"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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

"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

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.

<...>

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

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.

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.

wrote:
>>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.

You seem to ignore everything else that matters, including the findings of the
study you cited in support of your wild notion about meat.

This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that daily
consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high fibre diet)
and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction in mortality from
ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in mortality associated with both
of these dietary factors was *NOT SIGNIFICANT*.

We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15% reduction in
mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was *NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was
LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of
this cohort.... A vegetarian diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT
INCREASE* in mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence
interval was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence intervals. The
41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer associated with daily
consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT SIGNIFICANT*....

What part of NOT SIGNIFICANT do you not comprehend?

> He just ignores valid issues pointed out about his own
> statements,

You've yet to make any valid points about my statements. You've also failed to
support your own statements. According to the study you cited, vegetarianism was
insignificant in reducing the health problems measured in the study -- WITH ONE
NOTABLE EXCEPTION: BREAST CANCER MORTALITY INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY AMONG
VEGETARIANS.

> and likes to fool himself into thinking that
> his *points* have some significance, or even
> relevance.

Pot kettle black: you're the one making claims completely contrary to the
information you cite in support. You may not like the fact that someone else has
to explain your own sources to you (birdbrain), but that's your own shortcoming,
not mine. The study to which you STILL refer does NOT support your claim.
Seventeen years long or not, it supports the point *I* (and Rick and Jon) made.

> His level of vitriol indicates someone who is not
> to be taken seriously, either.

How do you explain your willful ignorance to others?

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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

Laurie wrote:


>
>
>>>>>The Los Angeles Times
>>>
> Lying Larry Forti:> > Ah yes, a well known source of valid scientific information.

Lying Larry: the L.A. Times reported on a PEER
REVIEWED ARTICLE. I know you don't know what that
means, Lying Larry, as it is well established that you
DON'T know how science is conducted.

>
>
>>The Times reported on a peer-reviewed article in the
>>Quarterly Review of Biology,. Are you
>>claiming the Times got the story wrong,
>
> First of all, the Times article was written by a WOMAN, Rosie Mestel,

So: you're a sexist bigot. We knew that.

You are showing up badly, Lying Larry.


>
>>>>>Chomping too many fatty steaks is unhealthy for the
>>>>>heart - but the consequences would be worse if human
>>>>>beings hadn't evolved special, "meat-adaptive" genes to
>>>>>help manage saturated fat, cholesterol and other
>>>>>hazards of meat-eating, according to two USC scientists.
>>>
> lf> > With "heart disease" being responsible for 29%, and cancers
> responsible
>
>>>for 22.9%, of all deaths, it seems these imaginary "meat-adaptive genes"
>>>have not "adapted" us very well.

Prove your numbers, Lying Larry.

>>
>>Try to refute the conclusions of Drs. Finch and
>>Stanford,
>
> <snip nonsense>

TRY TO REFUTE THEIR CONCLUSIONS, Lying Larry. You *do*
understand that would require READING the article,
don't you? Oh, yes: you CAN'T read a science article,
Lying Larry: you're too hate-blinded.

>
>
>>Leave your ignorance of EVERYTHING connected with this topic aside, ...
>
> So, you want to compare our abilities to comprehend the scientific
> literature?

I want you to establish that you can read a biology
article, Lying Larry. We all know you have no
expertise in biology AT ALL. One of the authors of the
paper you're running away from in fear is a Ph.D. in
biology, Lying Larry; YOU know ZERO of biology.

>
> lf> > IF humans had "adapted" to flesh-eating, the unhealthy conditions
> and
>
>>>terminal diseases it causes would have been reduced to zero
>>
>>PROVE that, ...
>
> Would you prefer "almost zero"??
> The fact is that we are frugivorous apes

PROVE IT, Lying Larry. You have been politely asked to
PROVE your claim over and over, and every time you
whiff off. PROVE IT! NOW!!

>
>
>>> Hmmm. Anthro-apologists are not qualified to do genetic research.
>>
>>Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, ...
>
> Biologists are not qualified to do genetic research, either.

Wrong, Lying Larry. One thing is for certain, Lying
Larry: You aren't qualified to do research in ANYTHING
pertaining to biology, nor do you personally know
anyone who is.

You're a chronic LIAR, Forti.

>
>
>>You stink, Forti.
>
> Yep

Yep: you stink, Forti, you filthy lying ignoramus.

>
>
>>YOU HAVEN'T DONE ANY SCIENCE.
>
> I have taken and passed many college-level science courses

NO BIOLOGY or anything related to it, Lying Larry. You
aren't fit to change the ink or toner cartridge in
Caleb Finch's printer, Lying Larry: you cannot refute
a thing he says, because you're INCOMPETENT.

>
>
>>... YOU are completely UNQUALIFIED
>>to discuss epidemiology, as you have never studied it
>>AT ALL: a great big ZERO.
>>
>>Dr. Caleb Finch, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGY, and Dr. Craig
>>Stanford, with a Ph.D. in BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY, say
>>you're wrong.
>
> No, they do NOT claim that our species has successfully "adapted" to
> flesh-eating.

Yes, that's exactly what those two EXPERTS claim, Lying
Larry. You are wrong.

> And, there is no evidence in the current evolutionary literature

YOU haven't read any "current evolutionary literature",
Lying Larry. "Current evolutionary literature" is just
a phrase you babble to try to *sound* as if you know
science, but we all know you DON'T know any relevant
science, Lying Larry.

>
>>Shut your ****ING MOUTH about "current epidemiology",
>>you lying asshole. You don't know ANYTHING about
>>epidemiology. You aren't qualified to wash the toilets
>>at any journal of epidemiology.
>
> [...]

Shut your mouth about "current epidemiology", Lying
Larry: you don't know ANYTHING about epidemiology.
You have never studied it, you don't subscribe to any
journals in the subject, and you have never read an
epidemiology article in your life.

You are a FRAUD, Lawrence Forti: a FAILED electrical
engineer who has some chemical imbalance that leads you
to foam rabidly about things you don't know. Shut up.

The genes involved offer some limited protection to some of the inherent
biological _risks_ of raw meat eating. For example because of these fairly
small genetic features, we manage high cholesterol levels better than other
herbivores, and also our brain has some extra protection from excess iron
load. These kinds of changes are really just tweaks to the existing
chemistry system, nothing really specific for meat eating like a fang. Real
carnivores are quite unaffected by ingesting cholesterol, unlike humans.

The changes to the immune system add some additional protection to prions,
but as you may be aware, it is not 100%. This development is probably the
only real candidate for an "adaptation" to eating meat that has been found.
Humans have 42000 genes, so implying we are meat eaters based on this
research is severely off base. These researchers do not claim we are
carnivores or anything like it. They do not claim meat eating is healthy or
safe either.

John