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.

Dana
>
>

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.


--
Stefan:

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

In article > ,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> 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.
>


So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
You can't have it both ways.


--
Stefan:

Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article > ,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>
>
>
>
> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
> origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
> You can't have it both ways.


No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
shouldn't do so now.

Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
"glycemic load," and see what turns up.

Dana

Dana Carpender wrote:

>
>
> Lord Hatred wrote:
>
>> In article > ,
>> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to
>> the origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
>> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary
>> requirements? You can't have it both ways.
>
>
>
> No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
> long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
> requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
> 190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
> to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
> based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
> fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
> nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
> forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
> shouldn't do so now.
>
>

To add a quick cite; from a PBS site re evolution:

1. How long does evolution take?
Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many
species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except
over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years -- much too long to
witness in a human lifetime. There are cases in quickly reproducing life
forms like bacteria and fruit flies, however, where evolution can be
seen happening in a matter of weeks for the bacteria and many months for
the flies. In these cases the relatively large number of generations in
a given period of time is key, since evolutionary change occurs
incrementally from one generation to the next. All else being equal, the
more generations you have, the more quickly evolution happens.

Since human beings are not bacteria nor fruit flies, and tend to roughly
20 year generations, I'm leaning toward that
thousands-to-hundreds-of-thousands figure. Makes 10,000 years seem
damned puny.

Dana

In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> Lord Hatred wrote:
>
> > In article > ,
> > Dana Carpender > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
> > origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
> > homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
> > You can't have it both ways.
>
>
> No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
> long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
> requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
> 190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
> to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
> based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
> fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
> nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
> forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
> shouldn't do so now.


What about cooking meat? If you're going to go this route then you
should go all the way with your argument. Early man did not cook meat.
Thus, it is unnecessary for us to do so now. It's actually unhealthy to
do so! The human body wasn't designed to eat cooked meat. Also. hell,
why eat every day? They didn't! They went days without eating. We should
too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
until it goes rancid. Then wait a few days. Start over.

> Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
> carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
> "glycemic load," and see what turns up.

Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
this nice thick glass of flour and water!


--
Stefan:

Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article >,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
>
>>Lord Hatred wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article > ,
>>> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
>>>origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
>>>homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
>>>You can't have it both ways.
>>
>>
>>No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
>>long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
>>requirements. If grains and beans weren't essential for the first
>>190,000 years (and our forerunners for roughly 2 million years previous
>>to that), there's no reason why they should be essential now. If a diet
>>based on animal foods, vegetables, fruit (keeping in mind that modern
>>fruit is candy compared to wild fruit), nuts and seeds, and the like,
>>nourished our ancestors well for 190,000 years (and again, their
>>forebears for another 2 million years), there's no reason why it
>>shouldn't do so now.
>
>
>
> What about cooking meat? If you're going to go this route then you
> should go all the way with your argument. Early man did not cook meat.
> Thus, it is unnecessary for us to do so now.

True enough. And I rather like carpaccio.

It's actually unhealthy to
> do so! The human body wasn't designed to eat cooked meat. Also. hell,
> why eat every day? They didn't!

I don't know that we know that. Indeed, I've read studies indicating
that the average hunter-gatherer ate a diet that compared pretty well,
calorically speaking, with the average non-impoverished citizen of a
third world country, and higher in calories than your average
impoverished member of first-world countries.

They went days without eating.

Cite?

We should
> too! It's healthy with out current lifestyles to not eat everyday. So
> here's what you do. Go to the local wooded lands, pick a few random
> berries. Bring them home. Feast on them for a good day or two. Then go
> out and kill yourself a deer. Drag it back home. Use a sharp rock to cut
> it open. Don't use knives. Early man didn't use them. They used rocks.
> We weren't meant to use knives. Use the sharp rock to ct open that deer.
> Cut off a slab and eat it. Yum. Feel those all natural life giving
> juices fill your mouth! Feel them dribbling down your chin. This is what
> man was meant to do! Be covered in blood. Eat nothing but that deer
> until it goes rancid.

Funny you should mention it. I have venison in the fridge right now.
Also grass-fed beef.

>>Furthermore, I see evidence that a diet based on concentrated
>>carbohydrate foods is a good idea. Do a quick pubmed search on
>>"glycemic load," and see what turns up.
>
>
> Bah Gawd! Eating too many carbs is bad for you! Somebody alert the
> media! This might cause widespread obesity and other health disorders!
> I'm glad you saved me! I almost ate this entire bag of sugar and drank
> this nice thick glass of flour and water!

Probably not. But have you eaten a plate of pasta recently? Same
thing, nutritionally speaking.

But if you agree that eating a high glycemic load is a bad idea, what
the hell are you arguing about?

Dana

Dana Carpender > writes:



>Lord Hatred wrote:


>> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
>> origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
>> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
>> You can't have it both ways.


>No, I'm unconvinced that 10,000 years -- maybe 500 generations -- is
>long enough for evolution to have completely altered our nutritional
>requirements.

I would agree about the "completely" part, but there has been apparent
natural selection in human populations who diverged only relatively
recently. Good examples would be sickle cell anemia and thalassemia,
which presumably became more prevalent following exposure to malaria
(or less prevalent in populations who moved away from the skeeters,
I forget which).

More relevantly to diet, consider that there are groups of humans
(such as many Pacific Islanders, for example) who have a propensity
to weight gain (and in fact obesity, as well as type II diabetes).
It's hypothesized that their ancestors -- the relatively healthy
ones who survived long enough to reproduce -- had undergone numerous
selection events [1] which favored a genetic propensity toward
putting on weight, possibly because of a sort of "feast or famine"
environment (and possibly because to get to the islands they had
to ride canoes for weeks). With regular access to food, these
people tend to be on the hefty side. The Pacific islands were
settled probably between three and ten thousand years ago.

Yemenite Jews who were airlifted to Israel had much the same thing
happen to them (probably a lot "worse", in the sense that having
diabetes can be said to be worse than being in danger of starvation).

Conversely, people of European descent have the lowest prevalence
of type II diabetes (although it's increasing); it's thought that
those with the "thrifty genes" were largely, err, culled from the
population with the arrival of really dependable food sources in
the I dunno late middle ages or so.

(I'm not quite convinced this last part is true, though, because
type II diabetes usually starts appearing after the start of the
reproductive years. But I haven't read much on it.)




[1] Kind of a euphemism for "lots of horrible death".

--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

Lord Hatred wrote:
> In article > ,
> Dana Carpender > wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
>
> So you're saying you approve of using evolution as it pertains to the
> origin of homosapien but against the usage of the evolution of
> homosapien as a creature itself as it pertains to dietary requirements?
> You can't have it both ways.
>
A few thousand years isn't a lot of time in a species that averages
about 20 years from generation to generation, for selective pressures
to change humans such that high impact carbs are preferable.

>
> --
> Stefan:

--Bryan

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.
>
>
> --
> Stefan:

No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.

In article .com>,
wrote:

> 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.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Stefan:
>
> No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
> scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
> of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.



Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
wouldn't call them humans at all. As I stated before, you can't accept
evolution of a species without evolution within the species.

--
Stefan:

Lord Hatred wrote:

> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>Stefan:
>>
>>No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
>>scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
>>of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.
>
>
>
>
> Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
> be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
> wouldn't call them humans at all. As I stated before, you can't accept
> evolution of a species without evolution within the species.
>

I do. Now, compare 2-3 million years with 10,000 years.

Dana

In article >,
Dana Carpender > wrote:

> Lord Hatred wrote:
>
> > In article .com>,
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>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.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>Stefan:
> >>
> >>No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
> >>scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
> >>of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
> > be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
> > wouldn't call them humans at all. As I stated before, you can't accept
> > evolution of a species without evolution within the species.
> >
>
> I do. Now, compare 2-3 million years with 10,000 years.
>


Ok. Now add in rapidly advanced species migration and the environment
adaptations necessary, the ability to reason, religion, bacterial
evolution (which you admitted can be rapid), and evolution within the
species on a basic level to combat the bacterial evolution. Today's
modern man simply would NOT be able to digest the foods from the diet of
early man. Even going back so far as the middle ages. We wouldn't be
bale to eat that diet. Why? Because we've learned to process our foods
for consumption. Our bodies adapted to and for that change. Hell, you
even admitted that we have an enzyme used to consume grains. Your
attempt at deflecting the point falls flat because it simply ignores
what it can do. You are cherry picking simply so you can guard your
territory (ie, in this case, your chosen diet). That is intellectually
fraudulent.



--
Stefan:

"Lord Hatred" > wrote in message
...
> In article .com>,
> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Stefan:
>>
>> No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
>> scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
>> of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.
>
> Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
> be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
> wouldn't call them humans at all.

Thank you.
--
--- "Damn dirty fleas..."
--- Proud loser of TWO 2004 RSPW Poster Awards and several in 2005.
--- 3rd Highest Vote-Getter in KORSPW 2005
--- In the Final Four of the 2006 RSPW Rumble
--- Ranked 4th on Lvubun's Top 127 RSPW Posters of 2005

Lord Hatred > writes:

>In article .com>,
> wrote:


>> No, she's right. (In the correct sense, not the poltical spectrum.) The
>> scientific community views Ergaster, Habilis, Neanderthalis and others
>> of the Homo genus as human, and counts them as human beings.



> Some scientists will also argue that chimpanzees and gorillas should
>be included in the Homo class due to the genetic similarities. I
>wouldn't call them humans at all. As I stated before, you can't accept
>evolution of a species without evolution within the species.


Homo's a genus, not a class, and of course Homo ergaster, Homo habilis,
etc. are in it. I'm not aware of any argument to include gorillas
in Homo, but there's a compelling case for chimps (and probably moreso
for bonobos).

--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
... or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University

"Dana Carpender" > wrote
> we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.

First sane thing you've said this entire thread.

Krusty wrote:

> "Dana Carpender" > wrote
>
>>we've been homo sapiens for an estimated 200,000 years.
>
>
> First sane thing you've said this entire thread.
>

One more than you, pal.

Dana
>