of juvenile joke?
> Notice – NO ANSWER. Evasion is the last refuge of the
> intellectually incompetent.

Pot. Kettle. Black

[snip]

> > Scavenging freshly-killed carcasses would not be carrion
> eating, and well within human tolerance.
> Not only does this not make any sense, but the human
> has a strong instinct to avoid rotting flesh; don’t believe
> it – try eating some road kill that has been ripening in the
> sunshine for a couple of days. Let’s see if YOU can eat
> putrefying corpses.

What part of 'freshly-killed' did you fail to understand?

> > But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out
> of all
> recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie
> creationist would do.
> More lies and insults; what a dunce!
>
> > … some peer-reviewed would be nice, if you manage
> to find any.
> Well over 700 on my site, which apparently you have
> not seen, or you would not be lying about the lack of citations.

I said PEER-REVIEWED, not some e-mail or encyclopedia article.

> >> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge). Start with
> >> > > this article:
> > > Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
> > > NOT related to natural human diet.
> > Okay....
> What’s this; recognition of the fact that I am right,
> while you are wrong??
>
> > The results suggest that early hominids regularly
> exploited relatively open environments …
> After humanoids wandered OUT OF THEIR NATIVE ecosystem
> into areas that did not produce the tropical fruits that
> made up the great majority of their diet, they HAD to change
> their diet to a deficient compromise for survival. That did
> NOT cause their digestive biochemistry to change to
> efficiently process the compromised diet. There are NO know
> mechanisms whereby any species can change their fundamental
> biochemistry to properly handle a diet that is different
> than the ‘natural one’.
>
> > M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, …
> Anthro-apologist are frauds!http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a

Of couuurse they are - when their research does not support our lil'
Laurie's ideas./sarcasm off/

> >. What else can I debunk for you today?
> Perhaps you can explain, in the context of your
> unsupported claim that human “evolved” to eat flesh, why
> modern “degenerative diseases” are all linked to
> flesh-eating?http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat
> Do a Pubmed search for <meat
> the-disease-of-your-choice> and hundreds of references will
> appear that show that disease is strongly correlated with
> flesh-eating.

Typical statistical fallacy, as I have already explained - and you
dishonestly snipped.

"Most of the wild animals die too young to manifest any such
[degenerative] diseases.
You can, however, see them in family pets, which have much longer
lifespans than wild animals. The same fallacy has been employed by
food faddists before you, but it is simply not true. They tended to
cite India, which is largely vegetarian, as relatively free from such
diseases - but when you see what the life expectancy and the average
age of death was, the real reason becomes apparent.

We also do quite a few "unnatural" other things, like build houses,
wear clothes or use computers. Do you make a nest in the trees each
night, as that would be "natural" for your vegan species?"

> > Far from being vegan, the average Chinese diet is full of
> animal ingredients,
> No one claimed the Chinese diet was vegan! The study
> correlated the amount of flesh eaten with disease, and as in
> western studies more flesh correlated with more disease.
> Here’s a couple of
> examples.http://ecologos.org/meat-heart-death...rg/meatcan.htm
>
> > … done a critique of
> > Campbell'shttp://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
> “problems that I had with anxiety since I was an early teen …”
> “became socially closed-off, and began having occasional
> irrational bursts of anger.”
> “I began having several full-blown panic attacks per week
> that were becoming disabling …”
> This guy was a psychological basket-case from the outset.

Only because he does not agree with you.... As usual.

> > … I'm not interested in China Study.
> Of course, it challenges your ego. Disinterest is
> simply avoidance.

Dishonest snipping again. The real one was: "I also am not interested
in Flat-Earth arguments, geocentricity, ID
and other such nonsense for exactly the same reasons I'm not
interested in China Study."

Dragonblaze