crisology wrote:
> ... very very misleading without anatomical adaptations that would
> allow humans to digest meat ...
Whoops!!
HINT: digestion is a biochemical process, NOT an "anatomical" one.
This is baby biochemistry, please try reading a bit, and limit posts to
a.f.v.s to scientifically-credible content.

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

wrote:

> ... humans of various species ...
Various species? "Species" refers to populations that can NOT
interbreed.
Are you REALLY claiming that these alleged, but not identified,
populations could NOT interbreed; and how you know this. Provide
credible citations, or politely withdraw your assertions.

> ... diet of our closest biological cousins the chimps shows them
> eating everything in their environment also. Their tropical rain
> forest provides mostly plant foods for them but they do not
> hesitate to eat what few insects and small animals they can catch
> even if a smaller part of the diet.
There is NO evidence that all adult chimps consume flesh on a
regular, i.e.,
nutritional basis. The evidence indicates that flesh is used by -some-
adult males to exchange for sexual favors, much like human "dating".
The evidence also indicates that the flesh is NOT swallowed, but
merely chewed with a wad of leaves to extract the salty, sweet
juices. IF it is not swallowed, it is NOT consumed or digested, thus NO
nutritional value.
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

Try familiarizing yourself with the facts before posting to a.f.v.s.

> They are a better analogy then fruit eating not closely related
> plant only species from the distant past.
Gibberish.

> Even then humans and apes took seperate evolutionary paths 6
> million years ago ...
Separate??
HOW do you explain the FACT that chimp and human genetic codes are a
tiny 1.6% different? By being willfully ignorant of these facts?
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/primegendist.html

> ... and humans unlike apes can and do inhabit all parts of the
> globe eating anything
Humans, by abandoning our tropical niche also
abandoned our natural diet to their collective destruction.

There is a profound difference between the verbs "to do" and "to be".
Humans can make self-destructive decisions based on cultural
programming and profound ignorance. Wild animals, however, can not
make errors. HINT: no volition, they operate on instincts, humans do not.
The current "degenerates disease" statistics caused by
consumption of animal corpses is clear evidence of this.

TCCampbell; The China Study
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
video
http://tinyurl.com/6lcda6

Either make a sincere effort to present credible scientific citations
that support your posts, OR preferably, leave a.f.v.s.

Laurie Forti
Moderator a.f.v.s
--
Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human diets:
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html
news:alt.food.vegan.science

wrote:
> ... Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
> hunting. ...
People who believe thus nonsense about human scavenging of rotting
corpses for food should TRY it out with some ripe road-kill. Especially
those arm-chair academics who propagate this foolishnesses.

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

> ... Homo can be read to reflect low-yield scavenging, *not*
> hunting. ...

" People who believe thus nonsense about human scavenging of rotting
corpses for food should TRY it out with some ripe road-kill. Especially
those arm-chair academics who propagate this foolishnesses."

First, pearl was the source of the above, a fellow if it ain't a plant I
ain't gonna eat it person such as yourself.

Your remark to her point is hardly worth the time to respond. One bit of
info to consider, humans even now make a choice to allow animal products
to ferment/rot/decay/age before consuming it. In part it begins the
breakdown of protein into more simple forms much as meat tenderizer does.
Eskimos traditionally without large amounts of fuel for fires did exactly
this for the above reason and because they prefered the taste.

Now I see why many folk react so strongly toward your posts and you seem to
be a magnet for personal attack. Your logic is poor and your evidence
cherry picked and crude and you are given to silly sermonizing at the drop
of a hat. But being the good fellow I'm will give you the benefit of the
doubt and indulge you a bit more.

> ... humans of various species ...

"Various species? "Species" refers to populations that can NOT interbreed.
Are you REALLY claiming that these alleged, but not identified, populations
could NOT interbreed; and how you know this. Provide credible citations, or
politely withdraw your assertions."

Smile, exactly that. There is at present one human species but in past
there have been more. For example homo erectus. "Can't" is better stated
as usually don't. For example cattle and buffalo can and do breed. Species
is a statement about relative ability to breed by genetic similarity and
behavior compatibility and opportunity.

> ... diet of our closest biological cousins the chimps
shows them
> eating everything in their environment also. Their
tropical rain
> forest provides mostly plant foods for them but they do
not
> hesitate to eat what few insects and small animals they
can catch
> even if a smaller part of the diet.

There is NO evidence that all adult chimps consume flesh on a regular,
i.e., nutritional basis. The evidence indicates that flesh is used by
-some- adult males to exchange for sexual favors, much like human "dating".
The evidence also indicates that the flesh is NOT swallowed, but merely
chewed with a wad of leaves to extract the salty, sweet juices. IF it is
not swallowed, it is NOT consumed or digested, thus NO nutritional value.

Smile, no, you need to keep up on these things. The first half of your
remarks are strawmen. You don't get to define the context nor what it
means. Meat is hunted and consumed and shared among males and females and
individuals of both sexes catch animals to eat. When the favorite monkey
is hunted as a group by male chimps and eaten, it is consumed down to the
last morsel. This happens a minority of the time but it clearly happens.

> They are a better analogy then fruit eating not closely related > plant
only species from the distant past. Gibberish.

> Even then humans and apes took
seperate evolutionary paths 6 >
million years ago ...

"Separate?? HOW do you explain the FACT that chimp and human genetic codes
are a tiny 1.6% different? By being willfully ignorant of these facts?"

Smile, because among other things they cann't and don't intrbreed because
of the genetic distance. It is a part of the fossel record. Humans and
apes are seperate genetically and the last shared common ancestor was 6
million years ago. Apes and humans belong as seperate lines in the larger
hominid group.

>... and humans unlike apes can and do inhabit all parts of the > globe
eating anything

"Humans, by abandoning our tropical niche also abandoned our
natural diet to their collective destruction."

Smile, silly sermonizing.

"There is a profound difference between the verbs "to do" and "to be".
Humans can make self-destructive decisions based on cultural programming
and profound ignorance. Wild animals, however, can not make errors. HINT:
no volition, they operate on instincts, humans do not. The current
"degenerates disease" statistics caused by consumption of animal corpses is
clear evidence of this."

Smile, no silly, most animals to various degrees base their behavior by
learning. Humans have instincts also. Animals can and do make decisions
that are fatal all the time. Chimps kill each other in what can be called
"war" for example. Your last part is but more silly sermonizing.

On 16 Aug, 00:47, wrote:
> Now I see why many folk react so strongly toward your posts and you seem to
> be a magnet for personal attack. Your logic is poor and your evidence
> cherry picked and crude and you are given to silly sermonizing at the drop
> of a hat. *

[snip]

That's why I don't bother debating Laurie I tried it once, but not
going to make that mistake again.. The moment you present some well-
backed evidence, Laurie goes into hysterics.

Personally, I think Laurie's understanding of science is on the level
of that Chinese bint who seems to think natural catastrophes, such as
volcanoes, earthquakes and tsunamis are caused by meat-eating.

Regards,

Dragonblaze

wrote:
> Please read them again:
IF you would like to communicate, then do so with citations
that support your claims. It is the responsibility of the poster to
support his/her posts with CREDIBLE SCIENCE on a.f.v.SCIENCE.
If you continue to refuse to do so, please leave a.f.v.s.

> Prehumans had access to animal based vit b12 for some millions of
> years. No need to speculate about a time when they ate plant foods
> only.
There is NO evidence to support your unstated assertion that humans
"evolved" to successfully consume dead, rotting animal corpses. There
is NO evidence that we "adapted" to eat cooked food.
http://ecologos.org/denature.htm

There are NO mechanisms in the current Theory of Evolution to support
your assertion. PLEASE attempt to support it with credible science,
or stop propagandizing on a.f.v.s.

> ... fully engaged in eating anything they could get their hands on
for a long long time.
Irrelevant to "adaptation". Cultural malpractices do NOT change our
genetic codes.

> To the best of my knowledge this is factual in all respects.
That's the problem, isn't it? Your "knowledge " is erroneous and
polluting a.f.v.s. Provide credible citations or leave.

> places fully omnivores by all the evidence we have.
Current epidemiological evidence indicates that ALL human
"degenerative diseases" are caused by the consumption of animal corpses.
TCCampbell; The China Study
http://tinyurl.com/2v689m
video
http://tinyurl.com/6lcda6
"We" have evidence that you choose to ignore after being directed to it
repeatedly. I interpret that behavior as intentional disruption of
a.f.v.s. and that WILL NOT be tolerated.

Today is Aug 16; this is your LAST warning.
Further intentional disruptions, as revealed by your msg date/time
stamp, of a.f.v.s will be met with serious consequences.
Have a nice day!


Laurie Forti
Moderator a.f.v.s.

Oh, laurie, you are still here!

" There is NO evidence to support your unstated assertion that humans
"evolved" to successfully consume dead, rotting animal corpses. There"

It happened, but I made no such claim,ie. it is a strawman argument.

> To the best of my knowledge this is factual in all respects.

"That's the problem, isn't it? Your "knowledge " is erroneous and
polluting a.f.v.s. Provide credible citations or leave."

smile, nope, ain't gonna go except when I choose, chain jerking is too
much fun.

> places fully omnivores by all the evidence we have.

"Current epidemiological evidence indicates that ALL human
"degenerative diseases" are caused by the consumption of animal corpses."

India with relatively low meat use has the world's highest rate of
diabetes and heart disease and related metabolic "degenerative" disorders.
Traditional eskimo diet mostly of meat had a low level of same.

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008, Goo wrote:

wrote:
>> Oh, laurie, you are still here!

Laurie never was here, but Larry is back.

>> " There is NO evidence to support your unstated assertion that humans
>> "evolved" to successfully consume dead, rotting animal corpses. There"
>>
>> It happened, but I made no such claim,ie. it is a strawman argument.
>
>I'm not sure what larry forti means by "'evolved' to successfuly
>consume".

Do you think there's any chance that he is?

>First of all, the predecessor homo species before homo
>sapiens already scavenged meat, and "successfully" consumed it. There
>*is*, indeed, evidence that early humans, and predecessor hominid
>species, scavenged meat from animals. Archeologists and anthropologists
>have found bones from large animals - too big for early humans and
>hominids to have killed themselves - with characteristic marks on the
>bones reflecting meat having been chipped away with stone tools.

There is now even later evidence of meat being chipped away
with metal tools, and then cooked on stoves and in microwaves...