Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jack Clark
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> The Los Angeles Times
>
> Eight genes helped humans add flesh to their diets
> while limiting its hazards, scientists report.
>
>
> By Rosie Mestel, Times Staff Writer
>
> Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
> heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
> beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
> help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
> hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.
>
> In a paper published last week in The Quarterly Review
> of Biology, biologist Caleb E. Finch and anthropologist
> Craig Stanford said they had identified at least eight
> genes that might have been key to this important
> development in human evolution.
>
> Human ancestors probably began eating meat 2.5 million
> years ago, anthropologists say. In contrast, only the
> chimps among our nearest relatives, the greater apes,
> eat meat - and then only a fraction of what humans do.
>
> In lab studies or in zoos, apes' cholesterol levels
> climb more sharply than do humans' when fed fat, and
> the animals are more prone to blockages in their
> coronary arteries. Zoos now know to feed the animals
> leaner diets.
>
> "Even though we have this idea that we are
> hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that
> humans as a species are relatively immune to the
> harmful effects of these things," Stanford said.
>
> To pinpoint possible meat-adaptive genes, Finch
> searched databases and identified eight genes that
> differed between chimps and humans and which may have
> had a role in making us meat-tolerant.
>
> One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of
> that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time
> after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is
> known to help protect human beings against heart
> disease. It also protects against Alzheimer's disease.
>
> Finch and Stanford propose that such genes enabled
> human beings to live longer lives without coming down
> with chronic diseases: Humans live about 30 years
> longer than great apes.
>
> The scientists identified seven other genes that they
> thought helped protect people against infectious agents
> carried in meat or against an overdose of iron and
> other metals that are relatively abundant in flesh
> compared with plants.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2vj2o


Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you
maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL
scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you -
publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a
genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.

Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong,
but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.
  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

On 22 Mar 2004 09:48:18 -0800, (Jack Clark)
wrote:

>>
>>
http://tinyurl.com/2vj2o
>
>Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you
>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL
>scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you -
>publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a
>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.
>
>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong,
>but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.



I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet.


  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dirk McDougal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

wrote:

> On 22 Mar 2004 09:48:18 -0800,
(Jack Clark)
> wrote:
>
>
>>>
http://tinyurl.com/2vj2o
>>
>>Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you
>>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
>>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL
>>scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you -
>>publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a
>>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.
>>
>>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong,
>>but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
>>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
>>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.

>
>
>
> I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet.


Because, you ****ing idiot, their site doesn't contain
the current issue:
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB...available.html

Did you read the newspaper article, dummy? It said "
In a paper published ***last week*** in The Quarterly
Review of Biology..." [emphasis added] If you look at
that link to the available issues, you'll see that the
most recent issue available on the web site is from
last December.

It won't make a bit of difference once it does appear
on the site: You're not a subscriber, and you couldn't
understand the article even if you signed up.

  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:24:35 GMT, Dirk McDougal >
wrote:

>>
>> I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet.

>
>Because, you ****ing idiot, their site doesn't contain
>the current issue:
>http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB...available.html
>
>Did you read the newspaper article, dummy? It said "
>In a paper published ***last week*** in The Quarterly
>Review of Biology..." [emphasis added] If you look at
>that link to the available issues, you'll see that the
>most recent issue available on the web site is from
>last December.


That's exactly what I meant.


>
>It won't make a bit of difference once it does appear
>on the site: You're not a subscriber, and you couldn't
>understand the article even if you signed up.


Why does this ng draw such uninformed vitriol?

I *meant* I wonder why the QRB has not posted
that article on their website, meaning the current issue.



  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dirk McDougal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:24:35 GMT, Dirk McDougal >
> wrote:
>
>
>>>I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet.

>>
>>Because, you ****ing idiot, their site doesn't contain
>>the current issue:
>>
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB...available.html
>>
>>Did you read the newspaper article, dummy? It said "
>>In a paper published ***last week*** in The Quarterly
>>Review of Biology..." [emphasis added] If you look at
>>that link to the available issues, you'll see that the
>>most recent issue available on the web site is from
>>last December.

>
>
> That's exactly what I meant.
>
>
>
>>It won't make a bit of difference once it does appear
>>on the site: You're not a subscriber, and you couldn't
>>understand the article even if you signed up.

>
>
> Why does this ng draw such uninformed vitriol?


Because "vegans" write, say and think such STUPID things.

>
> I *meant* I wonder why the QRB has not posted
> that article on their website, meaning the current issue.


You *****ing* moron: because they don't POST the
current issue. The current issue probably will be
posted right around the time it becomes the PREVIOUS issue.

Sheesh!



  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:02:15 GMT, Dirk McDougal >
wrote:

>You *****ing* moron: because they don't POST the
>current issue. The current issue probably will be
>posted right around the time it becomes the PREVIOUS issue.
>
>Sheesh!


I don;t know which is more stupid:

my knowing that many online magazines do post
protions of the current issue,

or people who are not vegans who have no
life either, hanging out here, being trolls.



  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat


"Jon-a-thug noBalls" > wrote in message
om...

> > The Los Angeles Times

Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.

> > Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
> > heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
> > beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
> > help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
> > hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.

With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers responsible
for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes"
have not "adapted" us very well.
http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broke...y=ALL&_debug=0
IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and
terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero IF any
"adaptation" had occurred. Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation"
ever occurred.

> > ... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least
>> eight genes ...

Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.
Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single
course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition.
http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html
In fact, there is not one -real- science course in this track.
Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists propagate
some of the most nonsensical superstitions and fanciful speculations about
human diet.
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm

> > "Even though we have this idea that we are
> > hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that
> > humans as a species are relatively immune to the
> > harmful effects of these things," Stanford said.

Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology.

> > One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of
> > that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time
> > after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is
> > known to help protect human beings against heart
> > disease.

Not much "protection" if "heart disease" is responsible for 29% of all
deaths in the US.

> You asshole -

Jon-a-thug noBalls, you are a disgusting, vulgar psychopath, regardless
of the phony name or false account that you make up. And, you are so
incredibly stupid as to not know that such vulgar, juvenile behavior
completely negates any hope of you ever developing any intellectual
integrity or credibility, whatsoever.

> haven't you
> maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
> genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating?

I still maintain that there is NO "genetic adaptation in humans for meat
eating", and you have not ever been able to provide ANY evidence of such.
Years of your meatarian babbling, and you have yet to produce one credible
scrap of credible information supporting your Neanderthal lifestyle or
mentality.
Current epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation" ever occurred;
further, there is not one word about gene pools "adapting" to voluntary
changes in diet anywhere in modern evolutionary theory.

> Yet here we see REAL scientists - asserts there is indeed a
> genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.

They did not say anything in a authoritative or conclusive manner. They
said things like "may have had a role", yet they can not prove any
"meat-tolerant" "adaptations" ever occurred.
They did not assert there is a "genetic adaptation in humans for meat
eating", they did not PROVE that it exists, they hypothesized it.

> Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong,
> but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
> not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
> Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.

Such juvenile behavior and verbal violence merely proves that you,
Jon-a-thug noBalls, are the knowingly-ignorant one. Knowingly-ignorant of
polite behavior or logical argument.
The amazing thing is that you never tire of embarrassing and denigrating
yourself in public like this. That is an interesting insight into the depth
of your mental illness.

Laurie


  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

LaRRY wrote:
>>>The Los Angeles Times

>
> Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.


For valid scientific info, it's at least three notches above ecologos.

<...>
>>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least
>>>eight genes ...

>
> Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.


Ipse dixit.

> Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single
> course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition.
> http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html


MIT is not the only university with anthropology programs. Search for other
colleges and universities with BIOLOGICAL or FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY programs, you
fruitcake.

http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/PAHIL/
http://www.uncw.edu/ant/curricul.htm
see BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY
http://people.uncw.edu/albertm/

> In fact, there is not one -real- science course in this track.


Craig Stanford, mentioned in the article, teaches at the University of Southern
California. From the CV on his webpage:
Courses Taught
Primate Social Behavior
Primate Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (graduate level)
Evolution of Primate Intelligence (graduate level)
Human Evolutionary Ecology
Human Origins
Evolutionary Medicine
Evolution of Human Behavior
Introduction to Biological Anthropology
http://www.usc.edu/dept/elab/anth/Fa.../stanford.html

Those sound like science courses to me, Larry. Maybe you can take a course or
two from him to clear up some of the pseudoscientific crap you regurgitate on
your cheesy website.

> Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists propagate
> some of the most nonsensical superstitions and fanciful speculations about
> human diet.


Hardly as nonsensical, superstitious, or fanciful as the speculations you post
on your cheesy website.

<...>
>>>"Even though we have this idea that we are
>>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that
>>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the
>>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said.

>
> Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology.


Ipse dixit.

<...>

  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:09:13 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:

>
>"Jon-a-thug noBalls" > wrote in message
. com...
>
>> > The Los Angeles Times

> Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.
>
>> > Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
>> > heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
>> > beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
>> > help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
>> > hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.

> With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers responsible
>for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes"
>have not "adapted" us very well.
>http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broke...y=ALL&_debug=0
> IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and
>terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero IF any
>"adaptation" had occurred. Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation"
>ever occurred.
>
>> > ... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least
>>> eight genes ...

> Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.
> Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single
>course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition.
>http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html




That was very interesting. Don't worry much about
Ursula suspect. Ursula can't even figure out that
12 years is less than 17 years, that 737 women
is less than 11,000 people, or that a 2 day
life style quiz is not as good as a 17 year study.


by how




  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

shithead wrote:
<...>
> That was very interesting. Don't worry much about
> Ursula suspect. Ursula can't even figure out that
> 12 years is less than 17 years, that 737 women
> is less than 11,000 people, or that a 2 day
> life style quiz is not as good as a 17 year study.


You mean a 17-year study that affirmed the position contrary to the one you
took? Hahaha. Thanks for reminding me of your thorough incompetence.



  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:15:57 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>shithead wrote:
><...>
>> That was very interesting. Don't worry much about
>> Ursula suspect. Ursula can't even figure out that
>> 12 years is less than 17 years, that 737 women
>> is less than 11,000 people, or that a 2 day
>> life style quiz is not as good as a 17 year study.

>
>You mean a 17-year study that affirmed the position contrary to the one you
>took? Hahaha. Thanks for reminding me of your thorough incompetence.


I mean, really, just ignore him.

He just ignores valid issues pointed out about his own
statements, and likes to fool himself into thinking that
his *points* have some significance, or even
relevance.

His level of vitriol indicates someone who is not
to be taken seriously, either.



  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

Lying Larry Forti wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> om...
>
>
>>>The Los Angeles Times

>
> Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.


The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the
Quarterly Review of Biology, Lying Larry. Are you
claiming the Times got the story wrong, Lying Larry?
Prove it.

>
>
>>>Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
>>>heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
>>>beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
>>>help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
>>>hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.

>
> With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers responsible
> for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes"
> have not "adapted" us very well.


Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and
Stanford, Lying Larry. Leave your ignorance of
EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, and try to
refute the two Ph.D.s if you think you can - with
SCIENCE, Lying Larry, not your polemical miscitation of
some health statistics you don't understand in the
first place.

> http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broke...y=ALL&_debug=0
> IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and
> terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero


PROVE that, Lying Larry. An adaptation to something
doesn't require that the adaptation be what you, in
your infinite ignorance, would consider "perfect".

> IF any "adaptation" had occurred. Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation"
> ever occurred.


No, it doesn't. And YOU, Lying Larry Forti, have ZERO
expertise in epidemiology. Stop pretending you have any.

>
>
>>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least
>>>eight genes ...

>
> Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.


In fact, Lying Larry, if you had bothered to do even
some cursory research instead of running your fat
ignorant hate-filled mouth, you would have learned that
Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, is the lead
author of the PEER-REVIEWED article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322081608.htm

If you had done just a tiny bit more research, Lying
Larry, instead of running your ignorant mouth, you'd
have learned that Professor Stanford is the head of the
Ph.D. program in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY at the
University of Southern California.

You stink, Forti.


> Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists


Prove that, Lying Larry. You can't even get started.
Those guys have forgotten more science from their first
semester of university than you have even dreamed of in
your entire shit-stained life, Forti, because YOU
HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE.

[snip fatuous references to Forti's own pages of deceit]

>
>
>>>"Even though we have this idea that we are
>>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that
>>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the
>>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said.

>
> Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology.


No, it isn't, Forti, and YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED
to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it
AT ALL: a great big ZERO.

>
>
>>>One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of
>>>that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time
>>>after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is
>>>known to help protect human beings against heart
>>>disease.

>
> Not much "protection" if "heart disease" is responsible for 29% of all
> deaths in the US.
>
>
>> You asshole -

>
> Jon-a-thug noBalls,


You go eat shit and die, Forti, you piece of filth.

>
>
>>haven't you
>>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
>>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating?

>
> I still maintain


....with ZERO support for your polemical contention, and
NO ****ING PRAYER of finding any...

> that there is NO "genetic adaptation in humans for meat
> eating",


Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig
Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say
you're wrong. They say you're wrong in their recently
published PEER-REVIEWED article in a prestigious
journal of BIOLOGY, Lying Larry.

Uh...where's YOUR peer-reviewed article, Forti, you
filthy lying polemicist? Haw haw haw!

> and you have not ever been able to provide ANY evidence of such.


Dr. Finch and Stanford, both Ph.D.s, have INDEED
provided evidence of "such", Lying Larry. Stop lying.


> Current epidemiology proves


Shut your ****ING MOUTH about "current epidemiology",
you lying asshole. You don't know ANYTHING about
epidemiology. You aren't qualified to wash the toilets
at any journal of epidemiology.

>
>
>>Yet here we see REAL scientists - asserts there is indeed a
>>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.

>
> They did not say anything in a authoritative or conclusive manner.


Prove that, Lying Larry. You HAVE NOT read their
article, so you are in no position to say.


> They did not assert there is a "genetic adaptation in humans for meat
> eating",


They certainly did.

> they did not PROVE that it exists, they hypothesized it.


RIGHT, science-illiterate Lying Larry: because REAL
science, unlike the tea-leaf reading and totem-touching
crapola you stupidly and IGNORANTLY miscall "science",
doesn't EVER claim to have "proved" something. REAL
science, Lying Larry, is ALWAYS presented as hypotheses.

You wouldn't know anything about that.
>
>
>>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong,
>>but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
>>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
>>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.

>
> Such [snip Lying Larry's blah-blah-blah hand-waving]


Admit it NOW, Forti you cheap charlatan: you don't
know ANYTHING about genetics, epidemiology, nutrition,
or ANY of the crap on your "ecologicfree" pages.

You're a sick, juvenile JOKE, Forti.

When you have a PEER-REVIEWED article that refutes the
conclusions of Dr. Finch and Dr. Stanford, Lying Larry,
get back to us. Until then, shut up.

  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Foul Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the form of contradictions and disagreements.
When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never acknowledge his request, just restate and instigate to infuriate - it is all Mr Ball is here for, an excuse for abuse. Give this
asshole what he deserves.

Let's see who can **** with him best. Female names on your header is irresistible to him. The more you love animals and show it the more abuse he will hurl your way. Draw him in and spit him out.
The guy is pure vomit!

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Lying Larry Forti wrote:
>
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> > om...
> >
> >
> >>>The Los Angeles Times

> >
> >**** Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.

>
> The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the
> Quarterly Review of Biology, Lying Larry.* Are you
> claiming the Times got the story wrong, Lying Larry?
> Prove it.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
> >>>heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
> >>>beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
> >>>help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
> >>>hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.

> >
> >**** With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers responsible
> > for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes"
> > have not "adapted" us very well.

>
> Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and
> Stanford, Lying Larry.* Leave your ignorance of
> EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, and try to
> refute the two Ph.D.s if you think you can - with
> SCIENCE, Lying Larry, not your polemical miscitation of
> some health statistics you don't understand in the
> first place.
>
> >

> http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=lscb5500&_port= 5094&_sessionid=/Fxm7Dh1pt1&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=.& age2=.&agetext=AllAges&category=ALL&_debug=0>****
> IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and
> > terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero

>
> PROVE that, Lying Larry.* An adaptation to something
> doesn't require that the adaptation be what you, in
> your infinite ignorance, would consider "perfect".
>
> > IF any "adaptation" had occurred.* Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation"
> > ever occurred.

>
> No, it doesn't.* And YOU, Lying Larry Forti, have ZERO
> expertise in epidemiology.* Stop pretending you have any.
>
> >
> >
> >>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least
> >>>eight genes ...

> >
> >**** Hmmm.* Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.

>
> In fact, Lying Larry, if you had bothered to do even
> some cursory research instead of running your fat
> ignorant hate-filled mouth, you would have learned that
> Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, is the lead
> author of the PEER-REVIEWED article:
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322081608.htm
>
> If you had done just a tiny bit more research, Lying
> Larry, instead of running your ignorant mouth, you'd
> have learned that Professor Stanford is the head of the
> Ph.D. program in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY at the
> University of Southern California.
>
> You stink, Forti.
>
> >**** Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists

>
> Prove that, Lying Larry.* You can't even get started.
> Those guys have forgotten more science from their first
> semester of university than you have even dreamed of in
> your entire shit-stained life, Forti, because YOU
> HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE.
>
> [snip fatuous references to Forti's own pages of deceit]
>
> >
> >
> >>>"Even though we have this idea that we are
> >>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that
> >>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the
> >>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said.

> >
> >**** Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology.

>
> No, it isn't, Forti, and YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED
> to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it
> AT ALL:* a great big ZERO.
>
> >
> >
> >>>One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of
> >>>that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time
> >>>after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is
> >>>known to help protect human beings against heart
> >>>disease.

> >
> >**** Not much "protection" if "heart disease" is responsible for 29% of all
> > deaths in the US.
> >
> >
> >>* You asshole -

> >
> >**** Jon-a-thug noBalls,

>
> You go eat shit and die, Forti, you piece of filth.
>
> >
> >
> >>haven't you
> >>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
> >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating?

> >
> >**** I still maintain

>
> ...with ZERO support for your polemical contention, and
> NO ****ING PRAYER of finding any...
>
> > that there is NO "genetic adaptation in humans for meat
> > eating",

>
> Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig
> Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say
> you're wrong.* They say you're wrong in their recently
> published PEER-REVIEWED article in a prestigious
> journal of BIOLOGY, Lying Larry.
>
> Uh...where's YOUR peer-reviewed article, Forti, you
> filthy lying polemicist?* Haw haw haw!
>
> > and you have not ever been able to provide ANY evidence of such.

>
> Dr. Finch and Stanford, both Ph.D.s, have INDEED
> provided evidence of "such", Lying Larry.* Stop lying.
>
> >**** Current epidemiology proves

>
> Shut your ****ING MOUTH about "current epidemiology",
> you lying asshole.* You don't know ANYTHING about
> epidemiology.* You aren't qualified to wash the toilets
> at any journal of epidemiology.
>
> >
> >
> >>Yet here we see REAL scientists -* asserts there is indeed a
> >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.

> >
> >**** They did not say anything in a authoritative or conclusive manner.

>
> Prove that, Lying Larry.* You HAVE NOT read their
> article, so you are in no position to say.
>
> >**** They did not assert there is a "genetic adaptation in humans for meat
> > eating",

>
> They certainly did.
>
> > they did not PROVE that it exists, they hypothesized it.

>
> RIGHT, science-illiterate Lying Larry:* because REAL
> science, unlike the tea-leaf reading and totem-touching
> crapola you stupidly and IGNORANTLY miscall "science",
> doesn't EVER claim to have "proved" something.* REAL
> science, Lying Larry, is ALWAYS presented as hypotheses.
>
> You wouldn't know anything about that.
> >
> >
> >>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry?* Not just wrong,
> >>but *knowingly* ignorant?* You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
> >>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
> >>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.

> >
> >**** Such [snip Lying Larry's blah-blah-blah hand-waving]

>
> Admit it NOW, Forti you cheap charlatan:* you don't
> know ANYTHING about genetics, epidemiology, nutrition,
> or ANY of the crap on your "ecologicfree" pages.
>
> You're a sick, juvenile JOKE, Forti.
>
> When you have a PEER-REVIEWED article that refutes the
> conclusions of Dr. Finch and Dr. Stanford, Lying Larry,
> get back to us.* Until then, shut up.


  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

"Foul Ball" > wrote

Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****.

>No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the

form of contradictions and disagreements.

That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he
says.

> When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never

acknowledge his request

Shut up you whining ninny.



  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

Shut up? Nice request! Stop top posting and using HTML? Great request!

Dutch wrote:

> "Foul Ball" > wrote
>
> Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****.
>
> >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the

> form of contradictions and disagreements.
>
> That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he
> says.
>
> > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never

> acknowledge his request
>
> Shut up you whining ninny.




  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

" > wrote
> Shut up? Nice request! Stop top posting and using HTML? Great request!


borrrrrrinnnnnnnnngggggggggg!!!!!!


>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "Foul Ball" > wrote
> >
> > Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****.
> >
> > >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in

the
> > form of contradictions and disagreements.
> >
> > That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything

he
> > says.
> >
> > > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never

> > acknowledge his request
> >
> > Shut up you whining ninny.

>



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

wrote:
>>You mean a 17-year study that affirmed the position contrary to the one you
>>took? Hahaha. Thanks for reminding me of your thorough incompetence.

>
> I mean, really, just ignore him.


You seem to ignore everything else that matters, including the findings of the
study you cited in support of your wild notion about meat.

This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet)
and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from
ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both
of these dietary factors was *NOT SIGNIFICANT*.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in
mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was *NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was
LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of
this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE* in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The
41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT SIGNIFICANT*....

What part of NOT SIGNIFICANT do you not comprehend?

> He just ignores valid issues pointed out about his own
> statements,


You've yet to make any valid points about my statements. You've also failed to
support your own statements. According to the study you cited, vegetarianism was
insignificant in reducing the health problems measured in the study -- WITH ONE
NOTABLE EXCEPTION: BREAST CANCER MORTALITY INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AMONG
VEGETARIANS.

> and likes to fool himself into thinking that
> his *points* have some significance, or even
> relevance.


Pot kettle black: you're the one making claims completely contrary to the
information you cite in support. You may not like the fact that someone else has
to explain your own sources to you (birdbrain), but that's your own shortcoming,
not mine. The study to which you STILL refer does NOT support your claim.
Seventeen years long or not, it supports the point *I* (and Rick and Jon) made.

> His level of vitriol indicates someone who is not
> to be taken seriously, either.


How do you explain your willful ignorance to others?

  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Ron
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> "Foul Ball" > wrote
>
> Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****.
>
> >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the

> form of contradictions and disagreements.
>
> That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he
> says.
>
> > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never

> acknowledge his request
>
> Shut up you whining ninny.






oooo....another Ball.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Thomas Mueller
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

from "Tabasco" >:

> My my, what friendly groups.
> By the time I got all the verbally abusive types blocked, there just wasn't much
> left.
> I expected a bit better in these groups. Looks like mostly a lot of flame wars and
> not much information or conversation.


Unfortunately, flame warfare is widespread on Usenet, though some groups are
politer than others. alt.free.newsservers features heavy use of the f word.
Flame warfare was rife in sci.med.nutrition and misc.health.alternetive last
time I was there. This newsgroup, alt.food.vegan.science , has low volume, or
at least low volume of legitimate posts.

"Jack Clark" > wrote in message
om...

> Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you
> maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no
> genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL
> scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you -
> publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a
> genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating.


> Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong,
> but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or
> not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying
> Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth.


I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, though I would use politer
language, and I would stick to one name instead of changing to another name.
I am observing that this Jack Clark appears to be the same as Jonathan Ball.

Some time back, there was discussion about some cases of parents being
prosecuted when their small children suffered from vitamin B-12 deficiency
resulting from the diet imposed on them by their parents. Then the volume
became too much for me to keep up with, and I stopped following this group,
alt.food.vegan.science . Now, with my respiratory problems, a vegan diet
leaves me feeling insufficient energy for good breathing, and I have been
eating pork, lamb and chicken; don't seem to take beef so well, and get
asthmatic reaction beginning several hours after eating fish or seafood.
Vegetarian seafood, meaning seaweed such as kelp, dulse or wakame, is OK.
I can't take animal protein at every meal and don't need animal protein every
day, but can't pretend to be vegetarian.


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat

"Thomas Mueller" > wrote in message
...
<..>
> .. Now, with my respiratory problems, a vegan diet
> leaves me feeling insufficient energy for good breathing,


Shouldn't do. But.. were you eating wheat? ..

What are the symptoms of wheat allergy?
Allergic reactions to wheat (IgE-antibody mediated) usually
begin within minutes or a few hours after eating or inhaling
wheat. The more common symptoms involve the skin
(urticaria, atopic eczema, angioedema) gastrointestinal tract
(oral allergy syndrome, abdominal cramps, nausea and
vomiting) *and the respiratory tract (asthma* or allergic rhinitis).
Ige-mediated reactions to gliadin or gluten can cause urticaria,
angioedema or life-threatening anaphylaxis in association with
exercise. Other gluten-containing cereals (rye, oats and barley)
may also cause these symptoms due to cross-reactivity of the
allergens.
http://www.chkd.org/Allergy/Wheat.asp
(emphasis added)

> and I have been
> eating pork, lamb and chicken; don't seem to take beef so well, and get
> asthmatic reaction beginning several hours after eating fish or seafood.
> Vegetarian seafood, meaning seaweed such as kelp, dulse or wakame, is OK.
> I can't take animal protein at every meal and don't need animal protein every
> day, but can't pretend to be vegetarian.


FYI;

Prevalence figures of allergic reactions to pork allergens
in allergic patients appear to be between 7% and 18%
(25,34,35,39). In a study of asthmatic patients, 20%
(children) and 8.6% (adults) were found to have IgE
mediated allergy to pork using Pharmacia & Upjohn,
Diagnostics ImmunoCAP® System (34).
http://www.labspec.co.za/l_meat.htm

'Dr. William Lintz, M.D., successfully treated 472 patients
suffering from allergies by cleansing the bowel.

Dr. Allan Eustis, M.D., Professor at Tulane University of
Medicine in 1912, cured 121 cases of bronchial asthma by
intestinal cleansing.

Dr. D. Rochester, M.D., University of Buffalo School of
Medicine in 1906, made the statement that after 23 years
of observation, toxemia of gastrointestinal tract origin is
the underlying cause of asthma.
...
Francisco Izundergui MacDonnell, MD, Ph.D., ND, PP.
Gen. Adm., sent the following letter. Here is his testimony.
"Dear Sirs: ... Many times when practicing autopsies on
people who died from chronic illnesses, I have always
found a thick layer of organized mucus-like hardened
material all over from the tongue down to the stomach,
small, large and recto-sigmoid colon. Usually it is more
common among milk drinkers and meat eaters. ..
This layer is composed of coagulated and racemized
glyco-proteins, which really impair the GI tract function
and also constitute a reservoir of bacteria and viruses that
invade the lymphatic and blood stream causing a wearing
down of the bodily defenses and a lot of burden on the
liver detoxification function. For that reason, Gerson,
Kelly and Beard enfancied always on GI tract cleansing
to obtain better results with their cancer treatments. In
the past we have even removed the entire colon to obtain
an effective relief from auto-intoxication specially with
colon polyposis and diverticulosis and chronic ulcerative
colitis....."51
http://www.cleanse.net/mucoid_plaque.HTM

'Dr. Robert Gray, a nutritionist, determined, through intensive
testing that certain foods are mucus-forming and others are
mucus cleansing. The foods shown to cause mucus are dairy
products, white flour, meat, eggs, potatoes, beans, rice,
grains, fish, peanuts and fats.'
http://www.healthrecipes.com/mucus_forming_foods.htm





  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.


"Thomas Mueller" > wrote in message
...

> I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, ...

Since noBalls can NEVER support his "point of view" with facts, logic,
or credible science, you are drifting in a self-destructive fantasy world
inhabited by the similarly self-deluded. IF noBalls had anything meaningful
to say, he would not rely on verbal violence, personal insults,
name-calling, and intellectual degeneracy.
Here is a self-description of noBalls' level of intellectual prowess.
http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt
Regarding the claimed, yet always-unsubstantiated, "human genetic
adaptation for eating meat", there is absolutely no evidence of same.
1. Natural carnivores/omnivores have sharp, pointy physical tools
(fangs, claws, talons, beaks, ...) for capturing/killing/eating animal
flesh; humans have none of these. Humans are also too slow to run down and
capture animals.
2. Natural carnivores/omnivores eat their flesh fresh and raw; humans
cook their flesh and further disguise it with spices/condiments. The need
for tools necessary for human flesh-eating is irrefutable evidence that
humans have no 'adaptations' for flesh-eating.
3. Natural carnivores/omnivores have instincts to capture, kill, and
eat raw their prey. Humans have a strong anti-instinct to do so, and all
meatarians, boldly claiming such mythical 'adaptations' who are challenged
to kill their prey and eat their flesh like ALL natural
carnivores/omnivores, do not have the courage or commitment, to do so. We
have no such instincts which clearly must have co-evolved with any
'adaptation' for flesh-eating.
4. The strong association of all the currently-popular "degenerative
diseases" with flesh-eating is epidemiological proof that no such
'adaptation' ever occurred.
5. The strong, characteristic, offensive odors of human flesh-eater's
feces, urine, perspiration, breath are proof that animal proteins are not
properly digested and/or assimilated, since if they were, the amine
compounds responsible for these odors would not exist. Why? Because proper
digestion and assimilation of protein removes amino acids (and their amine
residues) from the digestive tract into the body.
6. There is no evidence in contemporary evolutionary theory that
suggests that a species that voluntarily changes its diet (humans being the
only one capable of this act, since all other species eat by instinct as
contrasted to the human who consumes diet by cultural conditioning) thereby
produces the profound biochemical/physiological changes necessary to
successfully digest/assimilate the new, radically-different diet.
7. People who propagate the false concept of 'human adaptation for
flesh-eating" can produce NO scientifically-credible evidence that this has
ever occurred. None.
8. People who propagate this false concept are unable to differentiate
between Nature and culture, and that is the source of their error.

Laurie








  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.


"Laurie" > wrote in message
<snip>
>1. Natural carnivores/omnivores have sharp, pointy physical tools
> (fangs, claws, talons, beaks, ...) for capturing/killing/eating animal
> flesh; humans have none of these. Humans are also too slow to run down

and
> capture animals.


Before humans evolved, pre-humans developed knives, scrapers, and other
tools which helped to cut meat. They also developed fires.

> 2. Natural carnivores/omnivores eat their flesh fresh and raw; humans
> cook their flesh and further disguise it with spices/condiments. The need
> for tools necessary for human flesh-eating is irrefutable evidence that
> humans have no 'adaptations' for flesh-eating.


Humans eat raw meat as well, just got into any restaurant that serves steak
tartare or sashimi. Pre-humans likely cooked their meat in their fires
anyway.

> 3. Natural carnivores/omnivores have instincts to capture, kill, and
> eat raw their prey. Humans have a strong anti-instinct to do so, and all
> meatarians, boldly claiming such mythical 'adaptations' who are challenged
> to kill their prey and eat their flesh like ALL natural
> carnivores/omnivores, do not have the courage or commitment, to do so. We
> have no such instincts which clearly must have co-evolved with any
> 'adaptation' for flesh-eating.


We can steal carcasses from other predators. We are crafty and can set up
traps for animals. We can drive them off of cliffs or into pits lined with
spikes. We can catch them in snares. We can throw spears at them. And some
of course, can be caught by hand. Turtles for example, mollusks, lizards,
snakes, insects, baby birds, etc.

> 4. The strong association of all the currently-popular "degenerative
> diseases" with flesh-eating is epidemiological proof that no such
> 'adaptation' ever occurred.


People are eating too much in general and getting fat and those degenerative
diseases aren't a result of meat but a result of eating too much and living
too sedentary of a lifestyle.

> 5. The strong, characteristic, offensive odors of human flesh-eater's
> feces, urine, perspiration, breath are proof that animal proteins are not
> properly digested and/or assimilated, since if they were, the amine
> compounds responsible for these odors would not exist. Why? Because

proper
> digestion and assimilation of protein removes amino acids (and their amine
> residues) from the digestive tract into the body.


Plant materials can cause some of the worst cases of bad breath and odor,
such as garlic and onions.

> 6. There is no evidence in contemporary evolutionary theory that
> suggests that a species that voluntarily changes its diet (humans being

the
> only one capable of this act, since all other species eat by instinct as
> contrasted to the human who consumes diet by cultural conditioning)

thereby
> produces the profound biochemical/physiological changes necessary to
> successfully digest/assimilate the new, radically-different diet.


Animals are opportunists. If food is scarce as it was for some of our
ancestors, meat eating would be an excellent adaptation.

> 7. People who propagate the false concept of 'human adaptation for
> flesh-eating" can produce NO scientifically-credible evidence that this

has
> ever occurred. None.


I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles with
scraper marks.

> 8. People who propagate this false concept are unable to

differentiate
> between Nature and culture, and that is the source of their error.


I think you have trouble differentiating between science and pseudoscience.

-Rubystars


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

LaRRY wrote:
>>I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, ...

>
> Since noBalls can NEVER support his "point of view" with facts, logic,
> or credible science, you are drifting in a self-destructive fantasy world
> inhabited by the similarly self-deluded.


Hmm, I've seen your website, Larry, and it's not supported with facts, logic, or
science. Do you realize you're the pot calling the kettle black?

> IF noBalls had anything meaningful
> to say, he would not rely on verbal violence,


Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name?

> personal insults,


Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name?

> name-calling,


Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name?

> and intellectual degeneracy.


Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name?

<snip rest of ad hominems>

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dirk McDougal
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

Lying Larry Forti, engineering FAILURE and science
ignoramus, wrote:

> "Thomas Mueller" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, ...

>
> Since Ball can NEVER support his "point of view" with facts, logic,
> or credible


I supported it with ALL of that, Lying Larry, with a
news article about a PEER REVIEWED article that claims
there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating
meat. You cannot and did not even attempt to refute it.

You do not know science, Lying Larry. You are a FAILED
engineer and a rabidly irrational food extremist, and
your "ecologos" pages are the rantings of a mentally
unbalanced crackpot.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message m...
<..>
> I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles with
> scraper marks.


'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral*
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to *augment* plant resources.
...
Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However,
interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.*
Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
depositional integrity."
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm
(*emphasis added)





  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.


"pearl" > wrote in message
...
> "Rubystars" > wrote in message

m...
> <..>
> > I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles

with
> > scraper marks.

>
> 'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
> correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
> existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
> and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
> Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
> temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
> dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
> change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
> an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
> during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
> areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
> The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
> environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
> defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral*
> adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
> in the diet, to *augment* plant resources.


This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat.

> Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
> composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
> Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
> One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
> different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
> hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
> with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
> consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However,
> interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
> if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
> of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
> meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.*
> Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> depositional integrity."
> http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm
> (*emphasis added)


Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for reasonable
people.

-Rubystars


  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

foot-rubbing chelsea wrote:
<...>
> *However,
> interpretation of this information can often


....not always...

> be misleading, particularly
> if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
> of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
> meat-eating, could also be


....not are...

> the result of unrelated processes.*


That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence
of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man
or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools
are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent
with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be
logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of
primitive stone tools?

> Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> depositional integrity."


What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely
ignore surrounding matrices?

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message . ..
>
> "pearl" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Rubystars" > wrote in message

> m...
> > <..>
> > > I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles

> with
> > > scraper marks.

> >
> > 'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
> > correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
> > existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
> > and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
> > Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
> > temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
> > dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
> > change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
> > an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
> > during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
> > areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
> > The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
> > environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
> > defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral*
> > adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
> > in the diet, to *augment* plant resources.

>
> This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat.


ALL humans, everywhere?

> > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
> > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
> > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
> > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
> > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
> > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
> > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
> > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However,
> > interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
> > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
> > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
> > meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.*
> > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> > depositional integrity."
> > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm
> > (*emphasis added)

>
> Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for reasonable
> people.


'interpretation of this information can often be misleading'.




  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> <...>
> > *However,
> > interpretation of this information can often

>
> ...not always...


often

Main Entry: of·ten
: many times : FREQUENTLY
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...onary?va=often

Main Entry: fre·quent·ly
: at frequent or short intervals
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...&va=frequently

Main Entry: 2fre·quent
1 a : COMMON, USUAL b : happening at short intervals :
often repeated or occurring
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

> > be misleading, particularly
> > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
> > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
> > meat-eating, could also be

>
> ...not are...


could - expresses possibility

> > the result of unrelated processes.*

>
> That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence
> of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man
> or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools
> are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent
> with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be
> logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of
> primitive stone tools?


But how many of those piles of bones have stone-tool scrape marks?

I'm not denying that meat was eaten when necessary, but that was
a behavioural adaptation, not anatomical, physiological or biological..

'An additional factor influencing the increasing amounts of meat in the
hominid diet may have been accentuated seasonality in the environment.
The dry season decreased resource variety and abundance, causing
many animals to divert their foraging strategies to exploit more of a
single food item, or a greater variety of foods they may not have
sought out before. These might include underground storage organs in
plants, nuts, or other specialty food items to compensate for an overall
decrease in resource abundance.'
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm

> > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> > depositional integrity."

>
> What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely
> ignore surrounding matrices?


What leads you to believe that I believe that anthropologists
or archaeologists 'routinely ignore surrounding matrices'?

The, *your*, source, states- 'interpretation of this information can
often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy has not been adequately
investigated'.

routinely ignore =/= not been adequately investigated.






  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.


"pearl" > wrote in message
<snip>
> > This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat.

>
> ALL humans, everywhere?


Obviously not everyone everywhere, or we wouldn't have so many vegetarians
around the world, would we?

However, as a species, human beings have always consumed meat, from befiore
the very beginning.

> > > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
> > > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
> > > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
> > > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
> > > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
> > > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
> > > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
> > > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However,
> > > interpretation of this information can often be misleading,

particularly
> > > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
> > > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
> > > meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.*
> > > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
> > > depositional integrity."
> > > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm
> > > (*emphasis added)

> >
> > Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for

reasonable
> > people.

>
> 'interpretation of this information can often be misleading'.


I don't think it's misleading when you find bones cracked open to get at the
marrow:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...23/MN62659.DTL

"
"One antelope leg bone, for example, clearly shows the marks of deliberate
cutting and a cracked area that could only have been made by pounding it
with a rock, according to White, And a fragment of the animal's skull showed
where a sharp tool had obviously cut away the tongue -- presumably a
delicacy. "



-Rubystars








  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

pearl wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>*However,
>>>interpretation of this information can often

>>
>>...not always...

>
> often


CAN often doesn't imply frequently. It means there's a possibility -- which is
fully unsubstantiated by example in the context of the claim.

> Main Entry: of·ten
> : many times : FREQUENTLY
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...onary?va=often
>
> Main Entry: fre·quent·ly
> : at frequent or short intervals
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...&va=frequently
>
> Main Entry: 2fre·quent
> 1 a : COMMON, USUAL b : happening at short intervals :
> often repeated or occurring
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
>
>>>be misleading, particularly
>>>if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations
>>>of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
>>>meat-eating, could also be

>>
>>...not are...

>
> could - expresses possibility


Exactly. What is the frequency of that possibility as it occurs in specific
situations? Why doesn't the text note any examples to substantiate the call for
caution?

>>>the result of unrelated processes.*

>>
>>That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence
>>of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man
>>or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools
>>are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent
>>with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be
>>logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of
>>primitive stone tools?

>
> But how many of those piles of bones have stone-tool scrape marks?
>
> I'm not denying that meat was eaten when necessary,


Or when desired.

> but that was
> a behavioural adaptation, not anatomical, physiological or biological..


That's how those all other changes usually start in human evolution. Natural
selection *can* occur through a genetic mutation, but that's rare since most
genetic mutations are (by themselves) deleterious. Humans will probably never
grow sharp claws or develop mouths full of canines because we used technology to
leap over the slow and cumbersome process of genetic adaptation. Cooking is
another such example, and the difference in the digestability in cooked meat
versus raw pretty much levels the evolutionary paths -- and outcomes -- required
by other animals.

> 'An additional factor influencing the increasing amounts of meat in the
> hominid diet may have been accentuated seasonality in the environment.


IIRC, the issue is about humans -- modern man -- not earlier hominids.

> The dry season decreased resource variety and abundance, causing
> many animals to divert their foraging strategies to exploit more of a
> single food item, or a greater variety of foods they may not have
> sought out before. These might include underground storage organs in
> plants, nuts, or other specialty food items to compensate for an overall
> decrease in resource abundance.'
> http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm


Irrelevant digression.

>>>Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
>>>depositional integrity."

>>
>>What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely
>>ignore surrounding matrices?

>
> What leads you to believe that I believe that anthropologists
> or archaeologists 'routinely ignore surrounding matrices'?


Answer my question.

> The, *your*, source, states- 'interpretation of this information can
> often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy has not been adequately
> investigated'.


Since such discoveries are pored over and endlessly debated internally and
externally, I don't accept that the conclusions of anthropologists are "often
misleading." Perhaps early hypotheses formed when sites are dug can be
misleading, but that's why the scientific method doesn't make rigid conclusions
even after testing them.

> routinely ignore =/= not been adequately investigated.


Name me one study of tool-scraped bone piles in which such findings are
inadequately investigated.

  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.


"pearl" > wrote in message
...

> ' One of these *behavioral* adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate

quantities of meat in the diet, ... '
Good point, which is uniformly ignored by people falsely claiming human
evolutionary "adaptations" to flesh-eating.
The physical tools necessary to capture, kill, eat, and properly
digest -raw- flesh have been developed in ALL natural carnivore and
'omnivore' species, the instincts to do so have also been developed in those
species; however, neither the natural tools (fangs, sharp claws, talons,
beaks, ...), nor the INSTINCT to do so has developed in the human.
Thus, cultural practices (behavior) does NOT mean that the physical
tools or instincts have been developed by genetic processes, and cultural
practices are totally unrelated to genetic (evolution) processes.
It is significant that the meatarian propagandists voluntarily and
uniformly IGNORE this critical difference in their false claims about humans
'adapting to' or 'evolving to' eat raw animal flesh. These fools can not
differentiate between Nature and culture.

Laurie







  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.


"Larry Forti, ****wit extrordinaire" > wrote
>
> "pearl" > wrote
>
> > ' One of these *behavioral* adaptations was possibly a shift to

accomodate
> quantities of meat in the diet, ... '
> Good point, which is uniformly ignored by people falsely claiming

human
> evolutionary "adaptations" to flesh-eating.
> The physical tools necessary to capture, kill, eat, and properly
> digest -raw- flesh have been developed in ALL natural carnivore and
> 'omnivore' species, the instincts to do so have also been developed in

those
> species; however, neither the natural tools (fangs, sharp claws, talons,
> beaks, ...), nor the INSTINCT to do so has developed in the human.
> Thus, cultural practices (behavior) does NOT mean that the physical
> tools or instincts have been developed by genetic processes, and cultural
> practices are totally unrelated to genetic (evolution) processes.
> It is significant that the meatarian propagandists voluntarily and
> uniformly IGNORE this critical difference in their false claims about

humans
> 'adapting to' or 'evolving to' eat raw animal flesh. These fools can not
> differentiate between Nature and culture.


http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/m...ivory-1a.shtml
Human dentition is adapted for a generalized diet composed of both plant and
animal foods, and that human populations show amazing variability in their
plant-to-animal food subsistence ratios. However, it is important to
recognize that hominids have evolved important metabolic and biochemical
adaptations which are indicative of an increasing physiological dependence
upon animal-based foods. Further, comprehensive compilations of
hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies indicate that whenever it is
ecologically possible, humans will almost always consume more animal food
than plant food
Written by Loren Cordain, Ph.D. referencing 20 peer-reviewed papers by his
own group and a dozen independent sources and journals.

Where is *your* research Larry, where's *your* Ph.D?



  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

>"Dutch" > > ecologically possible, humans will almost always
consume
> more animal food than plant food


yes, and then they get ill

John C



  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
pearl
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message news:BESmc.184$yp3.107@newsfe1-win...
> >"Dutch" > > ecologically possible, humans will almost always

> consume
> > more animal food than plant food

>
> yes, and then they get ill
>
> John C


@ JC.




  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

John Coleman wrote:
>>ecologically possible, humans will almost always

> consume
>>more animal food than plant food

>
> yes, and then they get ill


Ipse dixit, you vitamin-deficient flake. Read the following and visit the site
for the rest of it.

----
The diets of the healthy "primitives" Price studied were all very different:
In the Swiss village where Price began his investigations, the inhabitants lived
on rich dairy products—unpasteurized milk, butter, cream and cheese—dense rye
bread, meat occasionally, bone broth soups and the few vegetables they could
cultivate during the short summer months. The children's teeth were covered in
green slime but Price found only about one percent decay. The children went
barefoot in frigid streams during weather that forced Dr. Price and his wife to
wear heavy wool coats; nevertheless childhood illnesses were virtually
nonexistent and there had never been a single case of TB in the village. Hearty
Gallic fishermen living off the coast of Scotland consumed no dairy products.
Fish formed the mainstay of the diet, along with oats made into porridge and
oatcakes. Fishheads stuffed with oats and chopped fish liver was a traditional
dish, and one considered very important for growing children. The Eskimo diet,
composed largely of fish, fish roe and marine animals, including seal oil and
blubber, allowed Eskimo mothers to produce one sturdy baby after another without
suffering any health problems or tooth decay. Well-muscled hunter-gatherers in
Canada, the Everglades, the Amazon, Australia and Africa consumed game animals,
particularly the parts that civilized folk tend to avoid—organ meats, blood,
marrow and glands, particularly the adrenal glands—and a variety of grains,
tubers, vegetables and fruits that were available. African cattle-keeping tribes
like the Masai consumed no plant foods at all—just meat, blood and milk.
Southsea islanders and the Maori of New Zealand ate seafood of every sort—fish,
shark, octopus, shellfish, sea worms—along with pork meat and fat, and a variety
of plant foods including coconut, manioc and fruit. Whenever these isolated
peoples could obtain sea foods they did so—even Indian tribes living high in the
Andes. Insects were another common food, in all regions except the Arctic. The
foods that allow people of every race and every climate to be healthy are whole
natural foods—meat with its fat, organ meats, whole milk products, fish,
insects, whole grains, tubers, vegetables and fruit—not newfangled concoctions
made with white sugar, refined flour and rancid and chemically altered vegetable
oils.

Modern nutrition researchers are showing renewed interest in the foodways of our
ancestors, but myths about primitive diets abound. The first is easily
dismissed—that traditional diets were largely vegetarian. Anthropological data
confirm what Price found, namely that throughout the globe, all societies show a
preference for animal foods and fats.3 Modern scientific literature does not
support the claims made for vegetarian diets[4]....

Another myth about primitive diets, and one that is harder to dispel, is that
they were low in fat, particularly saturated animal fat. Loren Cordain, PhD,
probably the most well known proponent of a return to Paleolithic food habits,
recommends a diet consisting of "lean meat, occasional organ meats and wild
fruits and vegetables." While this prescription may be politically correct, it
does not jibe with descriptions of Paleolithic eating habits, either in cold or
hot climates.

Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who spent many years living with the Eskimos and Indians
of Northern Canada, reports that wild male ruminants like elk and caribou carry
a large slab of back fat, weighing as much as 40 to 50 pounds. The Indians and
Eskimo hunted older male animals preferentially because they wanted this
backslab fat, as well as the highly saturated fat found around the kidneys.
Other groups used blubber from sea mammals like seal and walrus.

http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...ish_short.html
--------

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

I read Weston Price, he is a dentist made no medical analysis, and he was
wrong. He claims the Australian Aboriginals were healthy. This is nonsense,
they get most of the common "ailments" of civilised people.

John C


  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Laurie
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat


"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
news
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message
> > om...


> >>>The Los Angeles Times

> >

lf> > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.

> The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the
> Quarterly Review of Biology,. Are you
> claiming the Times got the story wrong,

First of all, the Times article was written by a WOMAN, Rosie Mestel,
and according to you all women are terminally stupid, so why are you now
claiming that women can think? More noBalls self-contractions??

> >>>Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
> >>>heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
> >>>beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
> >>>help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
> >>>hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.

> >

lf> > With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers
responsible
> > for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes"
> > have not "adapted" us very well.

>
> Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and
> Stanford,

" ... consequences would be worse ..." certainly is no "conclusion" that
any successful "adaptation" has occurred, and it also is a clear admission
that meat-eating is inherently disease-producing in our species.

> Leave your ignorance of EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, ...

So, you want to compare our abilities to comprehend the scientific
literature?
In my class work leading to my two engineering degrees, and the night
classes I took for over three years after graduation, I certainly took,
comprehended, and passed lots of science classes, while you, an economics
major who failed to complete a degree most certainly took NO real science
classes. Your ignorance of fundamental scientific concepts is displayed
here, and everywhere you write your misological propaganda, personal
insults, and vulgarity.
Let's look at the perversion that is called economics; that's where
economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The whole
economics enterprise is built on a false premise, and that is that spending
money is inherently good, and we should continually increase spending to
increase "growth". This omnidestructive model totally ignores quality of
life, sustainability of civilization, health, or the positive quality of
anything. To these intellectually-perverse economists, everything
destructive: war, disease, all crime, pollution, inefficiencies and waste,
global warming, junk foods, corruption, "natural disasters", earthquakes,
floods, plagues, etc. is seen as positive, because they all cost money and
increase the GNP. Thus, this inherently-false and omnidestructive economic
model is -exactly- the cause for the current global ecological decline, the
extinction of thousands of species, and the increasingly-difficult issues
the human species will have to deal with until this false and destructive
model is finally abandoned and replaced with one that values life, health,
and sustainability of the whole human species and the other entities that
cohabit this planet.
This economic perversity is part of the core of your personal insanity.

lf> > IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions
and
> > terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero

> PROVE that, ...

Would you prefer "almost zero"??
The fact is that we are frugivorous apes (those of you who have deluded
yourselves into believing that you are pigs, notwithstanding).
We are adapted to fruits: eating fruits does not lead to any
"degenerative diseases".
We are adapted to "vegetables": eating them does not lead to any
"degenerative diseases".
The fact that flesh-eating and consuming other animal products is
epidemiologically-linked to all currently-popular "degenerative diseases" is
clear proof to a rational mind that no "adaptation" to them ever occurred.
As is the increase in health experienced by those who abandon eating animal
products.

> > Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.

> Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, ...

Biologists are not qualified to do genetic research, either.

> You stink, Forti.

Yep, noBalls, this is the pinnacle of your ability to discuss scientific
topics politely or rationally.

> YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE.

I have taken and passed many college-level science courses, while a
broken down, failed economic major, who believes that he is a pig, would
have taken NONE.

> ... YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED
> to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it
> AT ALL: a great big ZERO.

While a failed economics major HAS??

> Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig
> Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say
> you're wrong.

No, they do NOT claim that our species has successfully "adapted" to
flesh-eating.
And, there is no evidence in the current evolutionary literature that
even suggests that voluntarily changing diet magically causes any
"adaptations" to that new diet; in fact, this Lamarckian nonsense (behavior
influences genetics) was refuted almost a century ago.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html
"Today, the name of Lamarck is associated merely with a discredited
theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits."

> Shut your ****ING MOUTH about "current epidemiology",
> you lying asshole. You don't know ANYTHING about
> epidemiology. You aren't qualified to wash the toilets
> at any journal of epidemiology.

NoBalls rises to new heights of scientific credibility and academic
discourse.

Is anyone here involved in an Abnormal Psychology class?
If so, then noBalls would be an excellent case study of how a vicious
self-styled, misologistic psychopath, hiding behind a modem and
intentionally-falsified headers (proof of both his cowardice and that he
knows what he is doing is wrong), tries to use the Internet as a vehicle for
his sickness: that of having so low a self-esteem, that he tries to boost
himself up by attacking everyone else with insults, vulgarity, and pure
viciousness.

And now, from noBalls Greatest Hits:
"It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling."
http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt

"If you behave like a Barbarian, you will become a Barbarian." Frasier

Laurie


  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
William J. Wolfe
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message news:<oVbnc.351$ND.159@newsfe1-win>...
> I read Weston Price, he is a dentist made no medical analysis, and he was
> wrong. He claims the Australian Aboriginals were healthy. This is nonsense,
> they get most of the common "ailments" of civilised people.


They do, and they have health problems in common with Europeans -
obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and strokes, all
because they eat the greasy crap that obese lazy Eurpoeans eat - cheap
fat and sugar laben low fibre corporate American controlled "fast
food."

Take your unhealthy suburban aboriginal out of town, put him with a
group of his tribalbrothers and three months later, eating whatever is
caught in the bush, the fat sick suburban black fella will have bright
eyes, shiny healthy skin, low blood pressure, half his original
weight, and so much improved in appearance that his own mother won't
recognise him.

The bush black fella wil have health problems characterisitic of
living in dry dusty condiditions nad living with continuus fly and
wood smoke problems. That's what Fred hollows was working on, the
sight problems brought on by living in the bush. The same black fella,
however, will not be overweight, have no stress and alcohol problems.

I grew up in the true Australian "Outback," where a trip to town was a
major expediton, not a half hour drive down the highway. I have seen
how taking a tribal black fella and giving him the easy town life with
plenty of food, booze and no work is a sure way of killing him.
  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.

> Take your unhealthy suburban aboriginal out of town, put him with a
> group of his tribalbrothers and three months later, eating whatever is
> caught in the bush, the fat sick suburban black fella will have bright
> eyes, shiny healthy skin, low blood pressure, half his original
> weight, and so much improved in appearance that his own mother won't
> recognise him.


This is true but misleading. Aboriginals have herbal "remedies" dating back
long before Western enculturation that include treaments for many common
complaints of Western lifestyle, i.e. colds and flu, gastro-intestinal
disorders (bad diet?), congestion, coughs, generally feeling unwell, sore
throat etc. They were never healthy to start with, they just got made much
worse with a newer dose of civilisation.

John


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Eating Puppy Meat Is the Same as Eating Pork, British TV Chef Says Stephen Newport General Cooking 14 14-10-2011 12:03 AM
HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT [email protected] Vegan 3 09-06-2010 07:48 PM
HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT harmony[_3_] Vegan 1 09-06-2010 07:42 PM
HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT Fred C. Dobbs[_3_] Vegan 2 09-06-2010 08:47 AM
Is Eating Pet Food Hazardous To Humans? Guillaume Ier de Normandie[_2_] General Cooking 19 09-03-2009 01:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"