On 11 Jun, 15:36, Laurie > wrote:
> 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.

Stop being more stupid than you really have to, please - if you can.
In fact, as I did inform you earlier, I like raw beef, and consume it
quite often. And that was mentioned in response to another of your
"scientifically backed facts" (not that I've seen you post one yet)
where you claimed meat has no flavour of its own.

You prove it SO true that we are what we eat - and I'd rather be an
animal than a vegetable like you.

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

We've been that even before we became homo sapiens. Evidence for my
claim will be presented later on.

> > 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 Studyhttp://tinyurl.com/2v689m
>
> * * *videohttp://tinyurl.com/6lcda6

[bullcrap unbacked claims snipped]

Oh, that debunked nonsense again. Stop boring me with bogus "research"
and bring on some peer-reviewed publications - if you actually manage
to find one.

What your faith-based holy book claims is neither convincing nor
interesting.

[snip].

> > State the "Laws of Biochemistry" - whatever they might
> > be.

[clueless ranting snipped]

> * * * * Please do not lie about science.

You would not know science if it bit you in the rear, judging from the
nonsense you spout.

And now state the bleeding laws of of biochemistry - or whatever you
might imagine them to be.

> > 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!

Have done so. Several, and not just one pathetic crackpot propaganda
one such as the one you peddle.

Mind explaining the thinness of the human tooth enamel when compared
to herbivores?

> http://www.gate.net/%7Erwms/primegen...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!

EVER heard of isotope analysis? I thought not...

> * * * * You seem to have a great difficulty understanding the
> profound difference between the verbs: to DO, as in
> culturally-conditioned behavior, and to BE, as in genetic
> code and its biochemistry.
> * * * * Humans are CULTURAL omnivores, quite certainly NOT NATURAL
> omnivores.
> * * * * Could you really not grasp this concept on your own? *Any
> "education"???

Says you. I'm still waiting for ANY evidence for your claims, which
seems to be curiously lacking... As if it just was not available....

All the hysterical ranting you do will not change one iota the fact
that you either cannot or for some reason are unwilling to present ANY
valid evidence to back your claims.

> > 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?

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

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

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

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

> >> 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??

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

> > 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.

So you cannot name a single one. Not surprised, since there ARE none
found yet.

You base your claims solely on your bias and faith, even when it is a
known fact that even other primates supplement their diet with meat or
fish - the macaques were in the news only yesterday for that reason.

Your faith shields you from reality, just like any other faith-head.

And your faith about the pre-tool, pre-fire vegans is about to be
challenged later. Try and keep up with research, will you?

> > 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.

Chimps still live in the tropics, as do the macaques, and both eat
either meat or fish. Nice try, but wrong, as usual.

> > 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.

You're the one making the claim, so you prove it. I

have YET to see any valid evidence from you. Try something that is
actually peer-reviewed, since you seem to have SUCH a respect for
science - if you happen to know what peer-reviewed is.

> >>> 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?

LOL - look who's talking!

Of course I'm denying it, based on what I know about primate behaviour
- and something else I will present later.. Chimps - and they are very
close genetic relatives to homo sapiens - supplement their diet with
animals. What makes you think that our ancestors did not do the same,
or scavenge? Scavenging freshly-killed carcasses would not be carrion
eating, and well within human tolerance.

But of course you will ignore this fact, or twist it out of all
recognition to deny reality - just like any fundie creationist would
do.

> > ... *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!

That is actually spelled 'liar.' Stop being so hysterical.

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

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

Okay....

Isotopic Evidence for the Diet of an Early Hominid, Australopithecus
africanus
Matt Sponheimer, Julia A. Lee-Thorp

"Current consensus holds that the 3-million-year-old hominid
Australopithecus africanus subsisted on fruits and leaves, much as the
modern chimpanzee does. Stable carbon isotope analysis of A. africanus
from Makapansgat Limeworks, South Africa, demonstrates that this early
hominid ate not only fruits and leaves but also large quantities of
carbon-13-enriched foods such as grasses and sedges OR ANIMALS THAT
ATE THESE PLANTS, OR BOTH [emphasis mine]. The results suggest that
early hominids regularly exploited relatively open environments such
as woodlands or grasslands for food. They may also suggest that
hominids consumed high-quality animal foods before the development of
stone tools and the origin of the genus Homo."

M. Sponheimer, Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University, New
Brunswick NJ 08901-1414, USA, and Department of Archaeology,
University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, Republic of
South Africa. J. A. Lee-Thorp, Department of Archaeology, University
of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch 7701, Republic of South Africa.
"

Dental Evidence for the Diet of Australopithecus

R F Kay *

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

Annual Review of Anthropology
Vol. 14: 315-341 (Volume publication date October 1985)

[snip]

> > 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".

Looks like pre-tool, pre-fire homininds ate meat - judging from the
isotope analysis of their fossilised teeth. What else can I debunk for
you today?

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

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

[snip]

> * > 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.

Campbell has a really weird idea about the Chinese diet, as anyone
who's ever been there can tell you. Far from being vegan, the average
Chinese diet is full of animal ingredients, pork and seafood being
especial favourites.

As for the rest, someone else has already done a critique of
Campbell's little exercise of faith so here it is:

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

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

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

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

I also am not interested in Flat-Earth arguments, geocentricity, ID
and other such nonsense for exactly the same reasons I'm not
interested in China Study.

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

Says a committed faith-head. Such irony....

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

Were I you, I'd change that .sig before the Trades Description Act
catches up with you.

Dragonblaze