Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2016 17:36:23 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>
>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 20:15:49 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 18:13:08 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 8 Jan 2016 00:34:13 +0000 (UTC), tert in seattle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reversing evolution. Our bodies (and digestive systems) have evolved
>>>>>>>>> greatly since Paleolithic times so it certainly doesn't make sense
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't know about other stuff, but if you want to get scientific, the
>>>>>>>> human digestive system clearly puts us in the frugivore category, just
>>>>>>>> the same as most other primates
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there is a theory that our brains became larger as a result of cooking
>>>>>>>> food and greater availability of glucose (less work chewing, more work
>>>>>>>> thinking)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> but our teeth haven't changed much and neither have our innards
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you're wrong on both counts. Our digestive system, starting in
>>>>>>> the mouth changed significantly once we started cooking food. We are
>>>>>>> clearly not frugivores. You've been reading too many raw/vegetarian
>>>>>>> kook sites.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -sw
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted this before -- here's yer kook website
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "In other words, there is very little evidence that our guts are terribly
>>>>>> special and the job of a generalist primate gut is primarily to eat
>>>>>> pieces of plants."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He does come right out and say that our digestive system *did* evolve
>>>>>> with agriculture and processing (fermenting and cooking) of food, but
>>>>>> not anatomically -- which is what I meant by teeth and innards -- but
>>>>>> physiologically, with upregulation of amylase and persistence of lactase
>>>>>> into adulthood.
>>>>>
>>>>> The human digestive became *physically* shorter with the introduction
>>>>> of cooked meat and plants that were easier to digest. Our jaws and
>>>>> teeth became smaller and weaker because food became softer.
>>>>
>>>> you mean "humanoid" digestive ...tract?
>>>
>>> The digestive SYSTEM of humans.
>>
>> well, the digestive system of humans doesn't have a length, really, but
>> the tract does
>
> The tract is part of the digestive system. I said SYSTEM because it
> encompasses the teeth and jaw as well, as that was what we were also
> talking about.
>
>> and the digestive tract of humans (homo sapiens sapiens) hasn't changed
>> at all
>
> "Human" includes all the homos, including you and Gregory. We were
> NEVER referring just to Modern Humans.
>
> I guess all this attempted nitpicking means you have no other logical
> arguments.
>
>> It helps to see that the Smithsonian is comfortable referring to species
>> from 6 million years ago as "human". If you want to stick with the 4th
>> grade version of science, I'm not going to argue.
>
> Exactly how I've been using the word. So now that you've been proven
> wrong, you have to criticize them, too? What is the extent of your
> degree in anthropology, BTW?
>
> -sw

I haven't been proven wrong. You have shown that you like to "win"
arguments. Congratulations.