Ping J.C
 

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "John Coleman" >
> >
> > John, if this is your site;
> > http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm - it's 404. :(. I'm
> linking through the archive -
> >
> http://web.archive.org/web/200304180...mc/protein.htm )
>
>
> fine, all my articles are under review, some I will scrap and some will be
> updated soon
>
> they will appear at www.soalive.biz
>
> John

Many thanks.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> >>Your silly comment does not refute my observation:
> >>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves".
> >
> > What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly?
>
> Omnivorous means "feeding on both animal and vegetable substances." It doesn't
> necessarily mean an individual omnivore eats leaves.

The fact remains- all (truly) omnivorous species include some leaves in their diet.

> <...>
> >>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would
> >>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported
> >>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] '
> >>>
> >>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat
> >>
> >>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible
> >>carnivorous adaptation.
> >
> > That was the specific subject of this post.
> > What else do you want to postulate?
>
> You have been debunked now that the Mr Woods has offered a more verbatim quote.

'Mr Woods'? Psycho ball, as ever, is ****in' in the wind- and you're drenched, windbag.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
> John Coleman wrote:
>
> >>'The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996)
> >>are probably allowed by our...
> >
> > development of TECHNOLOGY
>
> No, liar.

You can't call someone a liar for stating their case, liar.

> That's not what the unidentified author said
> (and "pearl's" source for the quote is BOGUS).

What do you mean?

> He wrote,
>
> "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."
>
> Don't alter quotes, you unethical polemicist.

Oh dear. Coming from you, that's really hillarious.

<..>

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
> pearl omitted important information when she wrote:

Maybe I should've posted the entire mess?

> > ..
> > A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would
> > correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported
> > by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] '
> >
> > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat
>
> Here's how it actually appears in Billings's site with
> suitable context, which Lesley misidentified:

Nope.

> Gut surface areas might not support Expensive Tissue
> Hypothesis. From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]:
>
> 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...

Billings' spin;

> The first sentence above, carnivorous
> adaptation, must be understood in context: as a
> comment on the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It
> claims that there is no major change in gut surface
> areas as the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis suggests.
> It does *not* mean there is absolutely no adaptation
> to faunivory: the major adaptation to faunivory in
> humans was previously identified as a reduction in
> size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al.
> [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote
> does not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers.
>
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml

Let's take a look ..

'The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
Refinement needed in analytical techniques used in earlier
study. The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] provides an
extension and analytical refinement of Martin et al. [1985].
...
Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:
...
Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations. (BV heading)

From MacLarnon et al. [1986, p. 297]:
....[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the approach
using logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3 and 5) is
particularly interesting in that it suggests a marked departure
of Cebus[Capuchin monkey] and Homo [humans] from the typical
pattern of primates lacking any special adaptation for folivory
....in the direction of faunivorous non-primate mammals....

5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering purposes
suggests that Cebus and Homo possess gastrointestinal tracts
that have become adapted in parallel to those of faunivorous
mammals, with notable reduction in size of caecum relative to
body size. Nevertheless, because of the artificiality of most
modern human diets, it cannot be concluded with confidence
that the small human sample examined to date reflects any
"natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet. The results
obtained so far are suggestive but by no means conclusive.

Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests, but
is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human GI tract is
adapted for the consumption of animal foods.

-------------------------------------------------------------
Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The gut
dimensions of animals can vary significantly between wild and
captive animals (of the same species, of course). Gut dimensions
can change quickly (in captivity or in the wild) in response
to changes in dietary quality. For information on this topic,
consult Hladik [1967] as cited in Chivers and Hladik [1980];
also the following sources cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and
Savory [1975]; Gross, Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation];
Koong et al. [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray,
Tulloch, and Winter [1977].'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml.

>
We can count on ball to lie by omission every time.
> "Hladik et al." were commenting on a *specific*
> hypothesis which suggested a change in gut surface
> area; they indicated their research did not support
> that particular implication of the Expensive Tissue
> hypothesis. They definitely were NOT saying that
there is adaptation to faunivory; that's the polemical
result that ball *wants* to find.

THAT'S the truth.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...

<Ad hominem>

"Such slanderous remarks win you no respect.
You only lose ground when you throw so much dirt."
-'usual suspect' 22/Oct/03

"Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.
... the issue at hand isn't me. .. Stick to the issue."
-'usual suspect' 31/Oct/03

"Perhaps you'd feel better if you dealt with the
issues rather than attack the character of others."
-'usual suspect' 3/Nov/03

"Attacking the person, yet another cheesy fallacy of
debate and argumentation." -'usual suspect' 9/Nov/03

"Don't shoot the messenger, numbnuts."
- 'usual suspect' 5/May/2004

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

John Coleman wrote:
>>What does that say about someone who fails medical tests because of his
> peculiar
>>diet and then must take vitamin pills?
>
> supplements are not remedies for ailements (although they can help),

Yes, they are. That is all they are.

> rather
> they are an attempt to make up for

AKA *remedy*...

> the incomplete nature of the so called
> foods

They're foods, not so-called.

> of our cultural error

Speak for yourself, assclown.

> (that is why they are called supplements)

Wrong.

> supplements are not medicines

Vitamin and/or mineral supplements have two basic uses. The first is for acute
known deficiencies. The second is as a prophylactic to prevent deficiencies.
Both uses are medical in nature, and congruent with the manner in which
prescription medications are administered. Supplements are medicine. QED.

<...>
> We had 2 caged birds when I was a kid, one after the other. They both ate
> raw seeds and the odd bit of wild grass, plus a calcium source. Neither of
> them ever got ill in their whole life.

Both are now dead. Apparently something got'em.

> I can't think of a single person I
> have known who can repeat that.

You face the same ultimate fate as your damn birds, birdbrain, regardless of
your diet -- probably sooner because of your peculiar and deficient diet.

>>You're most likely to find a group of unhealthy
>>people in a stone-age (or pre-) tribe.
>
> All human societies eating cooked foods and/or dead animals are plagued by a
> wide variety of ailments,

Ever ask yourself why zoos, which feed animals their natural diets, have
veterinarians on staff?

> that is why we have pharmacies.

Non sequitur.

> No species eating
> its natural raw diet is plagued by any ailments at all.

Got a zoo nearby? Ask one of their employees -- especially a staff vet -- if
your remark is true. Or a vet will do, since they seem pretty up to date on
animal health. You're a ****ing nitwit.

> GO FIGURE

No, why don't you...

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

pearl wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>>Your silly comment does not refute my observation:
>>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves".
>>>
>>>What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly?
>>
>>Omnivorous means "feeding on both animal and vegetable substances." It doesn't
>>necessarily mean an individual omnivore eats leaves.
>
>
> The fact remains- all (truly) omnivorous species include some leaves in their diet.

Prove it.

>
>
>><...>
>>
>>>>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would
>>>>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported
>>>>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] '
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat
>>>>
>>>>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible
>>>>carnivorous adaptation.
>>>
>>>That was the specific subject of this post.
>>>What else do you want to postulate?
>>
>>You have been debunked now that the Mr Woods has offered a more verbatim quote.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

pearl wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>John Coleman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>'The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996)
>>>>are probably allowed by our...
>>>
>>> development of TECHNOLOGY
>>
>>No, liar.
>
>
> You can't call someone a liar for stating their case

He didn't state a case. He mangled a quote.

>
>
>>That's not what the unidentified author said
>>(and "pearl's" source for the quote is BOGUS).
>
>
> What do you mean?

You didn't identify the author, and you gave a WRONG
URL for the page containing it.

You don't know what you're doing.

>
>
>>He wrote,
>>
>>"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."
>>
>>Don't alter quotes, you unethical polemicist.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

pearl wrote:
<...>
>>>>Your silly comment does not refute my observation:
>>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves".
>>>
>>>What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly?
>>
>>Omnivorous means "feeding on both animal and vegetable substances." It doesn't
>>necessarily mean an individual omnivore eats leaves.
>
> The fact remains-

....beyond your hare-brained grasp.

> all (truly) omnivorous species include some leaves in their diet.

The discussion was over individuals, not entire species.

>><...>
>>
>>>>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would
>>>>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported
>>>>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] '
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat
>>>>
>>>>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible
>>>>carnivorous adaptation.
>>>
>>>That was the specific subject of this post.
>>>What else do you want to postulate?
>>
>>You have been debunked now that the Mr Woods has offered a more verbatim quote.
>
> 'Mr Woods'?

Yes, some of us are respectful toward others. Too bad you've no manners.

<...>

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

pearl wrote:

> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>pearl omitted important information when she wrote:
>
>
> Maybe I should've posted the entire mess?
>
>
>>>..
>>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would
>>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported
>>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] '
>>>
>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat
>>
>>Here's how it actually appears in Billings's site with
>>suitable context, which Lesley misidentified:
>
>
> Nope.

Yep. You gave a WRONG URL for it. The material you
selectively quoted does not appear ON that page, and
there's no instruction on how to navigate from that
page to the correct page. You messed up, as always.

>
>
>> Gut surface areas might not support Expensive Tissue
>> Hypothesis. From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]:
>>
>> 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...
>>
>> The first sentence above, carnivorous
>> adaptation, must be understood in context: as a
>> comment on the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It
>> claims that there is no major change in gut surface
>> areas as the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis suggests.
>> It does *not* mean there is absolutely no adaptation
>> to faunivory: the major adaptation to faunivory in
>> humans was previously identified as a reduction in
>> size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al.
>> [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote
>> does not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers.
>>
>>
>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml
>
>
> Let's take a look ..
>

Let's not. Once again, you are selectively culling
those things you merely, and WRONGLY, think support
your polemical position. You have not read the
original material, and indeed CANNOT read it, as you
have no clue what, for example, "Use of logarithmic
quotient values for clustering purposes" means.
Absolutely no clue.

>
>>"Hladik et al." were commenting on a *specific*
>>hypothesis which suggested a change in gut surface
>>area; they indicated their research did not support
>>that particular implication of the Expensive Tissue
>>hypothesis. They definitely were NOT saying that
>>there is no adaptation to faunivory; that's the
>>polemical result that Lesley *wants* to find.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
<snip>
>No species eating
> its natural raw diet is plagued by any ailments at all. GO FIGURE

LOL!

Most pet snakes are fed raw rodents or rabbits:

http://www.animalhospitals-usa.com/r...s_general.html

-Rubystars

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

John Coleman wrote:

> No species eating its natural raw diet is plagued by any ailments at all.

Prove it.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> <snip>
> >No species eating
> > its natural raw diet is plagued by any ailments at all. GO FIGURE
>
> LOL!
>
> Most pet snakes are fed raw rodents or rabbits:
>
> http://www.animalhospitals-usa.com/r...s_general.html
>
> -Rubystars

Just wanted to add, John, that wild caught animals have a high chance of
being highly parasitized, so don't blame captivity. Captive bred reptiles
are usually much healthier.

-Rubystars

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

Ruby>
> Most pet snakes are fed raw rodents or rabbits:
>
> http://www.animalhospitals-usa.com/r...s_general.html

That does not produce the same result as them hunting wild game, I think
most snakes will also take insects and bugs. These creatures are tricky to
feed and need to be totally wild IMO to do well. A budgie is much easier to
feed and will stay very well, as will many other animals that have more
simple dietary requirements.

I also read even wild snakes get gout!

John C

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

> Just wanted to add, John, that wild caught animals have a high chance of
> being highly parasitized, so don't blame captivity. Captive bred reptiles
> are usually much healthier.

Sure, many domesticated animals live MUCH longer, lack of predators and
parasites is good news! Life in the wild has its trials.

John C

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

John Coleman wrote:
>>Most pet snakes are fed raw rodents or rabbits:
>>
>>http://www.animalhospitals-usa.com/r...s_general.html

We have some unfinished business to settle first, Coleman.

---------
>> Serum cholesterol is overwhelmingly a factor of endogenous factors, not
>> diet.
>
> So how come my cholesterol dropped over 50% on a raw diet?

First, I don't believe your cholesterol was over 400.

I don't eat any dead animals. My TC is a shade over 2, what's yours?
-- Orthorexic John Coleman, http://snipurl.com/6gj2

Perhaps you can post any previous cholesterol results on your new website to
prove this claim. Otherwise, I consider you a stupid ****ing liar and all your
anecdotes fall EXACTLY in the realm of testifying or testiLYING.

Second, even if your level was ever above 400, it remains a post hoc fallacy. I
don't know what your diet was like before you changed, but raw food alone
wouldn't cause such a drop in serum cholesterol. If your previous diet included
*large* amounts (and they would be excessive amounts to raise your cholesterol
that high) saturated fat from dairy and trans-fats from processed vegetarian
foods, then I'd understand such a drop. Losing the saturated fat -- trans and
otherwise -- gets the credit, not raw food.
-------
>> Some dietary cholesterol, such as that from cold water fish, is healthful
>> and helps reduce LDL.
>
> My LDL is 1, what is the LDL of a fish eater?

100? That's pretty ****ing high for a veg-n.

A healthy LDL level is one that falls in the optimal or near-optimal
range.
* Optimal: Less than 100 mg/dL
* Near Optimal: 100-129 mg/dL
* Borderline High: 130-159 mg/dL
* High: 160-189 mg/dL
* Very High: 190 mg/dL and higher

source: http://snipurl.com/6gj6

My LDL is less than half yours. I eat a lot of cooked food. Go figure.
-----

Your ANECDOTAL evidence for your kooky diet is bullshit if you cannot prove the
your claim that your cholesterol dropped over 50% when you went raw. Two things
are needed for you to prove it, and you should put them both on your website
(which is entirely appropriate since you've made this claim in public). First,
let's see a scan of your most recent bloodwork which you claim is "a shade over
2[00]." Second, let's see a scan from your doctor of your previous bloodwork
during which time your serum cholesterol was TWICE what you claim it is now.

I'd also like you to explain what kind of vegetarian diet you were on that
caused your total cholesterol to exceed 400. It would also be nice if you'd post
contact information for your doctor, waive doctor-patient confidentiality, and
extend permission for him to discuss your improved cholesterol. I'd be most
interested in discussing with him whether or not statins or other drugs were
used to assist your previously excessive cholesterol for which intensive drug
therapy is indicated and which is most often usually caused endogenously, not
from diet.
Levels over 240 mg/dL may put you at almost twice the risk of heart
disease as someone with a level less than 200 mg/dL.

You're damn lucky to be alive. Now show us some proof, or admit that you're a
****ing charlatan who made up this claim about your cholesterol dropping by over
fifty-percent.

<snip stuff about snakes that you embellish as much as your testiLYING>

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> Ruby>
> > Most pet snakes are fed raw rodents or rabbits:
> >
> > http://www.animalhospitals-usa.com/r...s_general.html
>
> That does not produce the same result as them hunting wild game, I think
> most snakes will also take insects and bugs.

The food in captivity is superior to that in the wild. It's less
parasitized, for one thing, and well fed itself.

>These creatures are tricky to
> feed and need to be totally wild IMO to do well.

Tell that to the people who have reported keeping an individual corn snake
for 20 years.

>A budgie is much easier to
> feed and will stay very well, as will many other animals that have more
> simple dietary requirements.

A budgie's requirements are more complex. It needs a mix of seeds. Corn
snakes are easy, they eat mice (of the proper size).

> I also read even wild snakes get gout!

Wild snakes have a lot of health problems, just as most wild animals do.
Especially with ticks, mites, and other parasites. Wild caught snakes have
many more health problems than captive bred snakes.

-Rubystars

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

Rubystars wrote:
<...>

>>I also read even wild snakes get gout!

So much for Coleman's stupid claim that:
The other species eat all their food raw, and seem not to get rampant
chronic degenerative diseases or even those common human "minor
ailments".
-- John Charlatan, 25 Apr 04: http://snipurl.com/6hkt

> Wild snakes have a lot of health problems, just as most wild animals do.
> Especially with ticks, mites, and other parasites. Wild caught snakes have
> many more health problems than captive bred snakes.

Whether they eat raw food or not? lol

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
 

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Rubystars wrote:
> <...>
>
> >>I also read even wild snakes get gout!
>
> So much for Coleman's stupid claim that:
> The other species eat all their food raw, and seem not to get rampant
> chronic degenerative diseases or even those common human "minor
> ailments".
> -- John Charlatan, 25 Apr 04: http://snipurl.com/6hkt
>
> > Wild snakes have a lot of health problems, just as most wild animals do.
> > Especially with ticks, mites, and other parasites. Wild caught snakes
have
> > many more health problems than captive bred snakes.
>
> Whether they eat raw food or not? lol

I'm pretty sure cooked food is a good way to kill a snake. My original point
was, as you mentioned, that just because an animal eats a raw, natural diet,
doesn't mean they are free of all diseases or minor ailments.

-Rubystars

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> >
> > Sure, here Chivers is categorising according to the anatomical features
of
> > the gut and fitting them along with faunivores (another term for animals
> > that specialise in eating other animals, including insects). In Chivers
> > books
>
> ...which you haven't read, but which Billings
> apparently has...

I have read the book on 2 occassions.

> > he specifically mentions that such categorisation is fraught with
> > risks, because you will tend to fit data to a limited list of
preselected
> > possibilities (i.e. selection bias).
>
> Cite it.

"As Dr. Chivers points out himself, citing Plato in Gordon et al. 1972,
Plato clearly understood the limitations of his philosophy; "A cautious man
should above all be on his guard for resemblances: they are a very slippery
sort of thing"."

D. J. Chivers, P. Langer, The Digestive System In Mammals: Food Form And
Function, Camb. Uni. Press, 1994, p.25

> I suspect Billings doesn't tell us this because Chivers
> never wrote it.

been on that crystal ball again?

> "that is all" - pshaw! That's ALL comparative anatomy
> IS, you nitwit.

so what are you trying to make out of it then? an excuse to eat meat??

> > You are certainly welcome to eat only raw animal flesh for a few weeks
plus
> > some leaves, you will get sick or die of "rabbit starvation" most
likely.
>
> I doubt it. The Inuit go for about that long eating
> only or mostly meat.

Please fill us in with some numbers. The Innuit eat a lot of blubber and
oil, not lean meat and they live sub 0. They are an exception, you can't
apply their ways across the board. I meant eating lean meat as half of your
diet as suggested by the Paleo data.

>
> > The leaves will simply never digest and the flesh will poison your
liver.
> > Perhaps you might do okay on insects, try the experiment and tell us
your
> > results. You can eat just fruit for years before you get terminal
> > deficiencies. But fruit will never kill you itself. Go figure.
>
> Except for the Inuit, who eat mostly meat and very
> little fruit, humans don't live on such a narrow diet.

You're missing the point - nobody got constipated on a fruit meal, yet meat
and animal products are always on the list of foods causing constipation. Go
figure again.

In order to convince anyone is healthy for a good lifetime eating more than
trivial amounts of meat, you need that data. So where is it?

John

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
> If you believe that the large variation in diets is due
> to technology, rather than due to gut morphology, then
> please state your credentials, and please also provide
> us with your peer-reviewed articles in which you
> support your conclusion. This ought to be good for a
> laugh, maybe a few thousand laughs.

The Innuit capture their "meat" with tools, render it with tools and then
cook it with tools. Even the fish they are alleged to eat raw is usually
fermented, again using tools.

Or did you think they jumped in the water nude, caught the prey in their
mouth and then swallowed it down right there?

check this again:

"[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can exploit
large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term
'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might
reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of food processing and
cookery."
The Cambridge Encyclopedia Of Human Evolution, Jones, Martin and Pilbeam,
Camb. Uni. Press, 1992

Here's another treat for you:

"Categorizing always includes a great danger because it can narrow thoughts
and neglect the view to the basis of data used and required for the
categories."
Paul Winkler, Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates, p. 161

John C

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net...
> pearl omitted important information when she wrote:

> We can count on Lesley to lie by omission every time.
> "Hladik et al." were commenting on a *specific*
> hypothesis which suggested a change in gut surface
> area; they indicated their research did not support
> that particular implication of the Expensive Tissue
> hypothesis. They definitely were NOT saying that there
> is no adaptation to faunivory; that's the polemical
> result that Lesley *wants* to find.

A reduction in the size of the hindgut is also consistent with a move to
greater fruit in the diet and less of leaves. The chimp hindgut is where
they digest their leaves, and is much more substantial than ours. Of course,
it does also make elimination of animal matter a little more effective.

John C

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> John Coleman wrote:
>
> > The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of
> > omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of
> > digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves."
>
> This is really funny! You read that in Tom Billings's
> site, and nowhere else! However, you left out some key
> information. Here's the full section:

No, I read Chivers way before Billings did. He started his crazy articles
AFTER I started looking at the literature. I read Chivers many years ago,
and Tom followed up.

> You have a lot of nerve, Polemicist Coleman, to be
> calling Billings a "spin doctor". Billings gives a
> more complete summary; you cherry-pick. Spin, indeed.

Yes, I always pick the best cherries. Billings had to add a load into that
article after I started putting out that Chivers writes in the opening of
the book that neither humans nor any primates can be considered to be
"omnivores".

There is no doubt humans can digest a wide variety of material from candy to
dead corpse, so can a cow - it's what is good for you that counts.

I like that term Chivers uses "unspecialized fruigivore". There's that nice
"f" word in there. If you want to pass humans off as omnivores or faunivores
(Chivers does not) then tell us how much we are omnivores, is it 1%, 10% of
100% allowable as animal matter then the rest as fruit/plant matter? Nobody
else seems to have figured it out.

Here's another nice little quote from some top authorities on digestive
system:

"The digestive tracts of these species are quite different from that of
humans, and the human gut was not designed for either the high-concentrate
diet of carnivores or the high-fiber diet of herbivores."
Comparative Physiology of The Vertibrate Digestive System, 2nd Ed., Stevens
& Hume, p. 324

So eating a lot of meat or a lot of leaf isn't what we are supposed to do.
The question remains how much is a lot? And since the elidemiology, clinical
and biochemical data doesn't seem to favour much meat, or perhaps little to
none, then I go with that.

John C

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> > No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are
> > omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and
> > anthropology.
>
jsc> "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can
> exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used
term
> 'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might
> reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing
and
> cookery._"
> - Chivers
>
> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of
> omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of
> digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves."

The whole "human omnivore" thing is based on the fact that there is NO
physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore".
http://ecologos.org/omni.htm
To go about this correctly, one would have to list all the "adaptations"
of all NATURAL "omnivores" and then look for the commonalities necessary to
develop a reasonable definition. This definition would then have to be
tested for its ability to discriminate accurately between NATURAL omnivores
and non-omnivores. AFTER this test has been perfected, then one could apply
it to the human. To my knowledge, this work has not been done.
IF we had "adapted" or "evolved" to eat animal flesh, then we, as ALL
natural flesh-eaters, would have an INSTINCT to do so. So, why don't those
mindless propagandists who claim to be an "omnivore" just eat a small animal
raw, with their natural equipment, like ALL NATURAL omnivores? They are
intellectual cowards and would not even dare to test their claimed omnivory,
because if they did they would have to abandon their unsupportable belief.
Humans may be CULTURAL omnivores, since they are taught to do so by a
sick, self-destructive culture and MUST use tools to do so; however,
cultural practices do NOT bring about all the physiological and biochemical
attributes that are absolutely necessary to consume animal flesh
successfully and without the devastating "degenerative diseases" linked to
such erroneous dietary practices.
There is NO evidence that we are NATURAL "omnivores".

Here is a particularly idiotic "definition" that emphasizes the
absurdity of this discussion lacking a rigorous one....

omnivory
<biology, zoology> Describes an animal that eats all kinds of plants and
animals.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/o...ion=Search+OMD
But, NO animal eats ALL kinds of plants and ALL kinds of animals.

So, without a rigorous definition that accurately discriminates between
natural omnivores and other natural dietary styles, this endless discussion
is absolutely meaningless.

Laurie

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

Laurie wrote:

> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are
>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and
>>>anthropology.
>>
> jsc> "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can
>
>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used
>
> term
>
>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might
>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing
>
> and
>
>>cookery._"
>> - Chivers
>>
>> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of
>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of
>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves."
>
>
> The whole "human omnivore" thing is based on the fact that there is NO
> physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore".
> http://ecologos.org/omni.htm

That is not a scientifically credible link.

Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
 

"Laurie" > wrote in message
...
>

snippage...


>
> The whole "human omnivore" thing is based on the fact that there is NO
> physiological/biochemical definition of "omnivore".
> http://ecologos.org/omni.htm
===============
You idiot, you trying to quote your own stupidity as a reference. What
hoot!!!

Why not tell people it's your web-site, killer. Oh, yeah, you're probably
too ashamed to admit that, huh? Most people would be, fool.
Oh, yeah, and it's a money scam site too!!! Investers? Yeah right loonie,
you mean more dupes. The ones that escape PeTA, huh?


snippage...