 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> The Los Angeles Times > > Eight genes helped humans add flesh to their diets > while limiting its hazards, scientists report. > > > By Rosie Mestel, Times Staff Writer > > 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. > > In a paper published last week in The Quarterly Review > of Biology, biologist Caleb E. Finch and anthropologist > Craig Stanford said they had identified at least eight > genes that might have been key to this important > development in human evolution. > > Human ancestors probably began eating meat 2.5 million > years ago, anthropologists say. In contrast, only the > chimps among our nearest relatives, the greater apes, > eat meat - and then only a fraction of what humans do. > > In lab studies or in zoos, apes' cholesterol levels > climb more sharply than do humans' when fed fat, and > the animals are more prone to blockages in their > coronary arteries. Zoos now know to feed the animals > leaner diets. > > "Even though we have this idea that we are > hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that > humans as a species are relatively immune to the > harmful effects of these things," Stanford said. > > To pinpoint possible meat-adaptive genes, Finch > searched databases and identified eight genes that > differed between chimps and humans and which may have > had a role in making us meat-tolerant. > > One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of > that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time > after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is > known to help protect human beings against heart > disease. It also protects against Alzheimer's disease. > > Finch and Stanford propose that such genes enabled > human beings to live longer lives without coming down > with chronic diseases: Humans live about 30 years > longer than great apes. > > The scientists identified seven other genes that they > thought helped protect people against infectious agents > carried in meat or against an overdose of iron and > other metals that are relatively abundant in flesh > compared with plants. > > http://tinyurl.com/2vj2o Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you - publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating. Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong, but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
wrote:
> On 22 Mar 2004 09:48:18 -0800, (Jack Clark) > wrote: > > >>>http://tinyurl.com/2vj2o >> >>Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you >>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL >>scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you - >>publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating. >> >>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong, >>but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or >>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying >>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth. > > > > I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet. Because, you ****ing idiot, their site doesn't contain the current issue: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB...available.html Did you read the newspaper article, dummy? It said " In a paper published ***last week*** in The Quarterly Review of Biology..." [emphasis added] If you look at that link to the available issues, you'll see that the most recent issue available on the web site is from last December. It won't make a bit of difference once it does appear on the site: You're not a subscriber, and you couldn't understand the article even if you signed up. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:24:35 GMT, Dirk McDougal >
wrote: >> >> I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet. > >Because, you ****ing idiot, their site doesn't contain >the current issue: >http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB...available.html > >Did you read the newspaper article, dummy? It said " >In a paper published ***last week*** in The Quarterly >Review of Biology..." [emphasis added] If you look at >that link to the available issues, you'll see that the >most recent issue available on the web site is from >last December. That's exactly what I meant. > >It won't make a bit of difference once it does appear >on the site: You're not a subscriber, and you couldn't >understand the article even if you signed up. Why does this ng draw such uninformed vitriol? I *meant* I wonder why the QRB has not posted that article on their website, meaning the current issue. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 20:24:35 GMT, Dirk McDougal > > wrote: > > >>>I wonder why the QRB hasn;t put the article on their website yet. >> >>Because, you ****ing idiot, their site doesn't contain >>the current issue: >>http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/QRB...available.html >> >>Did you read the newspaper article, dummy? It said " >>In a paper published ***last week*** in The Quarterly >>Review of Biology..." [emphasis added] If you look at >>that link to the available issues, you'll see that the >>most recent issue available on the web site is from >>last December. > > > That's exactly what I meant. > > > >>It won't make a bit of difference once it does appear >>on the site: You're not a subscriber, and you couldn't >>understand the article even if you signed up. > > > Why does this ng draw such uninformed vitriol? Because "vegans" write, say and think such STUPID things. > > I *meant* I wonder why the QRB has not posted > that article on their website, meaning the current issue. You *****ing* moron: because they don't POST the current issue. The current issue probably will be posted right around the time it becomes the PREVIOUS issue. Sheesh! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 21:02:15 GMT, Dirk McDougal >
wrote: >You *****ing* moron: because they don't POST the >current issue. The current issue probably will be >posted right around the time it becomes the PREVIOUS issue. > >Sheesh! I don;t know which is more stupid: my knowing that many online magazines do post protions of the current issue, or people who are not vegans who have no life either, hanging out here, being trolls. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Jon-a-thug noBalls" > wrote in message om... > > The Los Angeles Times Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. > > 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. 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. http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broke...y=ALL&_debug=0 IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero IF any "adaptation" had occurred. Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation" ever occurred. > > ... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least >> eight genes ... Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research. Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition. http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html In fact, there is not one -real- science course in this track. Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists propagate some of the most nonsensical superstitions and fanciful speculations about human diet. http://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm http://www.ecologos.org/fft.htm > > "Even though we have this idea that we are > > hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that > > humans as a species are relatively immune to the > > harmful effects of these things," Stanford said. Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology. > > One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of > > that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time > > after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is > > known to help protect human beings against heart > > disease. Not much "protection" if "heart disease" is responsible for 29% of all deaths in the US. > You asshole - Jon-a-thug noBalls, you are a disgusting, vulgar psychopath, regardless of the phony name or false account that you make up. And, you are so incredibly stupid as to not know that such vulgar, juvenile behavior completely negates any hope of you ever developing any intellectual integrity or credibility, whatsoever. > haven't you > maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no > genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? I still maintain that there is NO "genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating", and you have not ever been able to provide ANY evidence of such. Years of your meatarian babbling, and you have yet to produce one credible scrap of credible information supporting your Neanderthal lifestyle or mentality. Current epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation" ever occurred; further, there is not one word about gene pools "adapting" to voluntary changes in diet anywhere in modern evolutionary theory. > Yet here we see REAL scientists - asserts there is indeed a > genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating. They did not say anything in a authoritative or conclusive manner. They said things like "may have had a role", yet they can not prove any "meat-tolerant" "adaptations" ever occurred. They did not assert there is a "genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating", they did not PROVE that it exists, they hypothesized it. > Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong, > but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or > not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying > Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth. Such juvenile behavior and verbal violence merely proves that you, Jon-a-thug noBalls, are the knowingly-ignorant one. Knowingly-ignorant of polite behavior or logical argument. The amazing thing is that you never tire of embarrassing and denigrating yourself in public like this. That is an interesting insight into the depth of your mental illness. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
LaRRY wrote:
>>>The Los Angeles Times > > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. For valid scientific info, it's at least three notches above ecologos. <...> >>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least >>>eight genes ... > > Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research. Ipse dixit. > Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single > course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition. > http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html MIT is not the only university with anthropology programs. Search for other colleges and universities with BIOLOGICAL or FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY programs, you fruitcake. http://www.csuchico.edu/anth/PAHIL/ http://www.uncw.edu/ant/curricul.htm see BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY http://people.uncw.edu/albertm/ > In fact, there is not one -real- science course in this track. Craig Stanford, mentioned in the article, teaches at the University of Southern California. From the CV on his webpage: Courses Taught Primate Social Behavior Primate Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology (graduate level) Evolution of Primate Intelligence (graduate level) Human Evolutionary Ecology Human Origins Evolutionary Medicine Evolution of Human Behavior Introduction to Biological Anthropology http://www.usc.edu/dept/elab/anth/Fa.../stanford.html Those sound like science courses to me, Larry. Maybe you can take a course or two from him to clear up some of the pseudoscientific crap you regurgitate on your cheesy website. > Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists propagate > some of the most nonsensical superstitions and fanciful speculations about > human diet. Hardly as nonsensical, superstitious, or fanciful as the speculations you post on your cheesy website. <...> >>>"Even though we have this idea that we are >>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that >>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the >>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said. > > Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology. Ipse dixit. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 19:09:13 -0500, "Laurie" > wrote:
> >"Jon-a-thug noBalls" > wrote in message . com... > >> > The Los Angeles Times > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. > >> > 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. > 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. >http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broke...y=ALL&_debug=0 > IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and >terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero IF any >"adaptation" had occurred. Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation" >ever occurred. > >> > ... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least >>> eight genes ... > Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research. > Here's the curriculum for MIT's Anthro-apology track, and not a single >course on genetics, nor chemistry, nor biochemistry, nor nutrition. >http://web.mit.edu/anthropology/course_desc/index.html That was very interesting. Don't worry much about Ursula suspect. Ursula can't even figure out that 12 years is less than 17 years, that 737 women is less than 11,000 people, or that a 2 day life style quiz is not as good as a 17 year study. by how |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
shithead wrote:
<...> > That was very interesting. Don't worry much about > Ursula suspect. Ursula can't even figure out that > 12 years is less than 17 years, that 737 women > is less than 11,000 people, or that a 2 day > life style quiz is not as good as a 17 year study. You mean a 17-year study that affirmed the position contrary to the one you took? Hahaha. Thanks for reminding me of your thorough incompetence. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 01:15:57 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote: >shithead wrote: ><...> >> That was very interesting. Don't worry much about >> Ursula suspect. Ursula can't even figure out that >> 12 years is less than 17 years, that 737 women >> is less than 11,000 people, or that a 2 day >> life style quiz is not as good as a 17 year study. > >You mean a 17-year study that affirmed the position contrary to the one you >took? Hahaha. Thanks for reminding me of your thorough incompetence. I mean, really, just ignore him. He just ignores valid issues pointed out about his own statements, and likes to fool himself into thinking that his *points* have some significance, or even relevance. His level of vitriol indicates someone who is not to be taken seriously, either. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
Lying Larry Forti wrote:
> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message > om... > > >>>The Los Angeles Times > > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the Quarterly Review of Biology, Lying Larry. Are you claiming the Times got the story wrong, Lying Larry? Prove it. > > >>>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. > > 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. Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and Stanford, Lying Larry. Leave your ignorance of EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, and try to refute the two Ph.D.s if you think you can - with SCIENCE, Lying Larry, not your polemical miscitation of some health statistics you don't understand in the first place. > http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broke...y=ALL&_debug=0 > IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and > terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero PROVE that, Lying Larry. An adaptation to something doesn't require that the adaptation be what you, in your infinite ignorance, would consider "perfect". > IF any "adaptation" had occurred. Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation" > ever occurred. No, it doesn't. And YOU, Lying Larry Forti, have ZERO expertise in epidemiology. Stop pretending you have any. > > >>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least >>>eight genes ... > > Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research. In fact, Lying Larry, if you had bothered to do even some cursory research instead of running your fat ignorant hate-filled mouth, you would have learned that Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, is the lead author of the PEER-REVIEWED article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322081608.htm If you had done just a tiny bit more research, Lying Larry, instead of running your ignorant mouth, you'd have learned that Professor Stanford is the head of the Ph.D. program in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY at the University of Southern California. You stink, Forti. > Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists Prove that, Lying Larry. You can't even get started. Those guys have forgotten more science from their first semester of university than you have even dreamed of in your entire shit-stained life, Forti, because YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE. [snip fatuous references to Forti's own pages of deceit] > > >>>"Even though we have this idea that we are >>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that >>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the >>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said. > > Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology. No, it isn't, Forti, and YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it AT ALL: a great big ZERO. > > >>>One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of >>>that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time >>>after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is >>>known to help protect human beings against heart >>>disease. > > Not much "protection" if "heart disease" is responsible for 29% of all > deaths in the US. > > >> You asshole - > > Jon-a-thug noBalls, You go eat shit and die, Forti, you piece of filth. > > >>haven't you >>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? > > I still maintain ....with ZERO support for your polemical contention, and NO ****ING PRAYER of finding any... > that there is NO "genetic adaptation in humans for meat > eating", Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say you're wrong. They say you're wrong in their recently published PEER-REVIEWED article in a prestigious journal of BIOLOGY, Lying Larry. Uh...where's YOUR peer-reviewed article, Forti, you filthy lying polemicist? Haw haw haw! > and you have not ever been able to provide ANY evidence of such. Dr. Finch and Stanford, both Ph.D.s, have INDEED provided evidence of "such", Lying Larry. Stop lying. > Current epidemiology proves 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. > > >>Yet here we see REAL scientists - asserts there is indeed a >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating. > > They did not say anything in a authoritative or conclusive manner. Prove that, Lying Larry. You HAVE NOT read their article, so you are in no position to say. > They did not assert there is a "genetic adaptation in humans for meat > eating", They certainly did. > they did not PROVE that it exists, they hypothesized it. RIGHT, science-illiterate Lying Larry: because REAL science, unlike the tea-leaf reading and totem-touching crapola you stupidly and IGNORANTLY miscall "science", doesn't EVER claim to have "proved" something. REAL science, Lying Larry, is ALWAYS presented as hypotheses. You wouldn't know anything about that. > > >>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong, >>but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or >>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying >>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth. > > Such [snip Lying Larry's blah-blah-blah hand-waving] Admit it NOW, Forti you cheap charlatan: you don't know ANYTHING about genetics, epidemiology, nutrition, or ANY of the crap on your "ecologicfree" pages. You're a sick, juvenile JOKE, Forti. When you have a PEER-REVIEWED article that refutes the conclusions of Dr. Finch and Dr. Stanford, Lying Larry, get back to us. Until then, shut up. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the form of contradictions and disagreements.
When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never acknowledge his request, just restate and instigate to infuriate - it is all Mr Ball is here for, an excuse for abuse. Give this asshole what he deserves. Let's see who can **** with him best. Female names on your header is irresistible to him. The more you love animals and show it the more abuse he will hurl your way. Draw him in and spit him out. The guy is pure vomit! Jonathan Ball wrote: > Lying Larry Forti wrote: > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message > > om... > > > > > >>>The Los Angeles Times > > > >**** Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. > > The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the > Quarterly Review of Biology, Lying Larry.* Are you > claiming the Times got the story wrong, Lying Larry? > Prove it. > > > > > > >>>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. > > > >**** 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. > > Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and > Stanford, Lying Larry.* Leave your ignorance of > EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, and try to > refute the two Ph.D.s if you think you can - with > SCIENCE, Lying Larry, not your polemical miscitation of > some health statistics you don't understand in the > first place. > > > > http://webappa.cdc.gov/cgi-bin/broker.exe?_service=v8prod&_server=lscb5500&_port= 5094&_sessionid=/Fxm7Dh1pt1&_program=wisqars.percents10.sas&age1=.& age2=.&agetext=AllAges&category=ALL&_debug=0>**** > IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions and > > terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero > > PROVE that, Lying Larry.* An adaptation to something > doesn't require that the adaptation be what you, in > your infinite ignorance, would consider "perfect". > > > IF any "adaptation" had occurred.* Epidemiology proves that no such "adaptation" > > ever occurred. > > No, it doesn't.* And YOU, Lying Larry Forti, have ZERO > expertise in epidemiology.* Stop pretending you have any. > > > > > > >>>... anthropologist Craig Stanford said they had identified at least > >>>eight genes ... > > > >**** Hmmm.* Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research. > > In fact, Lying Larry, if you had bothered to do even > some cursory research instead of running your fat > ignorant hate-filled mouth, you would have learned that > Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, is the lead > author of the PEER-REVIEWED article: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0322081608.htm > > If you had done just a tiny bit more research, Lying > Larry, instead of running your ignorant mouth, you'd > have learned that Professor Stanford is the head of the > Ph.D. program in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY at the > University of Southern California. > > You stink, Forti. > > >**** Unencumbered by real science, as a group, anthro-apologists > > Prove that, Lying Larry.* You can't even get started. > Those guys have forgotten more science from their first > semester of university than you have even dreamed of in > your entire shit-stained life, Forti, because YOU > HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE. > > [snip fatuous references to Forti's own pages of deceit] > > > > > > >>>"Even though we have this idea that we are > >>>hypersensitive to cholesterol and fat, the fact is that > >>>humans as a species are relatively immune to the > >>>harmful effects of these things," Stanford said. > > > >**** Yet, such "immunity" is disproven by current epidemiology. > > No, it isn't, Forti, and YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED > to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it > AT ALL:* a great big ZERO. > > > > > > >>>One of the genes is called apoE. A particular form of > >>>that gene, known as apoE3, evolved in humans some time > >>>after the divergence of humans from chimps. ApoE3 is > >>>known to help protect human beings against heart > >>>disease. > > > >**** Not much "protection" if "heart disease" is responsible for 29% of all > > deaths in the US. > > > > > >>* You asshole - > > > >**** Jon-a-thug noBalls, > > You go eat shit and die, Forti, you piece of filth. > > > > > > >>haven't you > >>maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no > >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? > > > >**** I still maintain > > ...with ZERO support for your polemical contention, and > NO ****ING PRAYER of finding any... > > > that there is NO "genetic adaptation in humans for meat > > eating", > > Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig > Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say > you're wrong.* They say you're wrong in their recently > published PEER-REVIEWED article in a prestigious > journal of BIOLOGY, Lying Larry. > > Uh...where's YOUR peer-reviewed article, Forti, you > filthy lying polemicist?* Haw haw haw! > > > and you have not ever been able to provide ANY evidence of such. > > Dr. Finch and Stanford, both Ph.D.s, have INDEED > provided evidence of "such", Lying Larry.* Stop lying. > > >**** Current epidemiology proves > > 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. > > > > > > >>Yet here we see REAL scientists -* asserts there is indeed a > >>genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating. > > > >**** They did not say anything in a authoritative or conclusive manner. > > Prove that, Lying Larry.* You HAVE NOT read their > article, so you are in no position to say. > > >**** They did not assert there is a "genetic adaptation in humans for meat > > eating", > > They certainly did. > > > they did not PROVE that it exists, they hypothesized it. > > RIGHT, science-illiterate Lying Larry:* because REAL > science, unlike the tea-leaf reading and totem-touching > crapola you stupidly and IGNORANTLY miscall "science", > doesn't EVER claim to have "proved" something.* REAL > science, Lying Larry, is ALWAYS presented as hypotheses. > > You wouldn't know anything about that. > > > > > >>Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry?* Not just wrong, > >>but *knowingly* ignorant?* You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or > >>not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying > >>Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth. > > > >**** Such [snip Lying Larry's blah-blah-blah hand-waving] > > Admit it NOW, Forti you cheap charlatan:* you don't > know ANYTHING about genetics, epidemiology, nutrition, > or ANY of the crap on your "ecologicfree" pages. > > You're a sick, juvenile JOKE, Forti. > > When you have a PEER-REVIEWED article that refutes the > conclusions of Dr. Finch and Dr. Stanford, Lying Larry, > get back to us.* Until then, shut up. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Foul Ball" > wrote
Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****. >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the form of contradictions and disagreements. That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he says. > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never acknowledge his request Shut up you whining ninny. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
Shut up? Nice request! Stop top posting and using HTML? Great request!
Dutch wrote: > "Foul Ball" > wrote > > Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****. > > >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the > form of contradictions and disagreements. > > That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he > says. > > > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never > acknowledge his request > > Shut up you whining ninny. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
" > wrote
> Shut up? Nice request! Stop top posting and using HTML? Great request! borrrrrrinnnnnnnnngggggggggg!!!!!! > > Dutch wrote: > > > "Foul Ball" > wrote > > > > Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****. > > > > >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the > > form of contradictions and disagreements. > > > > That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he > > says. > > > > > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never > > acknowledge his request > > > > Shut up you whining ninny. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> "Foul Ball" > wrote > > Stop top-posting and using html format you useless ****. > > >No one should have any kind of discussion with Mr Ball unless it is in the > form of contradictions and disagreements. > > That's handy, since you can't form a coherent disagreement with anything he > says. > > > When he demands that you "respond" or "answer the question" never > acknowledge his request > > Shut up you whining ninny. oooo....another Ball. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
from "Tabasco" >:
> My my, what friendly groups. > By the time I got all the verbally abusive types blocked, there just wasn't much > left. > I expected a bit better in these groups. Looks like mostly a lot of flame wars and > not much information or conversation. Unfortunately, flame warfare is widespread on Usenet, though some groups are politer than others. alt.free.newsservers features heavy use of the f word. Flame warfare was rife in sci.med.nutrition and misc.health.alternetive last time I was there. This newsgroup, alt.food.vegan.science , has low volume, or at least low volume of legitimate posts. "Jack Clark" > wrote in message om... > Hey, Larry! Larry "Loser" Forti! You asshole - haven't you > maintained, in your utter IGNORANCE of science, that there is no > genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating? Yet here we see REAL > scientists - not risible, science-illiterate polemicists like you - > publishing a PEER-REVIEWED article that asserts there is indeed a > genetic adaptation in humans for meat eating. > Are you going to admit you were wrong, Loser Larry? Not just wrong, > but *knowingly* ignorant? You didn't know ANYTHING about whether or > not there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat, Lying > Loser Larry; you were just running your ignorant mouth. I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, though I would use politer language, and I would stick to one name instead of changing to another name. I am observing that this Jack Clark appears to be the same as Jonathan Ball. Some time back, there was discussion about some cases of parents being prosecuted when their small children suffered from vitamin B-12 deficiency resulting from the diet imposed on them by their parents. Then the volume became too much for me to keep up with, and I stopped following this group, alt.food.vegan.science . Now, with my respiratory problems, a vegan diet leaves me feeling insufficient energy for good breathing, and I have been eating pork, lamb and chicken; don't seem to take beef so well, and get asthmatic reaction beginning several hours after eating fish or seafood. Vegetarian seafood, meaning seaweed such as kelp, dulse or wakame, is OK. I can't take animal protein at every meal and don't need animal protein every day, but can't pretend to be vegetarian. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Thomas Mueller" > wrote in message
... <..> > .. Now, with my respiratory problems, a vegan diet > leaves me feeling insufficient energy for good breathing, Shouldn't do. But.. were you eating wheat? .. What are the symptoms of wheat allergy? Allergic reactions to wheat (IgE-antibody mediated) usually begin within minutes or a few hours after eating or inhaling wheat. The more common symptoms involve the skin (urticaria, atopic eczema, angioedema) gastrointestinal tract (oral allergy syndrome, abdominal cramps, nausea and vomiting) *and the respiratory tract (asthma* or allergic rhinitis). Ige-mediated reactions to gliadin or gluten can cause urticaria, angioedema or life-threatening anaphylaxis in association with exercise. Other gluten-containing cereals (rye, oats and barley) may also cause these symptoms due to cross-reactivity of the allergens. http://www.chkd.org/Allergy/Wheat.asp (emphasis added) > and I have been > eating pork, lamb and chicken; don't seem to take beef so well, and get > asthmatic reaction beginning several hours after eating fish or seafood. > Vegetarian seafood, meaning seaweed such as kelp, dulse or wakame, is OK. > I can't take animal protein at every meal and don't need animal protein every > day, but can't pretend to be vegetarian. FYI; Prevalence figures of allergic reactions to pork allergens in allergic patients appear to be between 7% and 18% (25,34,35,39). In a study of asthmatic patients, 20% (children) and 8.6% (adults) were found to have IgE mediated allergy to pork using Pharmacia & Upjohn, Diagnostics ImmunoCAP® System (34). http://www.labspec.co.za/l_meat.htm 'Dr. William Lintz, M.D., successfully treated 472 patients suffering from allergies by cleansing the bowel. Dr. Allan Eustis, M.D., Professor at Tulane University of Medicine in 1912, cured 121 cases of bronchial asthma by intestinal cleansing. Dr. D. Rochester, M.D., University of Buffalo School of Medicine in 1906, made the statement that after 23 years of observation, toxemia of gastrointestinal tract origin is the underlying cause of asthma. ... Francisco Izundergui MacDonnell, MD, Ph.D., ND, PP. Gen. Adm., sent the following letter. Here is his testimony. "Dear Sirs: ... Many times when practicing autopsies on people who died from chronic illnesses, I have always found a thick layer of organized mucus-like hardened material all over from the tongue down to the stomach, small, large and recto-sigmoid colon. Usually it is more common among milk drinkers and meat eaters. .. This layer is composed of coagulated and racemized glyco-proteins, which really impair the GI tract function and also constitute a reservoir of bacteria and viruses that invade the lymphatic and blood stream causing a wearing down of the bodily defenses and a lot of burden on the liver detoxification function. For that reason, Gerson, Kelly and Beard enfancied always on GI tract cleansing to obtain better results with their cancer treatments. In the past we have even removed the entire colon to obtain an effective relief from auto-intoxication specially with colon polyposis and diverticulosis and chronic ulcerative colitis....."51 http://www.cleanse.net/mucoid_plaque.HTM 'Dr. Robert Gray, a nutritionist, determined, through intensive testing that certain foods are mucus-forming and others are mucus cleansing. The foods shown to cause mucus are dairy products, white flour, meat, eggs, potatoes, beans, rice, grains, fish, peanuts and fats.' http://www.healthrecipes.com/mucus_forming_foods.htm |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"Thomas Mueller" > wrote in message ... > I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, ... Since noBalls can NEVER support his "point of view" with facts, logic, or credible science, you are drifting in a self-destructive fantasy world inhabited by the similarly self-deluded. IF noBalls had anything meaningful to say, he would not rely on verbal violence, personal insults, name-calling, and intellectual degeneracy. Here is a self-description of noBalls' level of intellectual prowess. http://ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt Regarding the claimed, yet always-unsubstantiated, "human genetic adaptation for eating meat", there is absolutely no evidence of same. 1. Natural carnivores/omnivores have sharp, pointy physical tools (fangs, claws, talons, beaks, ...) for capturing/killing/eating animal flesh; humans have none of these. Humans are also too slow to run down and capture animals. 2. Natural carnivores/omnivores eat their flesh fresh and raw; humans cook their flesh and further disguise it with spices/condiments. The need for tools necessary for human flesh-eating is irrefutable evidence that humans have no 'adaptations' for flesh-eating. 3. Natural carnivores/omnivores have instincts to capture, kill, and eat raw their prey. Humans have a strong anti-instinct to do so, and all meatarians, boldly claiming such mythical 'adaptations' who are challenged to kill their prey and eat their flesh like ALL natural carnivores/omnivores, do not have the courage or commitment, to do so. We have no such instincts which clearly must have co-evolved with any 'adaptation' for flesh-eating. 4. The strong association of all the currently-popular "degenerative diseases" with flesh-eating is epidemiological proof that no such 'adaptation' ever occurred. 5. The strong, characteristic, offensive odors of human flesh-eater's feces, urine, perspiration, breath are proof that animal proteins are not properly digested and/or assimilated, since if they were, the amine compounds responsible for these odors would not exist. Why? Because proper digestion and assimilation of protein removes amino acids (and their amine residues) from the digestive tract into the body. 6. There is no evidence in contemporary evolutionary theory that suggests that a species that voluntarily changes its diet (humans being the only one capable of this act, since all other species eat by instinct as contrasted to the human who consumes diet by cultural conditioning) thereby produces the profound biochemical/physiological changes necessary to successfully digest/assimilate the new, radically-different diet. 7. People who propagate the false concept of 'human adaptation for flesh-eating" can produce NO scientifically-credible evidence that this has ever occurred. None. 8. People who propagate this false concept are unable to differentiate between Nature and culture, and that is the source of their error. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"Laurie" > wrote in message <snip> >1. Natural carnivores/omnivores have sharp, pointy physical tools > (fangs, claws, talons, beaks, ...) for capturing/killing/eating animal > flesh; humans have none of these. Humans are also too slow to run down and > capture animals. Before humans evolved, pre-humans developed knives, scrapers, and other tools which helped to cut meat. They also developed fires. > 2. Natural carnivores/omnivores eat their flesh fresh and raw; humans > cook their flesh and further disguise it with spices/condiments. The need > for tools necessary for human flesh-eating is irrefutable evidence that > humans have no 'adaptations' for flesh-eating. Humans eat raw meat as well, just got into any restaurant that serves steak tartare or sashimi. Pre-humans likely cooked their meat in their fires anyway. > 3. Natural carnivores/omnivores have instincts to capture, kill, and > eat raw their prey. Humans have a strong anti-instinct to do so, and all > meatarians, boldly claiming such mythical 'adaptations' who are challenged > to kill their prey and eat their flesh like ALL natural > carnivores/omnivores, do not have the courage or commitment, to do so. We > have no such instincts which clearly must have co-evolved with any > 'adaptation' for flesh-eating. We can steal carcasses from other predators. We are crafty and can set up traps for animals. We can drive them off of cliffs or into pits lined with spikes. We can catch them in snares. We can throw spears at them. And some of course, can be caught by hand. Turtles for example, mollusks, lizards, snakes, insects, baby birds, etc. > 4. The strong association of all the currently-popular "degenerative > diseases" with flesh-eating is epidemiological proof that no such > 'adaptation' ever occurred. People are eating too much in general and getting fat and those degenerative diseases aren't a result of meat but a result of eating too much and living too sedentary of a lifestyle. > 5. The strong, characteristic, offensive odors of human flesh-eater's > feces, urine, perspiration, breath are proof that animal proteins are not > properly digested and/or assimilated, since if they were, the amine > compounds responsible for these odors would not exist. Why? Because proper > digestion and assimilation of protein removes amino acids (and their amine > residues) from the digestive tract into the body. Plant materials can cause some of the worst cases of bad breath and odor, such as garlic and onions. > 6. There is no evidence in contemporary evolutionary theory that > suggests that a species that voluntarily changes its diet (humans being the > only one capable of this act, since all other species eat by instinct as > contrasted to the human who consumes diet by cultural conditioning) thereby > produces the profound biochemical/physiological changes necessary to > successfully digest/assimilate the new, radically-different diet. Animals are opportunists. If food is scarce as it was for some of our ancestors, meat eating would be an excellent adaptation. > 7. People who propagate the false concept of 'human adaptation for > flesh-eating" can produce NO scientifically-credible evidence that this has > ever occurred. None. I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles with scraper marks. > 8. People who propagate this false concept are unable to differentiate > between Nature and culture, and that is the source of their error. I think you have trouble differentiating between science and pseudoscience. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
LaRRY wrote:
>>I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, ... > > Since noBalls can NEVER support his "point of view" with facts, logic, > or credible science, you are drifting in a self-destructive fantasy world > inhabited by the similarly self-deluded. Hmm, I've seen your website, Larry, and it's not supported with facts, logic, or science. Do you realize you're the pot calling the kettle black? > IF noBalls had anything meaningful > to say, he would not rely on verbal violence, Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name? > personal insults, Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name? > name-calling, Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name? > and intellectual degeneracy. Like your adding the prefix "no" to his last name? <snip rest of ad hominems> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
Lying Larry Forti, engineering FAILURE and science
ignoramus, wrote: > "Thomas Mueller" > wrote in message > ... > > >>I lean toward Jonathan Ball's point of view, ... > > Since Ball can NEVER support his "point of view" with facts, logic, > or credible I supported it with ALL of that, Lying Larry, with a news article about a PEER REVIEWED article that claims there is a genetic adaptation in humans for eating meat. You cannot and did not even attempt to refute it. You do not know science, Lying Larry. You are a FAILED engineer and a rabidly irrational food extremist, and your "ecologos" pages are the rantings of a mentally unbalanced crackpot. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"Rubystars" > wrote in message m...
<..> > I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles with > scraper marks. 'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time. Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind) dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species. The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral* adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat in the diet, to *augment* plant resources. ... Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found. Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources. One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However, interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.* Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine depositional integrity." http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm (*emphasis added) |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Rubystars" > wrote in message m... > <..> > > I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles with > > scraper marks. > > 'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of > correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which > existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted > and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time. > Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide > temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind) > dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate > change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards > an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality > during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested > areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species. > The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland > environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator > defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral* > adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat > in the diet, to *augment* plant resources. This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat. > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found. > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources. > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However, > interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid > meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.* > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine > depositional integrity." > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm > (*emphasis added) Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for reasonable people. -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
foot-rubbing chelsea wrote:
<...> > *However, > interpretation of this information can often ....not always... > be misleading, particularly > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid > meat-eating, could also be ....not are... > the result of unrelated processes.* That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of primitive stone tools? > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine > depositional integrity." What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely ignore surrounding matrices? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"Rubystars" > wrote in message . ..
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Rubystars" > wrote in message > m... > > <..> > > > I wonder what all those stone tools were for then, and the bone piles > with > > > scraper marks. > > > > 'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of > > correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which > > existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted > > and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time. > > Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide > > temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind) > > dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate > > change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards > > an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality > > during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested > > areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species. > > The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland > > environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator > > defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these *behavioral* > > adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat > > in the diet, to *augment* plant resources. > > This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat. ALL humans, everywhere? > > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary > > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found. > > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources. > > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of > > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of > > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association > > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and > > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However, > > interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly > > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations > > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid > > meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.* > > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine > > depositional integrity." > > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm > > (*emphasis added) > > Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for reasonable > people. 'interpretation of this information can often be misleading'. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> pearl wrote: > <...> > > *However, > > interpretation of this information can often > > ...not always... often Main Entry: of·ten : many times : FREQUENTLY http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...onary?va=often Main Entry: fre·quent·ly : at frequent or short intervals http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...&va=frequently Main Entry: 2fre·quent 1 a : COMMON, USUAL b : happening at short intervals : often repeated or occurring http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > > be misleading, particularly > > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations > > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid > > meat-eating, could also be > > ...not are... could - expresses possibility > > the result of unrelated processes.* > > That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence > of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man > or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools > are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent > with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be > logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of > primitive stone tools? But how many of those piles of bones have stone-tool scrape marks? I'm not denying that meat was eaten when necessary, but that was a behavioural adaptation, not anatomical, physiological or biological.. 'An additional factor influencing the increasing amounts of meat in the hominid diet may have been accentuated seasonality in the environment. The dry season decreased resource variety and abundance, causing many animals to divert their foraging strategies to exploit more of a single food item, or a greater variety of foods they may not have sought out before. These might include underground storage organs in plants, nuts, or other specialty food items to compensate for an overall decrease in resource abundance.' http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm > > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine > > depositional integrity." > > What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely > ignore surrounding matrices? What leads you to believe that I believe that anthropologists or archaeologists 'routinely ignore surrounding matrices'? The, *your*, source, states- 'interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated'. routinely ignore =/= not been adequately investigated. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"pearl" > wrote in message <snip> > > This happened in pre-human hominids. Humans have always eaten meat. > > ALL humans, everywhere? Obviously not everyone everywhere, or we wouldn't have so many vegetarians around the world, would we? However, as a species, human beings have always consumed meat, from befiore the very beginning. > > > Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary > > > composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found. > > > Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources. > > > One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of > > > different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of > > > hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association > > > with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and > > > consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. *However, > > > interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly > > > if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations > > > of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid > > > meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes.* > > > Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine > > > depositional integrity." > > > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm > > > (*emphasis added) > > > > Sometimes the volume of evidence itself is evidence enough for reasonable > > people. > > 'interpretation of this information can often be misleading'. I don't think it's misleading when you find bones cracked open to get at the marrow: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...23/MN62659.DTL " "One antelope leg bone, for example, clearly shows the marks of deliberate cutting and a cracked area that could only have been made by pounding it with a rock, according to White, And a fragment of the animal's skull showed where a sharp tool had obviously cut away the tongue -- presumably a delicacy. " -Rubystars |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
pearl wrote:
>><...> >> >>>*However, >>>interpretation of this information can often >> >>...not always... > > often CAN often doesn't imply frequently. It means there's a possibility -- which is fully unsubstantiated by example in the context of the claim. > Main Entry: of·ten > : many times : FREQUENTLY > http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...onary?va=often > > Main Entry: fre·quent·ly > : at frequent or short intervals > http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...&va=frequently > > Main Entry: 2fre·quent > 1 a : COMMON, USUAL b : happening at short intervals : > often repeated or occurring > http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary > >>>be misleading, particularly >>>if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations >>>of bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid >>>meat-eating, could also be >> >>...not are... > > could - expresses possibility Exactly. What is the frequency of that possibility as it occurs in specific situations? Why doesn't the text note any examples to substantiate the call for caution? >>>the result of unrelated processes.* >> >>That gives a lot of wiggle room, but that's still not to say that the presence >>of stone tools and scraped bones are evidence of something other than early man >>or hominids were eating animal flesh. The very fact that such bones and tools >>are found localized rather than randomized is quite telling and is consistent >>with humanoid behavior. How many "related processes" can you cite which would be >>logically consistent with such piles of scraped bones and the presence of >>primitive stone tools? > > But how many of those piles of bones have stone-tool scrape marks? > > I'm not denying that meat was eaten when necessary, Or when desired. > but that was > a behavioural adaptation, not anatomical, physiological or biological.. That's how those all other changes usually start in human evolution. Natural selection *can* occur through a genetic mutation, but that's rare since most genetic mutations are (by themselves) deleterious. Humans will probably never grow sharp claws or develop mouths full of canines because we used technology to leap over the slow and cumbersome process of genetic adaptation. Cooking is another such example, and the difference in the digestability in cooked meat versus raw pretty much levels the evolutionary paths -- and outcomes -- required by other animals. > 'An additional factor influencing the increasing amounts of meat in the > hominid diet may have been accentuated seasonality in the environment. IIRC, the issue is about humans -- modern man -- not earlier hominids. > The dry season decreased resource variety and abundance, causing > many animals to divert their foraging strategies to exploit more of a > single food item, or a greater variety of foods they may not have > sought out before. These might include underground storage organs in > plants, nuts, or other specialty food items to compensate for an overall > decrease in resource abundance.' > http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anth...h12/chap12.htm Irrelevant digression. >>>Careful examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine >>>depositional integrity." >> >>What leads you to believe that anthropologists or archaeologists routinely >>ignore surrounding matrices? > > What leads you to believe that I believe that anthropologists > or archaeologists 'routinely ignore surrounding matrices'? Answer my question. > The, *your*, source, states- 'interpretation of this information can > often be misleading, particularly if taphonomy has not been adequately > investigated'. Since such discoveries are pored over and endlessly debated internally and externally, I don't accept that the conclusions of anthropologists are "often misleading." Perhaps early hypotheses formed when sites are dug can be misleading, but that's why the scientific method doesn't make rigid conclusions even after testing them. > routinely ignore =/= not been adequately investigated. Name me one study of tool-scraped bone piles in which such findings are inadequately investigated. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > ' One of these *behavioral* adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat in the diet, ... ' Good point, which is uniformly ignored by people falsely claiming human evolutionary "adaptations" to flesh-eating. The physical tools necessary to capture, kill, eat, and properly digest -raw- flesh have been developed in ALL natural carnivore and 'omnivore' species, the instincts to do so have also been developed in those species; however, neither the natural tools (fangs, sharp claws, talons, beaks, ...), nor the INSTINCT to do so has developed in the human. Thus, cultural practices (behavior) does NOT mean that the physical tools or instincts have been developed by genetic processes, and cultural practices are totally unrelated to genetic (evolution) processes. It is significant that the meatarian propagandists voluntarily and uniformly IGNORE this critical difference in their false claims about humans 'adapting to' or 'evolving to' eat raw animal flesh. These fools can not differentiate between Nature and culture. Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"Larry Forti, ****wit extrordinaire" > wrote > > "pearl" > wrote > > > ' One of these *behavioral* adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate > quantities of meat in the diet, ... ' > Good point, which is uniformly ignored by people falsely claiming human > evolutionary "adaptations" to flesh-eating. > The physical tools necessary to capture, kill, eat, and properly > digest -raw- flesh have been developed in ALL natural carnivore and > 'omnivore' species, the instincts to do so have also been developed in those > species; however, neither the natural tools (fangs, sharp claws, talons, > beaks, ...), nor the INSTINCT to do so has developed in the human. > Thus, cultural practices (behavior) does NOT mean that the physical > tools or instincts have been developed by genetic processes, and cultural > practices are totally unrelated to genetic (evolution) processes. > It is significant that the meatarian propagandists voluntarily and > uniformly IGNORE this critical difference in their false claims about humans > 'adapting to' or 'evolving to' eat raw animal flesh. These fools can not > differentiate between Nature and culture. http://www.beyondveg.com/cordain-l/m...ivory-1a.shtml Human dentition is adapted for a generalized diet composed of both plant and animal foods, and that human populations show amazing variability in their plant-to-animal food subsistence ratios. However, it is important to recognize that hominids have evolved important metabolic and biochemical adaptations which are indicative of an increasing physiological dependence upon animal-based foods. Further, comprehensive compilations of hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies indicate that whenever it is ecologically possible, humans will almost always consume more animal food than plant food Written by Loren Cordain, Ph.D. referencing 20 peer-reviewed papers by his own group and a dozen independent sources and journals. Where is *your* research Larry, where's *your* Ph.D? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
>"Dutch" > > ecologically possible, humans will almost always
consume > more animal food than plant food yes, and then they get ill John C |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"John Coleman" > wrote in message news:BESmc.184$yp3.107@newsfe1-win...
> >"Dutch" > > ecologically possible, humans will almost always > consume > > more animal food than plant food > > yes, and then they get ill > > John C  @ JC. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
John Coleman wrote:
>>ecologically possible, humans will almost always > consume >>more animal food than plant food > > yes, and then they get ill Ipse dixit, you vitamin-deficient flake. Read the following and visit the site for the rest of it. ---- The diets of the healthy "primitives" Price studied were all very different: In the Swiss village where Price began his investigations, the inhabitants lived on rich dairy products—unpasteurized milk, butter, cream and cheese—dense rye bread, meat occasionally, bone broth soups and the few vegetables they could cultivate during the short summer months. The children's teeth were covered in green slime but Price found only about one percent decay. The children went barefoot in frigid streams during weather that forced Dr. Price and his wife to wear heavy wool coats; nevertheless childhood illnesses were virtually nonexistent and there had never been a single case of TB in the village. Hearty Gallic fishermen living off the coast of Scotland consumed no dairy products. Fish formed the mainstay of the diet, along with oats made into porridge and oatcakes. Fishheads stuffed with oats and chopped fish liver was a traditional dish, and one considered very important for growing children. The Eskimo diet, composed largely of fish, fish roe and marine animals, including seal oil and blubber, allowed Eskimo mothers to produce one sturdy baby after another without suffering any health problems or tooth decay. Well-muscled hunter-gatherers in Canada, the Everglades, the Amazon, Australia and Africa consumed game animals, particularly the parts that civilized folk tend to avoid—organ meats, blood, marrow and glands, particularly the adrenal glands—and a variety of grains, tubers, vegetables and fruits that were available. African cattle-keeping tribes like the Masai consumed no plant foods at all—just meat, blood and milk. Southsea islanders and the Maori of New Zealand ate seafood of every sort—fish, shark, octopus, shellfish, sea worms—along with pork meat and fat, and a variety of plant foods including coconut, manioc and fruit. Whenever these isolated peoples could obtain sea foods they did so—even Indian tribes living high in the Andes. Insects were another common food, in all regions except the Arctic. The foods that allow people of every race and every climate to be healthy are whole natural foods—meat with its fat, organ meats, whole milk products, fish, insects, whole grains, tubers, vegetables and fruit—not newfangled concoctions made with white sugar, refined flour and rancid and chemically altered vegetable oils. Modern nutrition researchers are showing renewed interest in the foodways of our ancestors, but myths about primitive diets abound. The first is easily dismissed—that traditional diets were largely vegetarian. Anthropological data confirm what Price found, namely that throughout the globe, all societies show a preference for animal foods and fats.3 Modern scientific literature does not support the claims made for vegetarian diets[4].... Another myth about primitive diets, and one that is harder to dispel, is that they were low in fat, particularly saturated animal fat. Loren Cordain, PhD, probably the most well known proponent of a return to Paleolithic food habits, recommends a diet consisting of "lean meat, occasional organ meats and wild fruits and vegetables." While this prescription may be politically correct, it does not jibe with descriptions of Paleolithic eating habits, either in cold or hot climates. Vilhjalmur Stefansson, who spent many years living with the Eskimos and Indians of Northern Canada, reports that wild male ruminants like elk and caribou carry a large slab of back fat, weighing as much as 40 to 50 pounds. The Indians and Eskimo hunted older male animals preferentially because they wanted this backslab fat, as well as the highly saturated fat found around the kidneys. Other groups used blubber from sea mammals like seal and walrus. http://www.westonaprice.org/traditio...ish_short.html -------- |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
I read Weston Price, he is a dentist made no medical analysis, and he was
wrong. He claims the Australian Aboriginals were healthy. This is nonsense, they get most of the common "ailments" of civilised people. John C |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message news 
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote in message > > om... > >>>The Los Angeles Times > > lf> > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information. > 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, and according to you all women are terminally stupid, so why are you now claiming that women can think? More noBalls self-contractions?? > >>>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. > > Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and > Stanford, " ... consequences would be worse ..." certainly is no "conclusion" that any successful "adaptation" has occurred, and it also is a clear admission that meat-eating is inherently disease-producing in our species. > Leave your ignorance of EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, ... So, you want to compare our abilities to comprehend the scientific literature? In my class work leading to my two engineering degrees, and the night classes I took for over three years after graduation, I certainly took, comprehended, and passed lots of science classes, while you, an economics major who failed to complete a degree most certainly took NO real science classes. Your ignorance of fundamental scientific concepts is displayed here, and everywhere you write your misological propaganda, personal insults, and vulgarity. Let's look at the perversion that is called economics; that's where economists know the price of everything and the value of nothing. The whole economics enterprise is built on a false premise, and that is that spending money is inherently good, and we should continually increase spending to increase "growth". This omnidestructive model totally ignores quality of life, sustainability of civilization, health, or the positive quality of anything. To these intellectually-perverse economists, everything destructive: war, disease, all crime, pollution, inefficiencies and waste, global warming, junk foods, corruption, "natural disasters", earthquakes, floods, plagues, etc. is seen as positive, because they all cost money and increase the GNP. Thus, this inherently-false and omnidestructive economic model is -exactly- the cause for the current global ecological decline, the extinction of thousands of species, and the increasingly-difficult issues the human species will have to deal with until this false and destructive model is finally abandoned and replaced with one that values life, health, and sustainability of the whole human species and the other entities that cohabit this planet. This economic perversity is part of the core of your personal insanity. 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 (those of you who have deluded yourselves into believing that you are pigs, notwithstanding). We are adapted to fruits: eating fruits does not lead to any "degenerative diseases". We are adapted to "vegetables": eating them does not lead to any "degenerative diseases". The fact that flesh-eating and consuming other animal products is epidemiologically-linked to all currently-popular "degenerative diseases" is clear proof to a rational mind that no "adaptation" to them ever occurred. As is the increase in health experienced by those who abandon eating animal products. > > 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. > You stink, Forti. Yep, noBalls, this is the pinnacle of your ability to discuss scientific topics politely or rationally. > YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE. I have taken and passed many college-level science courses, while a broken down, failed economic major, who believes that he is a pig, would have taken NONE. > ... YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED > to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it > AT ALL: a great big ZERO. While a failed economics major HAS?? > 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. And, there is no evidence in the current evolutionary literature that even suggests that voluntarily changing diet magically causes any "adaptations" to that new diet; in fact, this Lamarckian nonsense (behavior influences genetics) was refuted almost a century ago. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/lamarck.html "Today, the name of Lamarck is associated merely with a discredited theory of heredity, the "inheritance of acquired traits." > 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. NoBalls rises to new heights of scientific credibility and academic discourse. Is anyone here involved in an Abnormal Psychology class? If so, then noBalls would be an excellent case study of how a vicious self-styled, misologistic psychopath, hiding behind a modem and intentionally-falsified headers (proof of both his cowardice and that he knows what he is doing is wrong), tries to use the Internet as a vehicle for his sickness: that of having so low a self-esteem, that he tries to boost himself up by attacking everyone else with insults, vulgarity, and pure viciousness. And now, from noBalls Greatest Hits: "It's nothing but a bit of schoolyard namecalling." http://www.ecologos.org/text/noballs.txt "If you behave like a Barbarian, you will become a Barbarian." Frasier Laurie |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
"John Coleman" > wrote in message news:<oVbnc.351$ND.159@newsfe1-win>...
> I read Weston Price, he is a dentist made no medical analysis, and he was > wrong. He claims the Australian Aboriginals were healthy. This is nonsense, > they get most of the common "ailments" of civilised people. They do, and they have health problems in common with Europeans - obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease and strokes, all because they eat the greasy crap that obese lazy Eurpoeans eat - cheap fat and sugar laben low fibre corporate American controlled "fast food." 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. The bush black fella wil have health problems characterisitic of living in dry dusty condiditions nad living with continuus fly and wood smoke problems. That's what Fred hollows was working on, the sight problems brought on by living in the bush. The same black fella, however, will not be overweight, have no stress and alcohol problems. I grew up in the true Australian "Outback," where a trip to town was a major expediton, not a half hour drive down the highway. I have seen how taking a tribal black fella and giving him the easy town life with plenty of food, booze and no work is a sure way of killing him. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Humans have a genetic adaptation for eating meat - no.
> 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 |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Eating Puppy Meat Is the Same as Eating Pork, British TV Chef Says | General Cooking | |||
| HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT | Vegan | |||
| HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT | Vegan | |||
| HUMANS ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR EATING MEAT | Vegan | |||
| Is Eating Pet Food Hazardous To Humans? | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
