Dragonblaze wrote:
> On 9 Jun, 17:14, Laurie > wrote:
>> Dragonblaze wrote:
> I'm not evading anything, ...
You are avoiding the question: "do you kill, dismember, and
eat raw your animal prey as all natural 'omnivores' do,
with your natural physiology? No guns, no knives, no fire.
If not, why not?"
Evading issues is simply dishonest. Answer the questions.

> ... raise my own animals or hunt for my food.
NO, BUT you COULD be loyal to your carnivorous "nature" by
consuming say, a mouse, raw. Just to support your "point"
about your false claim as to being an omnivore.
Start with a live mouse from a pet shop, and then work your
way through the stray dogs and cats in your neighborhood.

> What ugly reality you might be talking about?
The ugly and false reality of humans being an 'omnivore'.

> After all, the vegetables you much on were alive once.
The issue is not a "food" being "alive once", it is the
biochemistry involved. You have quite a talent for
obfuscating and avoiding the critical issues with
nonsensical trivia.

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

video
http://tinyurl.com/6lcda6

discovered that the consumption of animal protein
and animal fat are THE CAUSES of the currently-popular
"degenerative diseases" in the largest epidemiological study
ever done relating degenerative diseases to diet. Try
reading a real book for a change.

>>> ... but as with all processes, world has moved on
>> Are you so ill-educated to assume that the Laws of
>> Biochemistry have somehow changed over time? PLEASE
>> provide some scientifically-credible support for this
>> statement, or be polite enough to withdraw it. You are
>> not authorized to just make science up to suit your
>> agenda.
>
> State the "Laws of Biochemistry" - whatever they might
> be.
More evasion; have you no self-respect?
You are the one making idiotic claims about human
biochemistry with your false belief that humans have
"evolved" to consume animals; we have NOT. You can present
NO real science that suggests so.
Making up lies about science is simply dishonest; try to be
honest. I realize that this will be difficult with no
relevant education: anatomy, physiology, biochemistry,
general science, genetics, ...
Please do not lie about science.

> What did you find so difficult about my statement?
It certainly is NOT "difficult", just irrelevant and foolish.

> If you are doubting we have been omnivores throughout
> human existence,
Our physiology and anatomy are that of a frugivorous ape.
Read a book!

http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/primegendist.html
http://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
http://ecologos.org/omni.htm
http://ecologos.org/chimphunt.htm
http://ecologos.org/pix/primatediets.gif
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#meat

? I will refer you to prehistoric
> archaeological sites with all the charred and cracked
> animal bones, or the prehistoric cave paintings and/or
> rock carvings with depictions of hunting scenes or game
> animals.
Irrelevant; clearly pre-fire, pre-tool humans were
frugivorous apes, so they left NO evidence of their totally
raw, plant-based diet, just like modern chimps leave no
evidence of their diet -- compost, ya know!
You seem to have a great difficulty understanding the
profound difference between the verbs: to DO, as in
culturally-conditioned behavior, and to BE, as in genetic
code and its biochemistry.
Humans are CULTURAL omnivores, quite certainly NOT NATURAL
omnivores.
Could you really not grasp this concept on your own? Any
"education"???

> Start with the Lascaux cave - and I can easily post
> references to even older sites than that.
Culture, not Nature; try to comprehend the profound DIFFERENCE.

> Take your own advice - and try explaining how "natural
> detoxing" managed to kill 22 million people in the
> Spanish Flu epidemic of 1919-1920.
Filthy living conditions, sewage running through the city
streets, unrefrigerated meat, putrefying dairy, ... are you
simply IGNORING the important environmental factors involved
to support a false belief?

>> I have no need to evade the issue, which is that human
>> biochemistry has NOT changed, as you fallaciously
>> imply.
> YOU'RE the one who's claiming that, since you imply that
> somehow we are now unable to consume animal products.
The epidemiology is unchallenged, read The China Study.
Humans can NOT consume dead, rotting, animal corpses AND be
healthy. Do you confuse "consume animal products" and being
healthy??

> Show me ONE culture/nation/tribe/whatever that can be
> shown to have been pre-industrial vegans. I will not hold
> my breath while waiting, for obvious reasons.
ALL pre-tool, pre-fire societies were exactly that:
raw, plant-based diets. For the same reason you do NOT
practice natural omnivorism. Even a two-year old knows this,
why can't you get this simple fact.
I know, your culturally-conditioned ego shields you from
the truth.

> to explain how and why your alleged vegans switched to a
> diet including animal ingredients.
Well known!
The foolish migration out of the Tropics into cold areas
that produced NO plant foods (fruits) during winter, and
the availability to eat animals, the only thing living
locally. Try to review your "archaeological data" in an
honest way.


> so the burden of proof is squarely on you.
Let's see you refute ANYthing I say; notice, I provide
copious citations; you provide NONE.

>>> As regards the human history, cracked and burnt
>>> animal bones are found everywhere in archaeological
>>> digs, from the earliest human sites on.
And where is the evidence of human raw fooders?
Or are you denying that humans ate exclusively RAW plants
BEFORE COOKING was discovered accidentally.
Are you as uneducated as you appear, or is this some sort
of juvenile joke?

>> You are apparently unaware that early humans, pre-tool
>> and fire ate a totally RAW diet of fruits and leaves,
>> as modern chimps do. Thus, they left NO long-term
>> remains, such as those always left by recent
>> flesh-eating tribes. Thus, raw-eating humans existed,
>> and were eating millions of years before fire and tools
>> were developed. Try to get your baby archeology
>> correct before you embarrass yourself like this
>> repeatedly. Thanks for the laugh.
>
> Any evidence for this assertion? No?
Humans eating a totally raw, natural diet would leave NO
evidence of their diet, just as chimps and other apes leave
no permanent record.
NO TOOLS, NO FIRE, NO PERMANENT EVIDENCE; get it?

> ... which no evidence whatsoever to back any of your
> claims up.
LIER! The are are well over 700 scientific citations on my
site that support everything I say. YOU have NONE!

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olduvai_Gorge ). Start with
> this article:
Irrelevant; any post-tool, post-fire physical evidence is
NOT related to natural human diet.

> Systematic Butchery by Plio/Pleistocene Hominids at
Do you deny that tools/fire are relatively RECENT
inventions that did not exist in the great majority of human
existence on this planet?

> Cut marks on small mammals ...
TOOLS, you moron.

> BTW, we ARE learning how to distinguish human toothmarks
> on gnawed bones, ...
Do you have any instincts to kill and eat RAW your animal
prey; why is there no instinct?

> http://www.dissertations.wsu.edu/The...ndt_050404.pdf
>
>
>
>
Hmmm, anthro-apologist.
http://ecologos.org/ttdd.html#a

> When, in your opinion, did the meat-eating culture you
> were talking about start?
No idea, but it is absolutely certain that human evolved on
a totally raw diet for the great majority of time on this
planet. I.e., COOKING is a relatively new fad, and confined
to the sickest species on the planet. No other animal
species manifest "degenerative diseases".

> Again, since you claimed that flu is natural detoxing,
> could you explain the 22 million dead I referred to
> above?
Filthy environment, sewage running in the streets, rotting
meats, ...


> I'm aware of it, but since it has come under severe
> criticism for what looks like severely flawed research
Point out these flaws, and reference Campbell's addressing
of same.

> I don't think it would be worth my while.
Too challenging to your culturally-conditioned belief
system. NO intellectual integrity.

You are simply being dishonest and willfully ignorant of
facts that challenge your ego, Try objectivity.

Laurie

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