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