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