"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

"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)

"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

"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'.

"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

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?

"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.

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.

"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

"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?

>"Dutch" > > ecologically possible, humans will almost always
consume
> more animal food than plant food

yes, and then they get ill

John C

"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.

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
--------

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