|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"John Coleman" > wrote in message ... > > Take your unhealthy suburban aboriginal out of town, put him with a > > group of his tribalbrothers and three months later, eating whatever is > > caught in the bush, the fat sick suburban black fella will have bright > > eyes, shiny healthy skin, low blood pressure, half his original > > weight, and so much improved in appearance that his own mother won't > > recognise him. > > This is true but misleading. Aboriginals have herbal "remedies" dating back > long before Western enculturation that include treaments for many common > complaints of Western lifestyle, i.e. colds and flu, gastro-intestinal > disorders (bad diet?), congestion, coughs, generally feeling unwell, sore > throat etc. They were never healthy to start with, they just got made much > worse with a newer dose of civilisation. > > John This is absolutely ridiculous. Most tribal medicine is no more effective than eating a bull's penis for fertility. I saw a documentary on National Geographic about some Western doctors who were helping to treat this tribe of Australian Aborigines and their methods worked so much better that they were undermining the leader's authority, and so the leaders tried a bunch of superstitious garbage such as pointing a kangaroo bone at them. *L* -Rubystars |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
John Coleman wrote:
> I read Weston Price, he is a dentist made no medical analysis, and he was > wrong. Ipse dixit. > He claims the Australian Aboriginals were healthy. This is nonsense, > they get most of the common "ailments" of civilised people. Ipse dixit. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
Laurie wrote:
> > >>>>>The Los Angeles Times >>> > Lying Larry Forti:> > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. Lying Larry: the L.A. Times reported on a PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE. I know you don't know what that means, Lying Larry, as it is well established that you DON'T know how science is conducted. > > >>The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the >>Quarterly Review of Biology,. Are you >>claiming the Times got the story wrong, > > First of all, the Times article was written by a WOMAN, Rosie Mestel, So: you're a sexist bigot. We knew that. You are showing up badly, Lying Larry. > >>>>>Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the >>>>>heart - but the consequences would be worse if human >>>>>beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to >>>>>help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other >>>>>hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists. >>> > lf> > With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers > responsible > >>>for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes" >>>have not "adapted" us very well. Prove your numbers, Lying Larry. >> >>Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and >>Stanford, > > <snip nonsense> TRY TO REFUTE THEIR CONCLUSIONS, Lying Larry. You *do* understand that would require READING the article, don't you? Oh, yes: you CAN'T read a science article, Lying Larry: you're too hate-blinded. > > >>Leave your ignorance of EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, ... > > So, you want to compare our abilities to comprehend the scientific > literature? I want you to establish that you can read a biology article, Lying Larry. We all know you have no expertise in biology AT ALL. One of the authors of the paper you're running away from in fear is a Ph.D. in biology, Lying Larry; YOU know ZERO of biology. > > lf> > IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions > and > >>>terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero >> >>PROVE that, ... > > Would you prefer "almost zero"?? > The fact is that we are frugivorous apes PROVE IT, Lying Larry. You have been politely asked to PROVE your claim over and over, and every time you whiff off. PROVE IT! NOW!! > > >>> Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research. >> >>Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, ... > > Biologists are not qualified to do genetic research, either. Wrong, Lying Larry. One thing is for certain, Lying Larry: You aren't qualified to do research in ANYTHING pertaining to biology, nor do you personally know anyone who is. You're a chronic LIAR, Forti. > > >>You stink, Forti. > > Yep Yep: you stink, Forti, you filthy lying ignoramus. > > >>YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE. > > I have taken and passed many college-level science courses NO BIOLOGY or anything related to it, Lying Larry. You aren't fit to change the ink or toner cartridge in Caleb Finch's printer, Lying Larry: you cannot refute a thing he says, because you're INCOMPETENT. > > >>... YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED >>to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it >>AT ALL: a great big ZERO. >> >>Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig >>Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say >>you're wrong. > > No, they do NOT claim that our species has successfully "adapted" to > flesh-eating. Yes, that's exactly what those two EXPERTS claim, Lying Larry. You are wrong. > And, there is no evidence in the current evolutionary literature YOU haven't read any "current evolutionary literature", Lying Larry. "Current evolutionary literature" is just a phrase you babble to try to *sound* as if you know science, but we all know you DON'T know any relevant science, Lying Larry. > >>Shut your ****ING MOUTH about "current epidemiology", >>you lying asshole. You don't know ANYTHING about >>epidemiology. You aren't qualified to wash the toilets >>at any journal of epidemiology. > > [...] Shut your mouth about "current epidemiology", Lying Larry: you don't know ANYTHING about epidemiology. You have never studied it, you don't subscribe to any journals in the subject, and you have never read an epidemiology article in your life. You are a FRAUD, Lawrence Forti: a FAILED electrical engineer who has some chemical imbalance that leads you to foam rabidly about things you don't know. Shut up. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
The genes involved offer some limited protection to some of the inherent
biological _risks_ of raw meat eating. For example because of these fairly small genetic features, we manage high cholesterol levels better than other herbivores, and also our brain has some extra protection from excess iron load. These kinds of changes are really just tweaks to the existing chemistry system, nothing really specific for meat eating like a fang. Real carnivores are quite unaffected by ingesting cholesterol, unlike humans. The changes to the immune system add some additional protection to prions, but as you may be aware, it is not 100%. This development is probably the only real candidate for an "adaptation" to eating meat that has been found. Humans have 42000 genes, so implying we are meat eaters based on this research is severely off base. These researchers do not claim we are carnivores or anything like it. They do not claim meat eating is healthy or safe either. John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
> This is absolutely ridiculous. Most tribal medicine is no more effective
> than eating a bull's penis for fertility. I saw a documentary on National > Geographic about some Western doctors who were helping to treat this tribe > of Australian Aborigines and their methods worked so much better that they > were undermining the leader's authority, and so the leaders tried a bunch of > superstitious garbage such as pointing a kangaroo bone at them. *L* > > -Rubystars Yes I agree with you. My observation was simply that a culture which needs so many remedies is not one of healthy people. John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
> The genes involved offer some limited protection to some of the inherent > biological _risks_ of raw meat eating. No, not merely "raw" meat eating; meat eating, period. > For example because of these fairly > small genetic features, we manage high cholesterol levels better than other > herbivores, and also our brain has some extra protection from excess iron > load. These kinds of changes are really just tweaks to the existing > chemistry system, nothing really specific for meat eating like a fang. A fang is not specific to meat eating at all. > Real > carnivores are quite unaffected by ingesting cholesterol, unlike humans. No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and anthropology. > > The changes to the immune system add some additional protection to prions, > but as you may be aware, it is not 100%. This development is probably the > only real candidate for an "adaptation" to eating meat that has been found. Nonetheless, lying diet-nazi extremists like Larry Forti claim, brazenly, that there is "no" adaptation to meat eating found in humans. That's plainly wrong. > Humans have 42000 genes, so implying we are meat eaters based on this > research is severely off base. These researchers do not claim we are > carnivores or anything like it. Right. Never forget that. > They do not claim meat eating is healthy or > safe either. By implication, they are saying that it is not health-endangering in the way the food-nazi extremists wish to pretend. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
> No, not merely "raw" meat eating; meat eating, period.
I don't see any genes specifically adapting us to deal with transfats or perhaps heterocyclic amines, or indeed oxidised cholesterol - these tend to be in cooked meats more. Perhaps there are some? At this point I think the findings only support a hypothesis of adaptation to raw meat eating. > A fang is not specific to meat eating at all. Not necessarily, but such adaptations tend to suggest a somewhat more thorough genetic shift to accomodate flesh eating. Tweaking a few alleles here and there to accomodate a little extra iron load or cholesterol isn't a pervasive adaptation to eating flesh. > No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are > omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and > anthropology. Biology and anthropology offer us no useful definition of what an "omnivore" is in respect of humans and diet - they simply suggest a rather broad category. Some omnivores seem to live quiet happily with no animal matter, some require a fairly exact percentage of animal matter and many require animal matter of a specific nature. Anything from a rabbit to a cow will occassionally eat some carcass or other flesh, yet such animals are not "omnivores". Categories are useless in respect of discussing details, they are just labels. > Forti claim, brazenly, that there is "no" adaptation to > meat eating found in humans. That's plainly wrong. I tend to agree. If the high meat diets humans eat were fed to gorillas or chimps, I think they would do rather worse than the humans, particularly the gorillas. There is a book called "Junk Food Monkeys" wherein soem baboons are observed to feed off human refuse at a wildlife station - they eventually get all the degenerative illnesses common to meat eating Westerners. I don't think there is much to be made of this so called adaptation to meat. Humans have genes and are therefore adapted to detoxify cyanide, but I would not suggest that as something we need to do. This paper is on similar lines to that. > By implication, they are saying that it is not > health-endangering in the way the food-nazi extremists > wish to pretend. The whole theme of the paper is about the inherent risks of meat eating. Meat eating certainly isn't suicide for all as some seem to pretend, but it is evidently a high risk activity for many reasons. Excess cholesterol, iron load and prions don't invite me to a meat meal. John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
Stop snipping everything. Leave enough context so we know to whom and to what you're replying. > The genes involved offer some limited protection to some of the inherent > biological _risks_ of raw meat eating. What risks would those be? > For example because of these fairly > small genetic features, we manage high cholesterol levels better than other > herbivores, Other? We are not herbivores, we're omnivores. > and also our brain has some extra protection from excess iron > load. These kinds of changes are really just tweaks to the existing > chemistry system, nothing really specific for meat eating like a fang. Canine teeth are not specific to meat eaters. Most primates have them because, like our species, they're omnivores. > Real > carnivores are quite unaffected by ingesting cholesterol, unlike humans. Ipse dixit. > The changes to the immune system add some additional protection to prions, > but as you may be aware, it is not 100%. This development is probably the > only real candidate for an "adaptation" to eating meat that has been found. Ipse dixit. > Humans have 42000 genes, so implying we are meat eaters based on this > research is severely off base. These researchers do not claim we are > carnivores or anything like it. They do not claim meat eating is healthy or > safe either. Was that even within the realm of their study, scumbag? I'd rather eat raw meat than unwashed raw produce. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
John Coleman wrote:
<...> > Yes I agree with you. My observation was simply that a culture which needs > so many remedies is not one of healthy people. What does that say about someone who fails medical tests because of his peculiar diet and then must take vitamin pills? Oh yeah, while you're at it please name a culture without any remedies. You're most likely to find a group of unhealthy people in a stone-age (or pre-) tribe. We don't live in a sterile or perfect world. Get used to it. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
> No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are
> omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and > anthropology. "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term 'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and cookery._" - Chivers The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are >>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and >>anthropology. > > > "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can > exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term > 'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might > reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and > cookery._" > - Chivers > > The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of > omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of > digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." "omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). The noted comparative anatomy expert, D.J. Chivers, reports that the human gut (digestive system) is that of a faunivore (meat-eater) with some of the adaptations of a folivore. (References: Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, 1992, Cambridge University Press, pp. 61, 64; see also D.J. Chivers and P.J. Langer, The Digestive System in Mammals: Food, Form, and Function, 1994, Cambridge University Press, p. 4.) In other words, we have the mixed set of adaptations of an omnivore/faunivore, so although we are not purely or primarily folivores, we can certainly eat raw vegetables. [Note: Chivers uses a slightly different definition of the term "omnivore," and suggests instead that the human gut should be described as that of a faunivore, rather than omnivore.] http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...aradox1c.shtml |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
>>No, not merely "raw" meat eating; meat eating, period. > > I don't see any genes specifically adapting us to deal with transfats Where do transfats occur in nature? > or > perhaps heterocyclic amines, or indeed oxidised cholesterol - You know nothing about heterocyclic amines or oxidized cholesterol. HCA formation is influenced by a few factors: type of food, cooking method, temperature, and time cooked. Amazingly, meat studied from fast food restaurants had low HCA levels. http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/3_25.htm > these tend to > be in cooked meats more. Also in other high-protein foods like tofu. > Perhaps there are some? At this point I think the > findings only support a hypothesis of adaptation to raw meat eating. Bullshit. >>A fang is not specific to meat eating at all. > > Not necessarily, but such adaptations tend to suggest a somewhat more > thorough genetic shift to accomodate flesh eating. Not at all, especially since our early ancestors figured out that by sharpening stones they could do the same thing tigers do with their claws and teeth. > Tweaking a few alleles > here and there to accomodate a little extra iron load or cholesterol isn't a > pervasive adaptation to eating flesh. Incorrect. The development of human and pre-human technology -- sharpened rocks, knives, etc. -- is "pervasive adaptation." >>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are >>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and >>anthropology. > > Biology and anthropology offer us no useful definition of what an "omnivore" > is in respect of humans and diet - they simply suggest a rather broad > category. Some omnivores seem to live quiet happily with no animal matter, > some require a fairly exact percentage of animal matter and many require > animal matter of a specific nature. Anything from a rabbit to a cow will > occassionally eat some carcass or other flesh, yet such animals are not > "omnivores". Categories are useless in respect of discussing details, they > are just labels. Labels trip up morons like you. Omnivore is a broad category because certain species, like our own, thrive on variety. We're not limited to fruits, nuts, grasses, grains, meat, etc. We can consume and utilize a variety of foods. That's why your nutty raw faddism is bullshit and the foundations you use to rationalize it are a house of cards. <...> |
Ping J.C
"John Coleman" >
John, if this is your site; http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm - it's 404. :(. I'm linking through the archive - http://web.archive.org/web/200304180...mc/protein.htm ) ... |
Ping J.C
pearl wrote:
> "John Coleman" > > > John, if this is your site; > http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm - it's 404. It was DOA long before now. Right at the moment, the entire worthless site appears to be down. Sometimes the good guys win... Coleman is an ignorant polemicist. |
Ping J.C
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
link.net... Faking quotes, forged posts, lies, filth, harassment. http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net... > John Coleman wrote: > > >>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are > >>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and > >>anthropology. > > > > > > "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can > > exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term > > 'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might > > reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and > > cookery._" > > - Chivers > > > > The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of > > omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of > > digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." > > "omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). Go without eating leafy greens then. :). > The noted comparative anatomy expert, D.J. Chivers, > reports that the human gut (digestive system) is > that of a faunivore (meat-eater) with some of the > adaptations of a folivore. (References: Cambridge > Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, 1992, Cambridge > University Press, pp. 61, 64; see also D.J. Chivers > and P.J. Langer, The Digestive System in Mammals: > Food, Form, and Function, 1994, Cambridge University > Press, p. 4.) In other words, we have the mixed set > of adaptations of an omnivore/faunivore, so although > we are not purely or primarily folivores, we can > certainly eat raw vegetables. [Note: Chivers uses a > slightly different definition of the term > "omnivore," and suggests instead that the human gut > should be described as that of a faunivore, rather > than omnivore.] 'The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized "frugivores", a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several other populations, present and past, to feed extensively on animal matter... ... Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The gut dimensions of animals can vary significantly between wild and captive animals (of the same species, of course). Gut dimensions can change quickly (in captivity or in the wild) in response to changes in dietary quality. For information on this topic, consult Hladik [1967] as cited in Chivers and Hladik [1980]; also the following sources cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and Savory [1975]; Gross, Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation]; Koong et al. [1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray, Tulloch, and Winter [1977].' ... A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
pearl wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>John Coleman wrote: >> >> >>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are >>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and >>>>anthropology. >>> >>> >>> "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can >>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term >>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might >>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and >>>cookery._" >>> - Chivers >>> >>> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of >>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of >>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." >> >>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). > > > Go without eating leafy greens then. :). Lots of people do. Your silly comment does not refute my observation: "omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". [...] > .. > A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would > correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported > by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' > > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat "Minimized gut size" is not the only possible carnivorous adaptation. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net... > pearl wrote: > > > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>John Coleman wrote: > >> Ball ('Woods') wrote; > >> > >>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are > >>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and > >>>>anthropology. > >>> > >>> > >>> "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can > >>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term > >>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might > >>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and > >>>cookery._" > >>> - Chivers > >>> > >>> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of > >>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of > >>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." > >> > >>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). > > > > > > Go without eating leafy greens then. :). > > Lots of people do. Prove it. > Your silly comment does not refute my observation: > "omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? > [...] > > .. > > A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would > > correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported > > by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' > > > > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat > > "Minimized gut size" is not the only possible > carnivorous adaptation. That was the specific subject of this post. What else do you want to postulate? |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
pearl wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>John Coleman wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are >>>>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and >>>>>>anthropology. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can >>>>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term >>>>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might >>>>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and >>>>>cookery._" >>>>> - Chivers >>>>> >>>>> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of >>>>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of >>>>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." >>>> >>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). >>> >>> >>>Go without eating leafy greens then. :). >> >>Lots of people do. > > > Prove it. Inuit, for just one entire people. Hundreds of millions of Europeans, North Americans and South Americans who *individually* don't care for them, for others. > > >>Your silly comment does not refute my observation: >>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". > > > What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? It means "eats animal and non-animal foods". It does NOT IMPLY "eats leaves". You are WRONG to think it does. There are plenty of fruits and vegetables an OMNIVORE might eat that EXCLUDE leaves. > > >>[...] >> >>>.. >>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would >>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported >>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' >>> >>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat >> >>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible >>carnivorous adaptation. > > > That was the specific subject of this post. "minized gut size" NEVER was the subject of this THREAD, you risible twit. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net... > pearl wrote: > > > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>John Coleman wrote: > >>>> Ball ('Wilson') wrote; > >>>>>> > >>>>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are > >>>>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and > >>>>>>anthropology. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> "[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can > >>>>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term > >>>>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might > >>>>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and > >>>>>cookery._" > >>>>> - Chivers > >>>>> > >>>>> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of > >>>>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of > >>>>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." > >>>> > >>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). > >>> > >>> > >>>Go without eating leafy greens then. :). > >> > >>Lots of people do. > > > > > > Prove it. > > Inuit, for just one entire people. Hundreds of > millions of Europeans, North Americans and South > Americans who *individually* don't care for them, for > others. Ipse dixit. Support your statements with evidence. > >>Your silly comment does not refute my observation: > >>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". > > > > > > What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? > > It means "eats animal and non-animal foods". It does > NOT IMPLY "eats leaves". You are WRONG to think it > does. There are plenty of fruits and vegetables an > OMNIVORE might eat that EXCLUDE leaves. Ok, tell you what; name any omnivorous species, and I will show you a species that includes leaves in its diet. > >>[...] > >> > >>>.. > >>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would > >>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported > >>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' > >>> > >>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat > >> > >>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible > >>carnivorous adaptation. > > > > > > That was the specific subject of this post. > > "minized gut size" NEVER was the subject of this > THREAD, you risible twit. You're CLUELESS. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
pearl wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>pearl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>John Coleman wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are >>>>>>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and >>>>>>>>anthropology. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can >>>>>>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term >>>>>>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might >>>>>>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and >>>>>>>cookery._" >>>>>>>- Chivers >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of >>>>>>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of >>>>>>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." >>>>>> >>>>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Go without eating leafy greens then. :). >>>> >>>>Lots of people do. >>> >>> >>>Prove it. >> >>Inuit, for just one entire people. Hundreds of >>millions of Europeans, North Americans and South >>Americans who *individually* don't care for them, for >>others. > > > Ipse dixit. Do you have evidence that the Inuit eat leafy matter? Present it. That *individuals* in western cultures don't eat any green vegetables is beyond doubt. I didn't suggest I don't eat them; I do; I love leafy green vegetables. Your stupid response, in reply to my linguistically and logically CORRECT observation that "omnivore" does NOT imply "eats leaves", was Go without eating leafy greens then. That's stupid. It is a fact that there are people who eat no leafy greens. > > >>>>Your silly comment does not refute my observation: >>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". >>> >>> >>>What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? >> >>It means "eats animal and non-animal foods". It does >>NOT IMPLY "eats leaves". You are WRONG to think it >>does. There are plenty of fruits and vegetables an >>OMNIVORE might eat that EXCLUDE leaves. > > > Ok, tell you what; name any omnivorous species, and I > will show you a species that includes leaves in its diet. We aren't talking about *species*, you idiot. We're talking about individuals. > > >>>>[...] >>>> >>>> >>>>>.. >>>>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would >>>>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported >>>>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' >>>>> >>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat >>>> >>>>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible >>>>carnivorous adaptation. >>> >>> >>>That was the specific subject of this post. >> >>"minized gut size" NEVER was the subject of this >>THREAD, you risible twit. > > > You're CLUELESS. No, you clueless idiot. This thread NEVER was about "minized gut size". |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message
link.net... > pearl wrote: > > > "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > > link.net... > > > >>pearl wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > rthlink.net... > >>> > >>> > >>>>pearl wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > . earthlink.net... > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>John Coleman wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are > >>>>>>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and > >>>>>>>>anthropology. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>"[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can > >>>>>>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term > >>>>>>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might > >>>>>>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and > >>>>>>>cookery._" > >>>>>>>- Chivers > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of > >>>>>>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of > >>>>>>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." > >>>>>> > >>>>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>Go without eating leafy greens then. :). > >>>> > >>>>Lots of people do. > >>> > >>> > >>>Prove it. > >> > >>Inuit, for just one entire people. Hundreds of > >>millions of Europeans, North Americans and South > >>Americans who *individually* don't care for them, for > >>others. > > > > > > Ipse dixit. > > Do you have evidence that the Inuit eat leafy matter? > Present it. I do. But it's your claim, :) > That *individuals* in western cultures don't eat any > green vegetables is beyond doubt. I didn't suggest I > don't eat them; I do; I love leafy green vegetables. I doubt it's 'beyond doubt', -- meaning it isn't. > Your stupid response, in reply to my linguistically and > logically CORRECT observation Say that again,- in English this time. > that "omnivore" does NOT > imply "eats leaves", was > > Go without eating leafy greens then. :). > > That's stupid. It's a joke, like you. > It is a fact that there are people who > eat no leafy greens. Again,- prove it. Besides, we're talking about species, not aberrant individuals. > >>>>Your silly comment does not refute my observation: > >>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". > >>> > >>> > >>>What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? > >> > >>It means "eats animal and non-animal foods". It does > >>NOT IMPLY "eats leaves". You are WRONG to think it > >>does. There are plenty of fruits and vegetables an > >>OMNIVORE might eat that EXCLUDE leaves. > > > > > > Ok, tell you what; name any omnivorous species, and I > > will show you a species that includes leaves in its diet. > > We aren't talking about *species*, you idiot. We're > talking about individuals. LOL!!!!!! > >>>>[...] > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>.. > >>>>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would > >>>>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported > >>>>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' > >>>>> > >>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat > >>>> > >>>>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible > >>>>carnivorous adaptation. > >>> > >>> > >>>That was the specific subject of this post. > >> > >>"minized gut size" NEVER was the subject of this > >>THREAD, you risible twit. > > > > > > You're CLUELESS. > > No, you clueless idiot. This thread NEVER was about > "minized gut size". ROTFL! |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
pearl wrote:
> "Wilson Woods" > wrote in message > link.net... > >>pearl wrote: >> >> >>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message rthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>pearl wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message . earthlink.net... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>pearl wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Wilson Woods" > wrote in message s.earthlink.net... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>John Coleman wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>No one suggested humans are carnivores. Humans are >>>>>>>>>>omnivores. That is the consensus of biology and >>>>>>>>>>anthropology. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"[b]ecause, for anatomical and physiological reasons, no mammal can >>>>>>>>>exploit large amounts of both animal matter and leaves, the widely used term >>>>>>>>>'omnivore' is singularly inappropriate, even for primates. Humans might >>>>>>>>>reasonably be called omnivores, however, as a result of _food processing and >>>>>>>>>cookery._" >>>>>>>>>- Chivers >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of >>>>>>>>>omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of >>>>>>>>>digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves" (folivory). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Go without eating leafy greens then. :). >>>>>> >>>>>>Lots of people do. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Prove it. >>>> >>>>Inuit, for just one entire people. Hundreds of >>>>millions of Europeans, North Americans and South >>>>Americans who *individually* don't care for them, for >>>>others. >>> >>> >>>Ipse dixit. >> >>Do you have evidence that the Inuit eat leafy matter? >>Present it. > > > I do. Present it. You're lying; you don't. > > >>That *individuals* in western cultures don't eat any >>green vegetables is beyond doubt. I didn't suggest I >>don't eat them; I do; I love leafy green vegetables. > > > I doubt it's 'beyond doubt', -- meaning it isn't. It is beyond doubt that *some* people in western cultures do not eat leafy vegetables. > > >>Your stupid response, in reply to my linguistically and >>logically CORRECT observation > > > Say that again,- in English this time. It was and remains in plain English. It is not my fault that English is not your native tongue. > > >>that "omnivore" does NOT >>imply "eats leaves", was >> >> Go without eating leafy greens then. > > :). > >>That's stupid. > > > It's a joke, like you. Your stupid reply to my plain-English observation was and remains a non sequitur. > > >>It is a fact that there are people who >>eat no leafy greens. > > > Again,- prove it. Besides, we're talking about species, > not aberrant individuals. We are NOT talking about a species, and we never were. You're lying or stupid, or both. > > >>>>>>Your silly comment does not refute my observation: >>>>>>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? >>>> >>>>It means "eats animal and non-animal foods". It does >>>>NOT IMPLY "eats leaves". You are WRONG to think it >>>>does. There are plenty of fruits and vegetables an >>>>OMNIVORE might eat that EXCLUDE leaves. >>> >>> >>>Ok, tell you what; name any omnivorous species, and I >>>will show you a species that includes leaves in its diet. >> >>We aren't talking about *species*, you idiot. We're >>talking about individuals. > > > LOL!!!!!! What's funny, other than your inability with English and logic? > > >>>>>>[...] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>.. >>>>>>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would >>>>>>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported >>>>>>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat >>>>>> >>>>>>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible >>>>>>carnivorous adaptation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That was the specific subject of this post. >>>> >>>>"minized gut size" NEVER was the subject of this >>>>THREAD, you risible twit. >>> >>> >>>You're CLUELESS. >> >>No, you clueless idiot. This thread NEVER was about >>"minized gut size". |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
> You know nothing about heterocyclic amines or oxidized cholesterol.
Sure I do, I have a protein technology book right here. If you didn't know that animal products have oxidised cholesterol in them, and that this is a concern in food safety, then have a look with google. > temperature, and time cooked. Amazingly, meat studied from fast food restaurants > had low HCA levels. A mango has 0 HCAs. > Also in other high-protein foods like tofu. You don't have to cook tofu. > Not at all, especially since our early ancestors figured out that by sharpening > stones they could do the same thing tigers do with their claws and teeth. So in other words their genes didn't adapt, instead they created a technology. Using this same technology we have been able to feed chickens to cows. Do we now accept that cows are omnivores? Of course not. Your point is utter rubbish. > Incorrect. The development of human and pre-human technology -- sharpened rocks, > knives, etc. -- is "pervasive adaptation." No it is not. Technology can be developed completely free of any molecular evolution, and indeed at any whim, irrespective of dietary adaptations. > Labels trip up morons like you. Omnivore is a broad category because certain > species, like our own, thrive on variety. I see no evidence of humans thriving on any kind of diet. Instead we have lots of sick people. > grasses, grains, meat, etc. We can consume and utilize a variety of eating pseudo foods makes humans ill, humans are the sickest of all species > That's why your nutty raw faddism is bullshit and the foundations you use to > rationalize it are a house of cards. well that proves it! NOT!! John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
> The noted comparative anatomy expert, D.J. Chivers,
> reports that the human gut (digestive system) is > that of a faunivore (meat-eater) with some of the > adaptations of a folivore. (References: Cambridge > Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, 1992, Cambridge > University Press, pp. 61, 64; see also D.J. Chivers > and P.J. Langer, The Digestive System in Mammals: > Food, Form, and Function, 1994, Cambridge University > Press, p. 4.) In other words, we have the mixed set > of adaptations of an omnivore/faunivore, so although > we are not purely or primarily folivores, we can > certainly eat raw vegetables. [Note: Chivers uses a > slightly different definition of the term > "omnivore," and suggests instead that the human gut > should be described as that of a faunivore, rather > than omnivore.] Sure, here Chivers is categorising according to the anatomical features of the gut and fitting them along with faunivores (another term for animals that specialise in eating other animals, including insects). In Chivers books he specifically mentions that such categorisation is fraught with risks, because you will tend to fit data to a limited list of preselected possibilities (i.e. selection bias). Billings does not tell you this because he is a spin doctor. BTW Chivers never says humans ARE faunivores, he is only categorising our gut morphology as most proportionally like them. That is all. You are certainly welcome to eat only raw animal flesh for a few weeks plus some leaves, you will get sick or die of "rabbit starvation" most likely. The leaves will simply never digest and the flesh will poison your liver. Perhaps you might do okay on insects, try the experiment and tell us your results. You can eat just fruit for years before you get terminal deficiencies. But fruit will never kill you itself. Go figure. John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
> 'The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996)
> are probably allowed by our... development of TECHNOLOGY humans can eat any kind of rubbish, if they get ill from it then that is not their diet without some empiricism this is all guff John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
You use Microsoft Outlook Express. BY DEFAULT, when
you make a reply to someone in usenet, that e-mail/news client LEAVES IN the name of the person to whom you are replying, and *all* of that person's post. LEAVE IT IN! Stop with your unethical snipping and removal of context. You are *not* snipping for economy's sake, but rather to remove context that discomfits you. Stop it. John Coleman wrote: >> The noted comparative anatomy expert, D.J. Chivers, >> reports that the human gut (digestive system) is >> that of a faunivore (meat-eater) with some of the >> adaptations of a folivore. (References: Cambridge >> Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, 1992, Cambridge >> University Press, pp. 61, 64; see also D.J. Chivers >> and P.J. Langer, The Digestive System in Mammals: >> Food, Form, and Function, 1994, Cambridge University >> Press, p. 4.) In other words, we have the mixed set >> of adaptations of an omnivore/faunivore, so although >> we are not purely or primarily folivores, we can >> certainly eat raw vegetables. [Note: Chivers uses a >> slightly different definition of the term >> "omnivore," and suggests instead that the human gut >> should be described as that of a faunivore, rather >> than omnivore.] > > > Sure, here Chivers is categorising according to the anatomical features of > the gut and fitting them along with faunivores (another term for animals > that specialise in eating other animals, including insects). In Chivers > books ....which you haven't read, but which Billings apparently has... > he specifically mentions that such categorisation is fraught with > risks, because you will tend to fit data to a limited list of preselected > possibilities (i.e. selection bias). Cite it. > Billings does not tell you this because he is a spin doctor. I suspect Billings doesn't tell us this because Chivers never wrote it. > > BTW Chivers never says humans ARE faunivores, he is only categorising our > gut morphology as most proportionally like them. That is all. "that is all" - pshaw! That's ALL comparative anatomy IS, you nitwit. > > You are certainly welcome to eat only raw animal flesh for a few weeks plus > some leaves, you will get sick or die of "rabbit starvation" most likely. I doubt it. The Inuit go for about that long eating only or mostly meat. > The leaves will simply never digest and the flesh will poison your liver. > Perhaps you might do okay on insects, try the experiment and tell us your > results. You can eat just fruit for years before you get terminal > deficiencies. But fruit will never kill you itself. Go figure. Except for the Inuit, who eat mostly meat and very little fruit, humans don't live on such a narrow diet. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
> What risks would those be?
try and read the paper or their notes, they refer to excess cholesterol and iron amongst others (all of the adaptations are to inherent biochemical risks associated with flesh eating) > Other? We are not herbivores, we're omnivores. I already answered this. Chivers says we are only like that because we cook. I'll make a small allowance for some insects if you want to pretend you are an "omnivore" of course, but then all herbivores probably consume some insects. > Canine teeth are not specific to meat eaters. Most primates have them because, > like our species, they're omnivores. Human canine teeth are incisiform, an adaptation that suits us to eating fruits. No other primate has incisiform canines like ours, elk have them also. figure that out > Was that even within the realm of their study, scumbag? You need to answer that question as you imply this paper has something to do with justifying irrational animal consumption. The paper is about some small changes in our genetic makeup that reduce the inherent **risks** associated with meat consumption. That is the whole point of the paper. John |
Ping J.C
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "John Coleman" > > > John, if this is your site; > http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/protein.htm - it's 404. :(. I'm linking through the archive - > http://web.archive.org/web/200304180...mc/protein.htm ) fine, all my articles are under review, some I will scrap and some will be updated soon they will appear at www.soalive.biz John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
>>'The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) >>are probably allowed by our... > > development of TECHNOLOGY No, liar. That's not what the unidentified author said (and "pearl's" source for the quote is BOGUS). He wrote, "The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized "frugivores", a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several other populations, present and past, to feed extensively on animal matter." Don't alter quotes, you unethical polemicist. If you believe that the large variation in diets is due to technology, rather than due to gut morphology, then please state your credentials, and please also provide us with your peer-reviewed articles in which you support your conclusion. This ought to be good for a laugh, maybe a few thousand laughs. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
>>What risks would those be? > > > try and read the paper or their notes, they refer to excess cholesterol and > iron amongst others (all of the adaptations are to inherent biochemical > risks associated with flesh eating) > > >>Other? We are not herbivores, we're omnivores. > > > I already answered this. Chivers says we are only like that because we cook. That's a LIE. Chivers says we are "like that" because of our gut morphology. > I'll make a small allowance for some insects if you want to pretend you are > an "omnivore" of course, but then all herbivores probably consume some > insects. > > >>Canine teeth are not specific to meat eaters. Most primates have them > > because, > >>like our species, they're omnivores. > > > Human canine teeth are incisiform, an adaptation that suits us to eating > fruits. No other primate has incisiform canines like ours, elk have them > also. figure that out > > >>Was that even within the realm of their study, scumbag? > > > You need to answer that question as you imply this paper has something to do > with justifying irrational Ipse dixit. > animal consumption. The paper is about some small > changes in our genetic makeup that reduce the inherent **risks** associated > with meat consumption. That is the whole point of the paper. > > John > > |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
> What does that say about someone who fails medical tests because of his peculiar > diet and then must take vitamin pills? supplements are not remedies for ailements (although they can help), rather they are an attempt to make up for the incomplete nature of the so called foods of our cultural error (that is why they are called supplements) supplements are not medicines > Oh yeah, while you're at it please name a > culture without any remedies. That is precisley MY point. Culture is a failure at producing healthy humans. Humans keep caged birds healthier than themselves! We had 2 caged birds when I was a kid, one after the other. They both ate raw seeds and the odd bit of wild grass, plus a calcium source. Neither of them ever got ill in their whole life. I can't think of a single person I have known who can repeat that. > You're most likely to find a group of unhealthy > people in a stone-age (or pre-) tribe. All human societies eating cooked foods and/or dead animals are plagued by a wide variety of ailments, that is why we have pharmacies. No species eating its natural raw diet is plagued by any ailments at all. GO FIGURE John |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
pearl omitted important information when she wrote:
> .. > A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would > correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported > by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' > > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat Here's how it actually appears in Billings's site with suitable context, which Lesley misidentified: Gut surface areas might not support Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]: A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized "frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several other populations, present and past, to feed extensively on animal matter... The first sentence above, carnivorous adaptation, must be understood in context: as a comment on the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It claims that there is no major change in gut surface areas as the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis suggests. It does *not* mean there is absolutely no adaptation to faunivory: the major adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote does not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml We can count on Lesley to lie by omission every time. "Hladik et al." were commenting on a *specific* hypothesis which suggested a change in gut surface area; they indicated their research did not support that particular implication of the Expensive Tissue hypothesis. They definitely were NOT saying that there is no adaptation to faunivory; that's the polemical result that Lesley *wants* to find. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
Wilson Woods wrote:
> pearl omitted important information when she wrote: Hardly surprising. If she could even comprehend her "sources," she'd run out of ammo fast. I recall her oblivion to some NASA article or something which she was using to defend polar fountains as part of her loony beliefs that the earth is hollow. The article was quite clear about it, but the daft little foot masseuse insisted that polar fountains were a terrestrial, rather than ionospheric/magnetospheric, event. I pointed out to her that the article said, '"In 1987, Chappell and the RIMS team published a paper describing the polar ion fountain and described the ionosphere as a "fully adequate source of material for the magnetosphere,"' to which she FINALLY responded: OK. I can't argue with that. Off to get my beauty sleep. -- Lesley, foot rubbing skag: http://snipurl.com/6dqf >> .. >> A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would >> correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported >> by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' >> >> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat > > Here's how it actually appears in Billings's site with suitable context, > which Lesley misidentified: > > Gut surface areas might not support Expensive Tissue > Hypothesis. From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]: > > A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans > that would correspond to a minimized gut size is > obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1). > The large variations in human diets (Hladik and > Simmen 1996) are probably allowed by our gut > morphology as unspecialized "frugivores," a > flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several > other populations, present and past, to feed > extensively on animal matter... > > The first sentence above, carnivorous > adaptation, must be understood in context: as a > comment on the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It > claims that there is no major change in gut surface > areas as the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis suggests. > It does *not* mean there is absolutely no adaptation > to faunivory: the major adaptation to faunivory in > humans was previously identified as a reduction in > size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. > [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote > does not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers. > > > http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml > > > We can count on Lesley to lie by omission every time. "Hladik et al." > were commenting on a *specific* hypothesis which suggested a change in > gut surface area; they indicated their research did not support that > particular implication of the Expensive Tissue hypothesis. They > definitely were NOT saying that there is no adaptation to faunivory; > that's the polemical result that Lesley *wants* to find. It's her MO. Her quack trade learned from hippie new agers never dealt with science -- it's a foreign concept to her. She picked the right profession, one for which she's suited and one in which gullibility pays handsomely. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
pearl wrote:
<...> >>Your silly comment does not refute my observation: >>"omnivore" does not imply "eats leaves". > > What do you think OMNIvore means then, exactly? Omnivorous means "feeding on both animal and vegetable substances." It doesn't necessarily mean an individual omnivore eats leaves. <...> >>>A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would >>>correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported >>>by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' >>> >>>http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat >> >>"Minimized gut size" is not the only possible >>carnivorous adaptation. > > That was the specific subject of this post. > What else do you want to postulate? You have been debunked now that the Mr Woods has offered a more verbatim quote. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
usual suspect wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote: > >> pearl omitted important information when she wrote: > > > Hardly surprising. If she could even comprehend her "sources," she'd run > out of ammo fast. I recall her oblivion to some NASA article or > something which she was using to defend polar fountains as part of her > loony beliefs that the earth is hollow. The article was quite clear > about it, but the daft little foot masseuse insisted that polar > fountains were a terrestrial, rather than ionospheric/magnetospheric, > event. I pointed out to her that the article said, '"In 1987, Chappell > and the RIMS team published a paper describing the polar ion fountain > and described the ionosphere as a "fully adequate source of material for > the magnetosphere,"' to which she FINALLY responded: > > OK. I can't argue with that. Off to get my beauty sleep. > -- Lesley, foot rubbing skag: http://snipurl.com/6dqf I remember that well. She argued on and on and ON that she was right in her, uh, "interpretation", then never really acknowledged that she not only had been wrong, but had no basis for arguing in the first place. Typical. > >>> .. >>> A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that would >>> correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously not supported >>> by our data (fig. 1). Hladik et al. [1999, pp.696-697] ' >>> >>> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat >> >> >> Here's how it actually appears in Billings's site with suitable >> context, which Lesley misidentified: >> >> Gut surface areas might not support Expensive Tissue >> Hypothesis. From Hladik et al. [1999, pp. 696-697]: >> >> A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans >> that would correspond to a minimized gut size is >> obviously not supported by our data (fig. 1). >> The large variations in human diets (Hladik and >> Simmen 1996) are probably allowed by our gut >> morphology as unspecialized "frugivores," a >> flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and several >> other populations, present and past, to feed >> extensively on animal matter... >> >> The first sentence above, carnivorous >> adaptation, must be understood in context: as a >> comment on the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It >> claims that there is no major change in gut surface >> areas as the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis suggests. >> It does *not* mean there is absolutely no adaptation >> to faunivory: the major adaptation to faunivory in >> humans was previously identified as a reduction in >> size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. >> [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote >> does not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers. >> >> >> http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml >> >> >> We can count on Lesley to lie by omission every time. "Hladik et al." >> were commenting on a *specific* hypothesis which suggested a change in >> gut surface area; they indicated their research did not support that >> particular implication of the Expensive Tissue hypothesis. They >> definitely were NOT saying that there is no adaptation to faunivory; >> that's the polemical result that Lesley *wants* to find. > > > It's her MO. Her quack trade learned from hippie new agers never dealt > with science -- it's a foreign concept to her. She picked the right > profession, one for which she's suited and one in which gullibility pays > handsomely. > |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
>>You know nothing about heterocyclic amines or oxidized cholesterol. > > Sure I do, Not. > I have a protein technology book right here. If that vegan motorcycling site belonged to you, I question your ability to comprehend science. You're good at footnoting, but not at interpreting science. > If you didn't know > that animal products have oxidised cholesterol in them, and that this is a > concern in food safety, then have a look with google. I know enough about the issue to comprehend that meat, per se, is not a culprit as you would have other believe. Cooking methods play a significant role (frying in particular). The two flies in your ointment are that not all meats are high in saturated fats AND that a diet like the one you propose removes the problem of cholesterol oxidation. As to the second fly in your ointment: Oxidation occurs when cholesterol comes in contact with "free radicals," which are highly unstable, reactive oxygen molecules that circulate in the blood and damage tissues. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0617070522.htm You already have endogenous cholesterol, including LDL (the culprit that oxidizes). Free radicals in your body -- from diet, lifestyle, environment, stress, etc. -- oxidize that LDL regardless of what you eat. You didn't break down your HDL and LDL when you announced your total cholesterol (which I assume you meant a shade over *200*; mine is less than that and I eat cooked foods, go figure). You'll never escape the effects of oxygen on your body: some of those effects are good, some are bad. You may be minimizing some of the bad effects, but not completely. Free radicals will still wreak havoc in your body, causing you to age and eventually die (you needn't answer the question I asked about your mortality: you can deny it yourself, but you won't fool anyone else about it). How much time will you buy yourself and suffering will you avoid? Maybe a couple years. To most people, the trade off isn't worth it -- particularly when one must get one's nutrition through B12 pills or shots, etc., like you must. >>temperature, and time cooked. Amazingly, meat studied from fast food > restaurants >>had low HCA levels. > > A mango has 0 HCAs. Too bad they grow here and not there. All the pollution caused from jetting tropical produce from my region of the world to yours increases the amount of free radical damage you're causing yourself and others in the world, killer. Why don't you eat local produce? >>Also in other high-protein foods like tofu. > > You don't have to cook tofu. Tofu is a cooked product, nitwit. http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~hansen/recip/tofu.html >>Not at all, especially since our early ancestors figured out that by > sharpening >>stones they could do the same thing tigers do with their claws and teeth. > > So in other words their genes didn't adapt, instead they created a > technology. Technological advance makes genetic adaptations unnecessary and unlikely (i.e., there's no advantage to having claws if one already has a knife). > Using this same technology we have been able to feed chickens to > cows. Non sequitur. Not the same technology. > Do we now accept that cows are omnivores? Of course not. Non sequitur. > Your point is utter rubbish. No, yours is beside the point. >>Incorrect. The development of human and pre-human technology -- sharpened > rocks, >>knives, etc. -- is "pervasive adaptation." > > No it is not. Yes, it is. We lacked claws and a mouthful of sharp teeth (most of us anyway), and we adapted (or compensated, take your pick) by accomplishing the same tasks with sharpened tools. Brilliant. > Technology can be developed completely free of any molecular > evolution, and indeed at any whim, irrespective of dietary adaptations. Whatever dietary adaptations were necessary occurred with the use of tools. Those for whom meat was not a biological advantage died and didn't reproduce to pass on such traits. Those who could digest and assimilate flesh did. You seem to know as little about natural selection as you know about nutrition. >>Labels trip up morons like you. Omnivore is a broad category because > certain >>species, like our own, thrive on variety. > > I see no evidence of humans thriving on any kind of diet. Instead we have > lots of sick people. Your worldview is what's sick and non-thriving because you seem to have a notion that our world is sterile enough to produce a species free of disease, suffering, and death. That isn't how nature works, Coleman. Our species is no more unhealthy than other species. Each example you've given, including the one about your childhood birds, ignores the fact that every species on our planet has a list of maladies and/or genetic factors limiting lifespan to some degree. It could be a tendency within a species to acquire a disease or infection (which even plants get and from which they die: e.g., oak wilt) or a genetic predisposition for deleterious traits in some dogs (e.g., deafness, arthritis, etc.). Then we get to the issue of predation: some animals exist to feed others. Nature isn't anything like your utopian delusion. >>grasses, grains, meat, etc. We can consume and utilize a variety of > > eating pseudo foods makes humans ill, humans are the sickest of all species Ipse dixit. Perhaps you should ask a biologist about diseases of various species both in captivity and in the wild. >>That's why your nutty raw faddism is bullshit and the foundations you use > to >>rationalize it are a house of cards. > > well that proves it! NOT!! I think you've pretty well established that you're a flake. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
>>'The large variations in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) >>are probably allowed by our... > development of TECHNOLOGY > > humans can eat any kind of rubbish, if they get ill from it then that is not > their diet Non sequitur and ipse dixit. You can eat a mango contaminated with cholera (see link) or E coli. Would you then give up your well-traveled mangoes because you were made ill? http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol1no4/tauxe.htm > without some empiricism this is all guff Do you consider anecdotal evidence to be empiricism or do you prefer double blind studies, Mr Guff? |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
John Coleman wrote:
> The Digestive System In Mammals p.4, Chivers et al. "The concept of > omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of > digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves." This is really funny! You read that in Tom Billings's site, and nowhere else! However, you left out some key information. Here's the full section: "Omnivore" a vague term lacking in relevance for GI tract functions. A further relevant quote is from Chivers and Langer [1994, p. 4]; emphasis below is mine: The concept of omnivory is weakened by the anatomical and physiological difficulties of digesting significant quantities of animal matter and fruit and leaves... animal matter is swamped in a large gut, and foliage cannot be digested in a small gut. A compromise is not really feasible... Humans are only omnivorous thanks to food processing and cookery; their guts have the dimensions of a (faunivore) carnivore but the taeniae, haustra and semi-lunar folds are characteristic of folivores. Among the so-called omnivores, most eat either mainly fruit and animal matter (if smaller) or fruit and foliage (if larger) but not all three. Thus we note that Chivers appears to define an omnivore as a general feeder with a gut morphology that supports a diet that includes significant amounts of all three types of foods: fruits, leaves, and animal matter. Such a gut morphology is not found in mammals, hence the term is indeed inappropriate for mammals. Contradictory claims about omnivores: which is correct? Thus we have what appear to be contradictory statements: most mammals are omnivores; no mammal is an omnivore. Which is correct? The answer is that both are correct, because they are using different definitions of the term "omnivore." Chivers' criticism of the common definition of the term "omnivore" is relevant: it would be better (more precise) to use terms that are linked to gut morphology: folivore, frugivore, faunivore. However, that does not mean that those who are using the common definition are making incorrect or invalid statements. Recall that a definition is simply a convention that people follow. While it is desirable that definitions possess analytical rigor, it is not a requirement that they do so. Hence the meaning of a statment like "chimps are omnivores" or "humans are omnivores" is clear, i.e., the natural diet of humans and chimps includes both animal and plant foods. A fruitarian extremist has used the difference in definitions of the term "omnivore" to suggest that statements like "chimps are omnivores" are incorrect and irrelevant. Because the meaning of such statements is clear (even to those who support Chivers' remarks), it is my opinion that the fruitarian extremist is engaging here in a blatantly intellectually dishonest word game in an effort to distract attention from the well-known fact that animal foods are a significant (even if small) part of the natural diet of many primates. http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-6e.shtml I know enough about Tom Billings to know that the "fruitarian extremist" referred to in the last paragraph is undoubtedly John Coleman. Why did you omit to tell us that you read that in Billings? Why did you also omit to tell us the whole story? We know: you're a lying polemicist. Here's more from the same Billings page where you lifted, without citing it, the TRUNCATED quote from Chivers: More examples of out-of-context quoting by dietary extremists. Those who use (some or all of) the above quotes from Chivers' writings in support of the fallacious claim that humans evolved on a strict vegetarian/fruit diet often neglect to quote the following, from one of the same source articles, e.g., Chivers [1992, pp. 60, 64]: Exclusive frugivory is practically impossible, because certain essential amino acids and other nutrients are found only in leaves or in animal matter... Humans are on the inner edge of the faunivore [meat-eater] cluster, showing the distinctive adaptations of their guts for meat-eating, or for other rapidly digested foods, in contrast to the frugivorous apes (and monkeys). The first part of the above quote indicates how unlikely the bogus claims that humans evolved as fruitarians (on very low-protein diets) really are. The second part of the above quote points out that human gut morphology is more similar to that of faunivores than the fruit-diet frugivores. You have a lot of nerve, Polemicist Coleman, to be calling Billings a "spin doctor". Billings gives a more complete summary; you cherry-pick. Spin, indeed. |
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
usual suspect wrote:
> John Coleman wrote: > >>> You know nothing about heterocyclic amines or oxidized cholesterol. >> >> >> Sure I do, > > > Not. > >> I have a protein technology book right here. > > > If that vegan motorcycling site belonged to you, I question your ability > to comprehend science. You're good at footnoting, but not at > interpreting science. He doesn't even have a "protein technology book"; he lied. > >> If you didn't know >> that animal products have oxidised cholesterol in them, and that this >> is a >> concern in food safety, then have a look with google. > > > I know enough about the issue to comprehend that meat, per se, is not a > culprit as you would have other believe. Cooking methods play a > significant role (frying in particular). The two flies in your ointment > are that not all meats are high in saturated fats AND that a diet like > the one you propose removes the problem of cholesterol oxidation. As to > the second fly in your ointment: > > Oxidation occurs when cholesterol comes in contact with "free > radicals," > which are highly unstable, reactive oxygen molecules that circulate in > the blood and damage tissues. > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0617070522.htm > > You already have endogenous cholesterol, including LDL (the culprit that > oxidizes). Free radicals in your body -- from diet, lifestyle, > environment, stress, etc. -- oxidize that LDL regardless of what you > eat. You didn't break down your HDL and LDL when you announced your > total cholesterol (which I assume you meant a shade over *200*; mine is > less than that and I eat cooked foods, go figure). You'll never escape > the effects of oxygen on your body: some of those effects are good, some > are bad. You may be minimizing some of the bad effects, but not > completely. Free radicals will still wreak havoc in your body, causing > you to age and eventually die (you needn't answer the question I asked > about your mortality: you can deny it yourself, but you won't fool > anyone else about it). How much time will you buy yourself and suffering > will you avoid? Maybe a couple years. To most people, the trade off > isn't worth it -- particularly when one must get one's nutrition through > B12 pills or shots, etc., like you must. > >>> temperature, and time cooked. Amazingly, meat studied from fast food >> >> restaurants >> >>> had low HCA levels. >> >> >> A mango has 0 HCAs. > > > Too bad they grow here and not there. All the pollution caused from > jetting tropical produce from my region of the world to yours increases > the amount of free radical damage you're causing yourself and others in > the world, killer. Why don't you eat local produce? > >>> Also in other high-protein foods like tofu. >> >> >> You don't have to cook tofu. > > > Tofu is a cooked product, nitwit. > > http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~hansen/recip/tofu.html > >>> Not at all, especially since our early ancestors figured out that by >> >> sharpening >> >>> stones they could do the same thing tigers do with their claws and >>> teeth. >> >> >> So in other words their genes didn't adapt, instead they created a >> technology. > > > Technological advance makes genetic adaptations unnecessary and unlikely > (i.e., there's no advantage to having claws if one already has a knife). > >> Using this same technology we have been able to feed chickens to >> cows. > > > Non sequitur. Not the same technology. > >> Do we now accept that cows are omnivores? Of course not. > > > Non sequitur. > >> Your point is utter rubbish. > > > No, yours is beside the point. > > >>> Incorrect. The development of human and pre-human technology -- >>> sharpened >> >> rocks, >> >>> knives, etc. -- is "pervasive adaptation." >> >> >> No it is not. > > > Yes, it is. We lacked claws and a mouthful of sharp teeth (most of us > anyway), and we adapted (or compensated, take your pick) by > accomplishing the same tasks with sharpened tools. Brilliant. > >> Technology can be developed completely free of any molecular >> evolution, and indeed at any whim, irrespective of dietary adaptations. > > > Whatever dietary adaptations were necessary occurred with the use of > tools. Those for whom meat was not a biological advantage died and > didn't reproduce to pass on such traits. Those who could digest and > assimilate flesh did. You seem to know as little about natural selection > as you know about nutrition. > >>> Labels trip up morons like you. Omnivore is a broad category because >> >> certain >> >>> species, like our own, thrive on variety. >> >> >> I see no evidence of humans thriving on any kind of diet. Instead we have >> lots of sick people. > > > Your worldview is what's sick and non-thriving because you seem to have > a notion that our world is sterile enough to produce a species free of > disease, suffering, and death. That isn't how nature works, Coleman. Our > species is no more unhealthy than other species. Each example you've > given, including the one about your childhood birds, ignores the fact > that every species on our planet has a list of maladies and/or genetic > factors limiting lifespan to some degree. It could be a tendency within > a species to acquire a disease or infection (which even plants get and > from which they die: e.g., oak wilt) or a genetic predisposition for > deleterious traits in some dogs (e.g., deafness, arthritis, etc.). Then > we get to the issue of predation: some animals exist to feed others. > Nature isn't anything like your utopian delusion. > >>> grasses, grains, meat, etc. We can consume and utilize a variety of >> >> >> eating pseudo foods makes humans ill, humans are the sickest of all >> species > > > Ipse dixit. Perhaps you should ask a biologist about diseases of various > species both in captivity and in the wild. > >>> That's why your nutty raw faddism is bullshit and the foundations you >>> use >> >> to >> >>> rationalize it are a house of cards. >> >> >> well that proves it! NOT!! > > > I think you've pretty well established that you're a flake. > |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter