> wrote in message u...
> Please forgive me for being blunt, you are thrashing about to find
> something that does not exist. You do not know the literature and wild
> shots here and there are useless.

I'm posting research, and you're thrashing about trying to ignore it.

> It can not be sustained that meat did not play a role in human
> evolution. The evidence for the clear start use of meat in the diet
> occurs at the same time as humans start to show evidence of having
> culturally based primary behavior. It also goes with their movement
> into multiple niches and not the specialized niches other primates
> occupy.

What are you talking about? What "evidence for the clear start
use of meat in the diet" and "culturally based primary behavior"?

"Don Wiss" > wrote in message ...
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:40:27 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> >> The observation that those species like humans adopted many of the same
> >> general features of hunting meat.
> >
> >If that's the case, then why don't such predators have huge brains?
>
> All creatures have a limited number of genes. To use up a lot of genes to
> be highly intelligent means genes for something else are given up. While we
> are the smartest, we do not have the best eyesight, nor the best smell, nor
> the best hearing, nor are we the fastest, etc. Those predators have traded
> huge brains for some of these other things.

'Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
Barton RA.
Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK.

Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of
species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged.
One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a
result of neural specializations or of biological constraints
affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates,
brain size variation is associated with visual specialization.
Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively
expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex
and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in
particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which
selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of
neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the
lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both
brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size).
Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these
results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous
species are products of selection on the ability to perceive
and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour.
The separate correlation between group size and visual brain
evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of
social information processing in the primate brain.

PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...opt%3DAbstract

Go in peace. I find no pleasure or purpose in beatingup on the
unprepared and uninformed.

Your religious motivations overshadow good judgement when it comes to
the long established evidence on the role of meat in the diet of humans.
Round peg in square hole efforts always fail because they can not be
long sustained.

I respect your religious views and you forholding them. But that is not
the scientific method where zeal and good intentions do not long serve.
Other examples being the so called creation science and design ideas
which too fail when found wanting for evidence.

"What are you talking about? What "evidence for the clear start
use of meat in the diet" and "culturally based primary behavior"?"

Nuff said, if one is unprepared by having at hand the body ofresearch on
which to base a discussion it is a waste of time.

As to your "research", it is an example of presenting something not to
seem unprepared and unresponsive. Most of it was unrelated, not
unde4rstood as to content and position in the body of research, and
sadly irrelevant.

Go in peace.

> wrote in message u...

> "What are you talking about? What "evidence for the clear start
> use of meat in the diet" and "culturally based primary behavior"?"
>
> Nuff said, if one is unprepared by having at hand the body ofresearch on
> which to base a discussion it is a waste of time.

I asked you a question. Why won't you explain what you meant?

> As to your "research", it is an example of presenting something not to
> seem unprepared and unresponsive. Most of it was unrelated, not
> unde4rstood as to content and position in the body of research, and
> sadly irrelevant.

For example? And what do you mean "research"? Are you for real?

> Go in peace.

Follow your own advice instead of lobbing laughable 'parting shots'.

> wrote in message u...

> Go in peace. I find no pleasure or purpose in beatingup on the
> unprepared and uninformed.

This is a joke.

> Your religious motivations overshadow good judgement when it comes to
> the long established evidence on the role of meat in the diet of humans.

You're projecting, and these issues are still being studied and discussed.

> Round peg in square hole efforts always fail because they can not be
> long sustained.

Guess who's got the round peg. Clue: it's not me.

> I respect your religious views and you forholding them.

That's good of you. Thanks.

> But that is not
> the scientific method where zeal and good intentions do not long serve.

I've been posting scientific research, and it's you who's folded.

> Other examples being the so called creation science and design ideas
> which too fail when found wanting for evidence.

I'm sure you're as formidable an opponent in those subjects too...

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message u...
>> Please forgive me for being blunt, you are thrashing about to find
>> something that does not exist. You do not know the literature and wild
>> shots here and there are useless.
>
> I'm posting research,

That you haven't read, and that doesn't support your
claims.


>> It can not be sustained that meat did not play a role in human
>> evolution. The evidence for the clear start use of meat in the diet
>> occurs at the same time as humans start to show evidence of having
>> culturally based primary behavior. It also goes with their movement
>> into multiple niches and not the specialized niches other primates
>> occupy.
>
> What are you talking about? What "evidence for the clear start
> use of meat in the diet"

The evidence recognized and accepted by virtually all
anthropologists.

pearl wrote:
> "Don Wiss" > wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 22:40:27 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>>> The observation that those species like humans adopted many of the same
>>>> general features of hunting meat.
>>> If that's the case, then why don't such predators have huge brains?
>> All creatures have a limited number of genes. To use up a lot of genes to
>> be highly intelligent means genes for something else are given up. While we
>> are the smartest, we do not have the best eyesight, nor the best smell, nor
>> the best hearing, nor are we the fastest, etc. Those predators have traded
>> huge brains for some of these other things.
>
> 'Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7.
> Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates.
> Barton RA.

You didn't read that paper, and it doesn't support your
claim. It doesn't support your *BULLSHIT* claim that
humans didn't evolve as a meat eating species. They
did evolve as a meat eating species, and are
specialized to eat meat.

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message u...
>
>> "What are you talking about? What "evidence for the clear start
>> use of meat in the diet" and "culturally based primary behavior"?"
>>
>> Nuff said, if one is unprepared by having at hand the body ofresearch on
>> which to base a discussion it is a waste of time.
>
> I asked you a question.

A bullshit, illegitimate question.


>> As to your "research", it is an example of presenting something not to
>> seem unprepared and unresponsive. Most of it was unrelated,

*ALL* of it was unrelated. That's lesley's game: post
a shit hemorrhage of unrelated stuff, virtually all of
it a) stuff she hasn't read, and b) unsupportive of her
claim.


>> not unde4rstood as to content and position in the body of research, and
>> sadly irrelevant.
>
> For example?

EVERYTHING you post trying to show that humans didn't
evolve as a meat eating species. Humans *did* evolve
as a meat eating species, and are adapted to eat meat.


>> Go in peace.
>
> Follow your own advice

No, you just go, in peace or not, your choice.

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message u...
>
>> Go in peace. I find no pleasure or purpose in beatingup on the
>> unprepared and uninformed.
>
> This is a joke.

You're a joke. You continually flood a thread with a
shit hemorrhage of copypasta from abstracts to articles
you a) haven't read, and b) couldn't understand even if
you tried. The copypasta never supports your basic
position.


>> Your religious motivations overshadow good judgement when it comes to
>> the long established evidence on the role of meat in the diet of humans.
>
> You're projecting,

He's not. He has you pegged perfectly.

No, this stuff is *not* being discussed. There is near
unanimity among anthropologists that humans = homo
sapiens sapiens - evolved as a meat eating species.
Their hominid ancestors were eating meat at all times
and places for 2.25 million years previously, and the
very first homo sapiens sapiens are known to have eaten
meat, at all times and places, so that settles it.
There is no dispute on this issue, at least among
educated people (not irrational and religiously
motivated "vegan" extremists.)


>> Round peg in square hole efforts always fail because they can not be
>> long sustained.
>
> Guess who's got the round peg. Clue: it's

You.


>> I respect your religious views and you for holding them.
>
> That's good of you.

Except they lead you to grotesque error.


>> But that is not
>> the scientific method where zeal and good intentions do not long serve.
>
> I've been posting scientific research,

You've been flooding the thread with a shit hemorrhage
of stuff you haven't read, and COULD NOT read even if
you tried. You have not been posting "research"; stop
lying.


>> Other examples being the so called creation science and design ideas
>> which too fail when found wanting for evidence.
>
> I'm sure you're as formidable an opponent in those subjects too...

He'd mop up the floor with you in those, too.

Go in peace, we would not want anyone reading to suspect that by
entering into conversation that you have something substanual to
contribute beyond wanting recognition for your unsupportable thesis.
The evidence just ain't there to entertain it.

That you demand an answer about a topic about which you are unprepared
to defend is measure enough that you do not have command of the body of
research on the topic.

Go in peace.

wrote:
> "What are you talking about? What "evidence for the clear start
> use of meat in the diet" and "culturally based primary behavior"?"
>
> Nuff said, if one is unprepared by having at hand the body ofresearch on
> which to base a discussion it is a waste of time.
>
> As to your "research", it is an example of presenting something not to
> seem unprepared and unresponsive. Most of it was unrelated, not
> unde4rstood as to content and position in the body of research, and
> sadly irrelevant.

It doesn't appear I need to tell you not to be fooled
by lesley's "research", but just for good measu
don't be fooled by it. She doesn't post "research" at
all. lesley hasn't read a single one of these "papers"
from which she pretends to be posting citations. She
*cannot* read them, as she has no background whatever
in the field. She is a foot masseuse ("reflexologist")
and has no university training in anthropology or any
other relevant field. What she's posting are snippets
of the abstracts of papers she hasn't read.

As you have noted, these snippets are merely done in a
futile attempt to make it appear that she has greater
familiarity with the field than she really has. The
fact is, she has *ZERO* familiarity with the field. As
you have further noted, these snippets are invariably
irrelevant to the topic being discussed, and do not
support her basic position.

What's odd is that she *is* advancing a view she holds
for religious or quasi-religious reasons, and she's
strangely trying to use inappropriate and partial
citations from science in support of such views.

You and "Rudy" are either in denial and delusional, or outright lying.
I suspect the latter, but it's quite an entertaining spectacle either way.


> wrote in message u...
> That you demand an answer about a topic about which you are unprepared
> to defend is measure enough that you do not have command of the body of
> research on the topic.
>
> Go in peace.

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message u...
>
>> Go in peace. I find no pleasure or purpose in beatingup on the
>> unprepared and uninformed.
>
> This is a joke.
>
>> Your religious motivations overshadow good judgement when it comes to
>> the long established evidence on the role of meat in the diet of humans.
>
> You're projecting, and these issues are still being studied and discussed.
>
>> Round peg in square hole efforts always fail because they can not be
>> long sustained.
>
> Guess who's got the round peg. Clue: it's not me.
>
>> I respect your religious views and you forholding them.
>
> That's good of you. Thanks.
>
>> But that is not
>> the scientific method where zeal and good intentions do not long serve.
>
> I've been posting scientific research, and it's you who's folded.
>
>> Other examples being the so called creation science and design ideas
>> which too fail when found wanting for evidence.
>
> I'm sure you're as formidable an opponent in those subjects too...
>
>
>

This has been x-posted in a majorly trollish way; can't you see when
you've been had?

But to add to the fomment: religion and science are immiscible.

"You and "Rudy" are either in denial and delusional, or outright lying.
I suspect the latter, but it's quite an entertaining spectacle either
way."

Go in peace.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:42:27 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>> Based on new insights into the behavior of chimps and other great apes, our
>> now extinct human ancestors, and existing hunting and gathering societies,
>> Stanford shows the remarkable role that meat has played in these societies.
>> Perhaps because it provides a highly concentrated source of
>> protein--essential for the development and health of the brain--meat is
>> craved by many primates, including humans.
>
>'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
>how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
>and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
>meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
>one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
>just a bland, general meaty taste. '

Good point.
.. . .
>why don't those hunting, flesh-eating chimpanzees have a larger brain?

Maybe because too high a percentage of their diet is still
vegetation, or maybe because they don't eat enough fish,
or maybe they haven't needed to develop any more than
they have, or maybe there is a God, or...

>Why don't true predators like lions and wolves have ultra-massive brains?

Apparently they don't need it, but their brains are probably
larger and more advanced than those of the majority of their prey.

On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 21:34:38 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:

> wrote in message u...
>> > This craving has given meat
>> > genuine power--the power to cause males to form hunting parties and
>> > organize entire cultures around hunting. And it has given men the
>> power to
>> > manipulate and control women in these cultures. Stanford argues that
>> the
>> > skills developed and required for successful hunting and especially
>> the
>> > sharing of meat spurred the explosion of human brain size over the
>> past
>> > 200,000 years. He then turns his attention to the ways meat is shared
>> within
>> > primate and human societies to argue that this all-important activity
>> has had
>> > profound effects on basic social structures that are still felt today.
>>
>> "So why don't those hunting, flesh-eating chimpanzees have a larger
>> brain? Why don't true predators like lions and wolves have ultra-massive
>> brains?"
>>
>> I do so wish you would stick to a point and not ask irrelevant
>> questions. There is an entireliterature concerning the interelated
>> factors of environment, anatomy, and behaviors and human evolution that
>> answers your question. A person first needs to know something about a
>> field of study more then a few slivers of info from here and there to
>> even ask relevant questions.
>>
>> There is no way to slice and dice the evidence to make round peg fit the
>> square hole you desire. Use of meat as a dietary source is related to
>> human evolution, the rise of culturally bsed behaviors and human history
>> of population movement out of africa .
>
>It's also related to the evolution, team-work, cooperation, food-sharing
>and what-not of natural predators like wolves and lions. So what gives?

Humans would not exist as they do today, IF at all, if they had not
eaten meat. Neither would wolves or lions, but humans are in the
same boat as they are on that one. Even you veg*ns who get a free
ride on the successes of your omnivorous brethren and sestren.

On 26 Feb 2008 23:38:19 GMT, wrote:

>Please forgive me for being blunt, you are thrashing about to find
>something that does not exist. You do not know the literature and wild
>shots here and there are useless.
>
>It can not be sustained that meat did not play a role in human
>evolution. The evidence for the clear start use of meat in the diet
>occurs at the same time as humans start to show evidence of having
>culturally based primary behavior. It also goes with their movement
>into multiple niches and not the specialized niches other primates
>occupy.

She can't let herself learn facts like that or it might put her
in a coma. The agony from the cognitive dissonance it would
produce in her poor tired brain, would cause an overload that
could shut it down entirely. It gives us reason to be thankful
that we have more freedom of thought and the ability to
consider more aspects of reality than some poor individuals.
Pearl is a special case in a number of ways. One of them is
her thing about frogs in rice fields in Texas. She has no
problem believing that there are hundreds of thousands or
millions of frogs in rice fields anywhere on Earth, *except*
in Texas. Why not in Texas as well as everywhere else,
one immediately tends to wonder? Because a Texas rice
farmer explained to her that hundreds of thousands of
frogs *do* live in rice fields in Texas, and that about 20%
of so of them are killed in various ways by the things that
go on in rice farming. He also went on to explain that...
I'll paste some so you can see for yourself:
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: diderot >
Subject: collateral included deaths in organic rice production [faq]
.. . .
a very conservative annualised estimate of vertebrate deaths in organic
rice farming is ~20 pound (arithmetic follows). this works out a bit
less than two vertebrate deaths per square foot, and, again, is *quite*
conservative. for conventionally grown rice, the gross body-count is
*at least* several times that figure. collateral included deaths from
'conventional' agriculture are more inferential than from 'organic'
production (explained later) and, although the number of deaths is fewer
in organic v. conventional, they are far more visible in organic
production.

the vertebrate deaths come from: frogs (5+ species), toads (common
bufo), anole lizards, shrews (3 species), voles, mice, rats, snakes, a
couple of kinds of turtles, cats, rabbits, skunk, nutria & muskrats,
raccoons, possums, deer (never less than a pair of fawns harvested per
50 acres), pheasants, quail, pigeons, cattle egrets, sparrows,
starlings, waxwings, .... although all of these are not harvested
*every* time, they are the 'regulars.' occasionally a canvasback, teal,
heron, mallard, black duck, coot, spoonbill, crow, hawk, kite, eagle,
buzzard ... is shredded, as is the occasional feral pig or lost calf,
coyote or dog.

for information, an acre has 43,264+ square feet. the vast majority of
the deaths are (as one would imagine): frogs, toads and anole lizards;
rodents and insectivores.
.. . .
most times, judging from the visible continuious population swimming
across the header, it is somewhere between 10K & 50+K per acre
harvested. a good, reasonable, annualised (but still conservative)
number of amphibian and anole deaths through the combine is 35,000 of
all species harvested per acre, combined average for two cuttings. in
spite of these seemingly large numbers, far, far more frogs & lizards
escape than are combined. i would guess that the 35,000 amphibian
deaths represents less than 20% of the total population, and probably
far less, but that is just a guess - plenty, plenty, plenty are not
killed.
.. . .
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
__________________________________________________ _______
Message-ID: >
From: diderot >
Subject: dead-frog numbers [was: faq collateral included deaths in organic rice production]
.. . .
- there is not only death in agriculture, there is a lot of death, and
the number of deaths (particularly *visible* deaths) are related to
populations more than farming practices.

- conventional agriculture results in many more, but more 'invisible'
deaths. our conventional plot is across the road from our organic plot,
it started out with the same millions and billions of amphibian eggs.
only a few thousand frogs are harvested on the conventional side - they
were all killed off as eggs or tadpoles by agricultural chemicals.

- we manage the whole area (larger than just the farms) is a pretty
natural fashion and we have a lot of wildlife. the number of deaths is,
at least, partially a function of total area population. we could
reduce the number of visible deaths by flogging the ecology, but we
prefer life and cycle-of-life over a sterile monoculture.

- every farming environment has a different mix of animals and the
largest number and largest variety, both, will be found in
semi-tropical, mixed ecology lands like we have. monocultures will have
the smallest numbers and the smallest numbers of species. the numbers i
have presented hold true in the gulf-coastal plains for machine-farmed
organic rice and may well vary in california and arkansas.

- if one desires to 'eat organic', i strongly urge research into what
your state considers' organic.' it is very likely not as chemical-free
as you might like to believe.

cordially,
diderot
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯

"pearl" > wrote in
:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> ...
>> pearl wrote:
>> > > wrote in message
>> > u...
>> >
>> >> "scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields
>> >> results"
>> >>
>> >> In the question of when and why pre-humans added meat as part of
>> >> their feeding strategy, the above is a difference without a
>> >> distinction. Meat was part of the diet and has continued to be so
>> >> eversince.
>> >
>> > Some humans...
>>
>> Meat has been an essential part of the diet of all
>> human societies, and of the vast, overwhelming majority
>> of individual human beings.
>>
>> Humans eat meat: at all times and places.
>
> 'Gut Morphology and the Avoidance of Carrion among
> Chimpanzees, Baboons, and Early Hominids
> Sonia Ragir, Martin Rosenberg, Philip Tierno
> Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 56, No. 4
> (Winter, 2000), pp. 477-512
>
> Abstract
>
> Meat-eating primates avoid scavenging for dietary protein
> and micronutrients even when carrion is relatively fresh.
> Chimpanzees, baboons, and modern hunter-gatherers
> supplement their diets of high-energy, low-protein fruit with
> protein obtained from leaves, insects, and animal prey. Most
> primates, especially leaf-eating primates, digest the cellulose
> cell walls of ingested plant material in a well developed
> caecum and/or large intestine through fermentation caused
> by enzymes released by their normal gut flora. The primate
> digestive strategy combines a rapid passage through the
> stomach and prolonged digestion in the ileum of the small
> intestine and caecum, and this combination increases the
> likelihood of colonization of the small intestine by ingested
> bacteria that are the cause of gastrointestinal disease.
> Carrion is very quickly contaminated with a high bacterial
> load because the process of dismemberment of a carcass
> exposes the meat to the bacteria from the saliva of the
> predator, from the digestive tracts of insects, and from
> the carcasses' own gut. Thus, the opportunistic eating of
> uncooked carrion or even unusually large quantities of
> fresh-killed meat by nonhuman primates or humans is
> likely to result in gastrointestinal illness. We propose that
> among meat-eating primates, carrion avoidance is a dietary
> strategy that develops during their lifetime as a response to
> the association of gastrointestinal illness with the ingestion
> of contaminated meat from scavenged carcasses. This has
> important implications for our understanding of early
> hominid behavior.
>
> http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=009...)56%3A4%3C477%
3AGMATAO
> %3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
>
> 'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
> about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
> significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
> appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
> would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
> such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
> music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
> stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
> appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
> whom you believe."
>
> Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
> regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
> as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and things),
> ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
> They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
> and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
> 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
> anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
> evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
> the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
> ..
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm
>
> 'In a position paper by the American Dietetic Association entitled
> "Position paper on the vegetarian approach to eating", the protein
> myth is indirectly addressed. In one section it is stated that "the
> A.D.A. recognizes that most of mankind for much of human history
> has subsisted on near-vegetarian diets. The vast majority of the
> population of the world today continues to eat vegetarian or semi-
> vegetarian diets..."
> ..'
> http://www.uga.edu/vegsoc/news1_2.html
>
>
>

All I know is once I had my "meat" removed surgically, my running
improved 2x. I'm not sure if the hormones played a part in that or not,
but I do know my moustache fell out.

Michelle Steiner

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

pearl wrote:
> You and "Rudy" are either in denial and delusional, or outright lying.

Neither. You HAVE NOT READ any of these "papers" you
cite. You *CANNOT* read them - you have no academic
background in the field.

It is as I said: you flood the thread with a shit
hemorrhage to try to make it appear, falsely, that you
know what you're talking about. You do not. You are
completely full of shit.


> > wrote in message u...
>> That you demand an answer about a topic about which you are unprepared
>> to defend is measure enough that you do not have command of the body of
>> research on the topic.
>>
>> Go in peace.
>
>

Goo - ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon - lied
and presented no challenge:
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:42:27 -0000, "pearl" > wrote:
>
>> Goo - ****wit David Harrison, convicted felon - lied and presented no challenge:
>>
>>> Based on new insights into the behavior of chimps and other great apes, our
>>> now extinct human ancestors, and existing hunting and gathering societies,
>>> Stanford shows the remarkable role that meat has played in these societies.
>>> Perhaps because it provides a highly concentrated source of
>>> protein--essential for the development and health of the brain--meat is
>>> craved by many primates, including humans.
>> 'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
>> how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
>> and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
>> meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
>> one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
>> just a bland, general meaty taste. '
>
> Good point.
> . . .
>> why don't those hunting, flesh-eating chimpanzees have a larger brain?
>
> Maybe because too high a percentage of their diet is still
> vegetation, or maybe because

You don't know what the **** you're blabbering about, Goo.

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message u...
>
>> "Chimpanzees' habitat been increasingly encroached upon,
>> destroyed, and fragmented by human activites. This has
>> undeniably caused an increase in population in remaining
>> habitat, and thus increased competition for the available
>> resources. This is why the earlier studies more reliably
>> reflect primates' natural dietary preferences and habits."
>>
>> This begs the question and is a tautology ,ie. the snake chasing its
>> logical tail.
>
> There has to be a logical reason for the discrepancies.
>
> 'During the 1980s, Africa lost an estimated 47 million
> hectares of forest. By 1995 another 19 million hectares
> had been lost, according to FAO,..
> ..
> In forested areas, patches of logging, agricultural advance
> and unsustainable harvesting of fuelwood and non-timber
> products fragment and degrade remaining forests.
> Fragmentation leads to loss of contact with part of the
> ecosystem necessary to maintain regeneration and full
> biodiversity. Many species need large and diverse areas.
> Others depend on other species, living in the border areas
> of the ecosystem or species being hunted or harvested.
> Thus, very few entire forest ecosystems, frontier forests
> keep existing.
>
> Worldwide, 80% of original forest cover has been cleared,
> fragmented, or otherwise degraded in the 20th century. In
> the Atlantic rainforests of Brazil, the West African rainforests,
> Madagascar, and Sumatra - some of the richest biological
> treasure houses of the world - much less than 10% of the
> original forest cover is left. There, many populations of
> plants and animals are losing their long-term viability through
> fragmentation and genetic erosion. A wave of extinctions is
> just around the corner - unless "radical" action is taken.
>
> http://www.afrol.com/features/10278
>
>> Chimps eat meat, do so with great energy and relish consuming it.
>
> Not according to earlier studies,

According to *ALL* studies.

pearl wrote:
>
>> This craving has given meat
>> genuine power--the power to cause males to form hunting parties and
>> organize entire cultures around hunting. And it has given men the power to
>> manipulate and control women in these cultures. Stanford argues that the
>> skills developed and required for successful hunting and especially the
>> sharing of meat spurred the explosion of human brain size over the past
>> 200,000 years. He then turns his attention to the ways meat is shared within
>> primate and human societies to argue that this all-important activity has had
>> profound effects on basic social structures that are still felt today.
>
> So why don't those hunting, flesh-eating chimpanzees have a larger brain?
> Why don't true predators like lions and wolves have ultra-massive brains?

Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.

Happy to clear that up for you.

Michelle > wrote in news:47c61db5$0$26088$88260bb3
@free.teranews.com:

> "pearl" > wrote in
> :
>
>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> pearl wrote:
>>> > > wrote in message
>>> > u...
>>> >
>>> >> "scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields
>>> >> results"
>>> >>
>>> >> In the question of when and why pre-humans added meat as part of
>>> >> their feeding strategy, the above is a difference without a
>>> >> distinction. Meat was part of the diet and has continued to be
so
>>> >> eversince.
>>> >
>>> > Some humans...
>>>
>>> Meat has been an essential part of the diet of all
>>> human societies, and of the vast, overwhelming majority
>>> of individual human beings.
>>>
>>> Humans eat meat: at all times and places.
>>
>> 'Gut Morphology and the Avoidance of Carrion among
>> Chimpanzees, Baboons, and Early Hominids
>> Sonia Ragir, Martin Rosenberg, Philip Tierno
>> Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 56, No. 4
>> (Winter, 2000), pp. 477-512
>>
>> Abstract
>>
>> Meat-eating primates avoid scavenging for dietary protein
>> and micronutrients even when carrion is relatively fresh.
>> Chimpanzees, baboons, and modern hunter-gatherers
>> supplement their diets of high-energy, low-protein fruit with
>> protein obtained from leaves, insects, and animal prey. Most
>> primates, especially leaf-eating primates, digest the cellulose
>> cell walls of ingested plant material in a well developed
>> caecum and/or large intestine through fermentation caused
>> by enzymes released by their normal gut flora. The primate
>> digestive strategy combines a rapid passage through the
>> stomach and prolonged digestion in the ileum of the small
>> intestine and caecum, and this combination increases the
>> likelihood of colonization of the small intestine by ingested
>> bacteria that are the cause of gastrointestinal disease.
>> Carrion is very quickly contaminated with a high bacterial
>> load because the process of dismemberment of a carcass
>> exposes the meat to the bacteria from the saliva of the
>> predator, from the digestive tracts of insects, and from
>> the carcasses' own gut. Thus, the opportunistic eating of
>> uncooked carrion or even unusually large quantities of
>> fresh-killed meat by nonhuman primates or humans is
>> likely to result in gastrointestinal illness. We propose that
>> among meat-eating primates, carrion avoidance is a dietary
>> strategy that develops during their lifetime as a response to
>> the association of gastrointestinal illness with the ingestion
>> of contaminated meat from scavenged carcasses. This has
>> important implications for our understanding of early
>> hominid behavior.
>>
>> http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=009...)56%3A4%3C477%
> 3AGMATAO
>> %3E2.0.CO%3B2-M
>>
>> 'Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from
>> about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago "is
>> significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases
>> appear much later in the record - only 50,000 years ago - which
>> would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff,
>> such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with
>> music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools. This
>> stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which
>> appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on
>> whom you believe."
>>
>> Fleagle adds: "There is a huge debate in the archeological literature
>> regarding the first appearance of modern aspects of behavior such
>> as bone carving for religious reasons, or tools (harpoons and
things),
>> ornamentation (bead jewelry and such), drawn images, arrowheads.
>> They only appear as a coherent package about 50,000 years ago,
>> and the first modern humans that left Africa between 50,000 and
>> 40,000 years ago seem to have had the full set. As modern human
>> anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites, it becomes
>> evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of
>> the modern skeleton and 'modern behavior.'"
>> ..
>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0223122209.htm
>>
>> 'In a position paper by the American Dietetic Association entitled
>> "Position paper on the vegetarian approach to eating", the protein
>> myth is indirectly addressed. In one section it is stated that "the
>> A.D.A. recognizes that most of mankind for much of human history
>> has subsisted on near-vegetarian diets. The vast majority of the
>> population of the world today continues to eat vegetarian or semi-
>> vegetarian diets..."
>> ..'
>> http://www.uga.edu/vegsoc/news1_2.html
>>
>>
>>
>
> All I know is once I had my "meat" removed surgically, my running
> improved 2x. I'm not sure if the hormones played a part in that or
not,
> but I do know my moustache fell out.
>
> Michelle Steiner
>

I also noticed I like the odor and taste of my new equipment (yes, I'm
flexible enough at 79 to be able to lick myself "where it counts") and
the sweet smell of scissoring.

Michelle

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...

> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
> large brain.
>
> Happy to clear that up for you.

'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
Patrick Pasquet
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
FranceClaude-Marcel Hladik
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, France

ABSTRACT

Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to
meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the
emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of
primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is
likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid
diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
....
The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was
summarized by Milton (1999),who came to the conclusion that
"the incorporation of animal matter into thediet played an
absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise the arid
and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of
hominids would not have provided enough protein. The link
between a high quality diet (including animal matter) and the
enlargement of the brain (characterizing hominization) has been
highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foleyand Lee,
1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).

In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler
(1995) supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue
hypothesis", related to the evolutionary forces implied in the
increase of hominid brain size. They focus on the shift to a
high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation. A reduced
intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy
cost and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-
expenditure of a larger brain. The main point of Aiello and
Wheeler is based on the relationship between body mass and
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the Kleiber line characterizing the
relationship between BMR and body size is identical for all
mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue
is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler
proposed that gut reduction compensated for brain increase.

Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed
further arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution.
For these authors, the "quantitative similarity of human gut
morphology to guts of carnivorous mammals" is a strong
argument for a human status of "well evolved meat eater". In
fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut
adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted
a characteristic swing towards carnivorousness.
....
Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would
imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of
the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not
supported by the measurements of human gut size that are
plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the
best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). ..

Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary
adaptation, there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly,
Martin (1983) in his allometric analysis of the evolution of the
mammal brain identified four separate "grades" of relative brain
size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope of the major axis of the
relationship between cranial capacity and body weight.

Fig.2 Allometric relationships between cranial capacity and body
weight in different categories of primates and insectivorous
mammals SOURCE: R. D. Martin, 1983.

Since each of these "grades" includes species with different diets
(folivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous), there is no clear-cut
relationship between brain size and dietary adaptation. It is thus
likely that a compensatory energetic reduction that allows the
functioning of the large brain of Homo (with respect to Kleiber's
law) may affect all body parts, rather than being exclusively
focused on gut tissue.

DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION

Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement
of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves,
or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible
dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various
categories of food items available in different habitats throughout
the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term
omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize
a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly
frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate
species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter
to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally
eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein
requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to
females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).

Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy,
the dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide
range of variation. During various historical periods, depending on
availability and the nutrient content of food resources, our human
ancestors would mostly have consumed either vegetable or animal
matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon,1987; Couplan, 1997). The
present consensual picture of our past feeding behaviour includes
three major phases: (1) After the late Miocene climate shift,
hominid feeding behaviour in changing environments progressively
shifted from a mainly vegetarian diet to a diet including more and
more animal matter, either from hunting and/or from scavenging;
(2) the hunter-gatherer way of life and the resulting diet characterized
the mid-Pleistocene period, but in the late Pleistocene, during the
ice-ages, hominids had to specialize in large game; (3) these
successive phases, as described by Gordon(1987), were followed
by progressive control of animal and vegetable resources through
domestication and cultivation, allowing some human groups to eat
more vegetable matter than during previous periods.

Meat was consumed, but it is unlikely that animal flesh (especially
lean meat) was a staple for long periods. As highlighted by Speth
(1989, 1991), fat and fatty meat provide energy for meat eaters,
and lean meat can rapidly become unhealthy if used as an only
food. During "lean periods", meat must be complemented with
vegetable matter as an energy source, especially to provide the
necessary energy for reproduction.

The high quality foods needed to provide enough energy for
the incipient hominids could have been drawn from alternative
sources rather than the fat meat of large game. Wrangham et al.
(1999) have provided a new and very exciting hypothesis on the
possible process of hominization, made possible by the early
use of fire for cooking. As far back as 1.9 My (Plio-Pleistocene),
the first Homo Erectus tended towards a large body (and brain
size), for both sexes, with a reduction of teeth. This was possible
by (and likely to be selected for) a shift to a high caloric diet that
did not require much mastication. Either a cooked fatty meat or
a cooked wild tuber may have provided this type of diet.
Cooking in embers considerably improves the taste and texture
of both kinds of food and may explain why it could have been
rapidly adopted by hominids able to master the technique of fire
(with brain increase obviously related to technical skills). However,
the best efficiency for obtaining calories would be with cooked
starchy tubers (50% more energy from starch after cooking).
Furthermore, most wild yam species are non-toxic and available
in large quantities throughout African forests and savannas (A.
Hladik and Dounias, 1993). Although clearly identified long-lasting
hearth locations have never been found by archaeologists before
the mid-Pleistocene, the evidence of early utilisation of fire based
on charcoal residue fragments mentioned by Wrangham et al.
would be quite a convincing argument for anyone who has recently
visited an abandoned Pygmy forest settlement, and searched for
tiny pieces of charcoal. After a few months, no obvious trace of a
hearth is visible, although meat and tubers,wrapped in large leaves,
have been cooked in the embers by the Pygmies.

Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in
hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted
adaptation to various diets. Taking into account the allometric
factors in the comparative study of primate gut anatomy, there is
no evidence to support theories such as a change in gut anatomy
that allowed carnivorousness and a simultaneous increase in brain
size. Alternatively, the early cooking of gathered foods - and the
nutritional, behavioural and social consequences of this pattern -
could have been a major milestone in the hominization process.

http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.m...om19/21-31.pdf

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>
>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
>> large brain.
>>
>> Happy to clear that up for you.
>
> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts

You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
copypasta doesn't refute what I said.

In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
information.

Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
developed the tools to do so.

In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
completely as a function of environmental factors.

Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
adapted to make this so.


During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
sloppy scholarship.

A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.

Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
>>>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
>>>> large brain.
>>>>
>>>> Happy to clear that up for you.
>>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
>>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
>> You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
>> copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
>
> I have read the paper

You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
abstract. The abstract is not the paper.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
> >> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
> >> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
> >> large brain.
> >>
> >> Happy to clear that up for you.
> >
> > 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> > and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
>
> You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
> copypasta doesn't refute what I said.

I have read the paper - *obviously*, and everything you have
repeatedly stated as fact has been successfully refuted, e.g. ..
meat is NOT a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human
hominids did NOT *regularly* eat meat for 2.25 million years,
humans are NOT "biologically adapted to meat", and meat is
NOT responsible for increased brain size. At most it enabled
survival, for which we should be EXTREMELY GRATEFUL.


BTW, I've noted that you've renewed your google account to
try to hide the #10,000 one star - extremely poor - rating. As
you're so fond of consensus', shouldn't you be crawling away
with your tail between your legs? And what happened to your
'profile'? "Occupation: Agriculture" to much of a giveaway?

wrote:
> In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
> time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
> information.

lesley doesn't "do" science in any way; nor does she
read science. lesley does pseudo-science, and
inappropriate and misunderstood citations from the
abstracts of scientific papers she has not read, and
*cannot* read.


>
> Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
> saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
> developed the tools to do so.
>
> In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
> completely as a function of environmental factors.
>
> Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
> parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
> condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
> adapted to make this so.
>
>
> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
> sloppy scholarship.
>
> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
>
> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.

> wrote in message ...

> In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
> time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
> information.
>
> Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
> saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
> developed the tools to do so.
>
> In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
> completely as a function of environmental factors.
>
> Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
> parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
> condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
> adapted to make this so.
>
>
> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
> sloppy scholarship.
>
> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
>
> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.

So go in peace..

pearl wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>
>> In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
>> time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
>> information.
>>
>> Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
>> saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
>> developed the tools to do so.
>>
>> In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
>> completely as a function of environmental factors.
>>
>> Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
>> parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
>> condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
>> adapted to make this so.
>>
>>
>> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
>> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
>> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
>> sloppy scholarship.
>>
>> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
>> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
>> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
>>
>> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
>
> So go in peace..

So stop lying. Stop pretending to have knowledge you
don't have.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >>>
> >>>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
> >>>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
> >>>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
> >>>> large brain.
> >>>>
> >>>> Happy to clear that up for you.
> >>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> >>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
> >> You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
> >> copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
> >
> > I have read the paper [evasion]
>
> You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
> abstract. The abstract is not the paper.

It IS the paper. This part is the abstract:

'ABSTRACT

Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching
to meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the
emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of
primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it
is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in
hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary
shift.'

Then there's "INTRODUCTION", and that's to the PAPER.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
>>>>>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
>>>>>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
>>>>>> large brain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to clear that up for you.
>>>>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
>>>>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
>>>> You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
>>>> copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
>>> I have read the paper
>> You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
>> abstract. The abstract is not the paper.
>
> It IS the paper.

You didn't read the paper. You are not competent to
read it. You have no background in the field.

The sloppy copypasta you did does not refute the
central point: meat is a prominent part of the
chimpanzee diet, and pre-human hominids at meat for
more than 2.25 million years before the appearance of
homo sapiens sapiens. H. sapiens evolved from these
pre-hominid ancestors *AS* a meat-eating species, and
we are adapted to meat eating. This is not disputed by
any legitimate scientist. Only irrational religious
loons like you dispute it, and you cannot dispute it on
legitimate scientific grounds, but rather based on your
misapplication of snippets of scientific papers.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" >
>
> http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

The sloppiest, most amateur hack page anyone ever did.
Truly awful.

"Rudy Canoza" >

http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
> >>>>>> large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
> >>>>>> large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
> >>>>>> large brain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Happy to clear that up for you.
> >>>>> 'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
> >>>>> and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
> >>>> You didn't read any such paper. The dull, ****witted
> >>>> copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
> >>> I have read the paper
> >> You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
> >> abstract. The abstract is not the paper.
> >
> > It IS the paper.
>
> You didn't read the paper. You are not competent to
> read it. You have no background in the field.

You're an idiot and a liar. Not forgetting pervert psycho.

> The sloppy copypasta you did does not refute the
> central point: meat is a prominent part of the
> chimpanzee diet, and pre-human hominids at meat for
> more than 2.25 million years before the appearance of
> homo sapiens sapiens. H. sapiens evolved from these
> pre-hominid ancestors *AS* a meat-eating species, and
> we are adapted to meat eating. This is not disputed by
> any legitimate scientist. Only irrational religious
> loons like you dispute it, and you cannot dispute it on
> legitimate scientific grounds, but rather based on your
> misapplication of snippets of scientific papers.

ALL refuted by legitimate scientists. That excludes you.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" >
> >
> > http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html
>
> The sloppiest, most amateur hack page anyone ever did.
> Truly awful.

Like ~you~ have ANY credibility... You're a sick joke.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote:
> > > wrote in message ...
> >
> >> In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
> >> time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
> >> information.
> >>
> >> Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
> >> saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
> >> developed the tools to do so.
> >>
> >> In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
> >> completely as a function of environmental factors.
> >>
> >> Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
> >> parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
> >> condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
> >> adapted to make this so.
> >>
> >>
> >> During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
> >> narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
> >> misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
> >> sloppy scholarship.
> >>
> >> A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
> >> of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
> >> one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
> >>
> >> Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
> >
> > So go in peace..
>
> So stop lying. Stop pretending to have knowledge you
> don't have.

Stop pretending YOU have credibility and knowledge, LIAR.