Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>Krusty wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dana Carpender" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Blair P. Houghton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dana Carpender wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>And yeah, since grains and beans in any quantity have only been part of
>>>>>>the human diet for 10,000 of the 2 million or more years we've been
>>>>>>around, it's really hard to see how they're essential. Research
>>>>>>indicates that the hunter/gatherer diet generally consisted of roughly
>>>>>>50%-60% animal food, and the rest vegetables, wild (very low sugar)
>>>>>>fruit in season, and nuts and seeds. Sounds about like my diet.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>You know nothing about evolution, either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nice assertion. Care to back it up?
>>>
>>>
>>>Yeah you ****ing idiot. Human Beings haven't been around for 2 million
>>>years.
>>>
>>>What else do you want to know.
>>
>>Cite?
>>
>>This suggests roots 3 million years back:
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/231442.stm
>>
>>And we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years. If you want
>>to go by that, we were still hunter-gatherers for 80% of our existance.
>>
>>Or do you believe the world was created in 4004 BC? Because if you do,
>>we can talk about who's the idiot.
>>
>
>
>
> So you are calling Krusty an idiot by agreeing that you made an
> ignorant statement? Good job. I think that's a new one on UseNet.


Nope. It's a question of what you want to call "human history." I was
clarifying, and making the point that even if you want to go with the
narrowest possible definition, we still, as a species, have an
overwhelming history of eating a hunter-gatherer diet, which makes
claims that grains and beans are essential for human health ridiculous.

Dana