Discussion:
Why am I a vegetarian?
(too old to reply)
KerryHatch
2008-02-02 20:38:08 UTC
Permalink
At the same time we have to agree, in this world, a lot of people are
violent and we have to defend ourselves. Hence some have to eat meat,
I think. This is to protect from evil.
I disagree. Look at the way policing is done in USA. The cops shoot
first
and then ask questions. And the bad cops are aplenty. The cops should
be the first ones to be put on a veggie diet.
Also if there is a study of school kids, it will be shown that
vegetarian kids don't bully and plot to kill,
IF?
Explain PETA, you retard!
KerryHatch
2008-02-03 17:15:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by KerryHatch
At the same time we have to agree, in this world, a lot of people are
violent and we have to defend ourselves. Hence some have to eat meat,
I think. This is to protect from evil.
I disagree. Look at the way policing is done in USA. The cops shoot
first
and then ask questions. And the bad cops are aplenty. The cops should
be the first ones to be put on a veggie diet.
Also if there is a study of school kids, it will be shown that
vegetarian kids don't bully and plot to kill,
IF?
Explain PETA, you retard!
Vegetarianism is older than PETA moron.
What's that got to do with what I asked you to explain , you retard.

PETA members(and their kids) have a history of bullying AND plotting to
kill those that wear fur.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-08 16:15:46 UTC
Permalink
"> Why am I a vegetarian?
<<The human digestive system, tooth and jaw structure, and
bodily functions are completely different from carnivorous animals. >>

Indeed, it is because we are omnivores who do and can eat anything.
This has been the pattern of all of human history, eat whatever one can
get their hands on. Being omnivores allowed humans to occupy all parts
of the world. Those who live at high latitude,ie. eskimo and lapps,
have an almost 100 percent meat diet because that is what is there to
eat the year round.

"The main reason why the Brahmins did not take meat in the ancient times
was due to the fact that the Serotonin level goes down if a person takes
meat and that is not good for meditation.""

So they did brain chemistry also? Meditation of some form is part of
all cultures in all parts of the world regardless of diet.
Peter Kelsey
2008-02-08 23:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
"> Why am I a vegetarian?
<<The human digestive system, tooth and jaw structure, and
bodily functions are completely different from carnivorous animals. >>
Indeed, it is because we are omnivores who do and can eat anything.
This has been the pattern of all of human history, eat whatever one can
get their hands on. Being omnivores allowed humans to occupy all parts
of the world. Those who live at high latitude,ie. eskimo and lapps,
have an almost 100 percent meat diet because that is what is there to
eat the year round.

Vegetarianism is the better choice for society as a whole.
Actually, no, it isn't.

"Vegitarianism" is just the Hindu word for "I am a lousy hunter".
Peter Kelsey
2008-02-09 22:22:15 UTC
Permalink
"Vegitarianism" is just the Hindu word for "I am a lousy hunter".- Hide quoted text -
I have one word for you moron: "CHENEY"
One word is the limit of your vocabulary?

Cheney? Is that anything like "chutney"? Another chopped
vegetable?

What does it have to do with vegitarianism being for people
incapable of hunting?

Oh, wait... "moron"... you were speaking to YOURSELF!
Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt!
h***@indero.com
2008-02-09 15:22:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
"The main reason why the Brahmins did not take meat in the ancient
times
Post by h***@indero.com
was due to the fact that the Serotonin level goes down if a person
takes
Post by h***@indero.com
meat and that is not good for meditation.""
So they did brain chemistry also? Meditation of some form is part of
all cultures in all parts of the world regardless of diet.
"yes you have rightly guessed. Any objection?"

I assume you refer to ancient peoples having knowledge of brain
chemistry, some proof if you please. It should be in a form recognised
in current science, not some obscure general language of some mystical
content that could mean anything and into which people have worked
backwards to pour meaning it did not have originally.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-11 15:30:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
I assume you refer to ancient peoples having knowledge of brain
chemistry, some proof if you please. =A0It should be in a form
recognised
Post by h***@indero.com
in current science, not some obscure general language of some mystical
content that could mean anything and into which people have worked
backwards to pour meaning it did not have originally.
""Read the Bhagawat Purana and you will be amazed. Please do not expect
me to quote the purana here. Alternatively read what Dr. P.V. Vartak
wrote about science in bhagawat purana."

My original assumption was confirmed.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-11 18:50:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
1. humans have been consuming meat for about 2 million years
'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton Jones
N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43, Number 6,
December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42) Publisher: Academic Press

Abstract:
Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea
that big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly
through its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has
been disputed on two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations
on modern foragers show that although hunting may contribute
a large fraction of the overall diet, it is an unreliable day-to-day
food source, pursued more for status than subsistence; (2)
archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident
with the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield
scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review of the archaeology yields
results consistent with these critiques: (1) early humans acquired
large-bodied ungulates primarily by aggressive scavenging, not
hunting; (2) meat was consumed at or near the point of
acquisition, not at home bases, as the hunting hypothesis
requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable rates and
in varying degrees of completeness, making meat from big game
an even less reliable food source than it is among modern
foragers.Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and
assemblage composition are consistent with the hypothesis
that large carcasses were taken *not* for purposes of
provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays.
Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology
indicates, its consumption cannot account for the significant
changes in life history now seen to distinguish early humans
from ancestral australopiths. The coincidence between the
earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase in the
archaeological visibility of meat eating that many find so
provocative instead reflects:(1) changes in the structure of
the environment that concentrated scavenging opportunities
in space, making evidence of their pursuit more obvious to
archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size (itself a
consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.

Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0604
Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
270 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
2: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South
1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
3: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 99164, U.S.A. 4: Departments of
Anthropology and Psychiatry, and Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095, U.S.A.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

.... And then H. erectus' "basically raw vegetarian diet", .... "

"In short, the diet overwhelmingly consisted of plant foods.

The above does not contridict but confirms my point, read it again. Your
information confirms another point, humans eat meat to the degree they can
get it. In early times this was thought to be the meat of animals killed
by predators and those who died otherwise. Not mentioned is the obvious
smaller sorurces of meat such as small animals and eggs etc. that they
could use without evidence in the archeology record. With the advance in
hunting technology tools hunting as a more direct way to get meat is seen
increasingly in the record. By the times of moderm humans,ie. 100 k years
ago, the technology and meat butchering evidence was clear in the record.

This article does not represent however in its interpretation the
concensus of scholars of why there was the addition of meat to the diet.
It is a minority view and illustrates the picking and choosing done by
those holding an agenda into which information is chosen to fit to the
exclusion of the broader knowledge base.
Post by h***@indero.com
and have made the changes in biology of digestion and metabolism to do
it very effectively.
"So explain this...?"

What is to explain, it does not address my point, again. Many vegie alone
people want to say humans are not adapted to eating meat, it is obvious
they are. As to your colon cancer study you fail to mention the broader
conclusion of the paper that it is a complex question as to why meat
consumption is related to colon cancer. It is inversely related to bean
consumption for example. While they touch on it only, beans and other
sources contain soluble fiber which is fermented in the colon by bacteria
producing short chain fatty acids as a waste product. These acids interupt
the metabolic cascade that leads to colon cancer of the kind that eating
large amounts of meat are thought to promote in some. Total vegitarians get
colon cancer too but at lower rates. Half an explanation is worse then no
explanation at all.

'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
..
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white
meat and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed
low levels of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations
remained evident after further categorization of the red meat
(relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1
time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/
week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/
week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89 and white meat (relative
to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1 time/week = 1.55,
95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week = 3.37,
95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
..'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
Post by h***@indero.com
2. chimps ourclosest primate relative hunts and consumes meat, including
the infants of other chimp groups on a regular basis even though they
mostly eat fruits.
A great deal of emphasis has been put on Jane Goodall's observations, but
Gombe National Park covers a relatively small area, and competition is
high. Earlier studies actually reveal that hunting of vertebrates by
chimpanzees is a rare phenomenon. Back when habitat was far less
fragmented.

Since jane g. first reported the hunting and eating of meat by chimps it
has been observed by others in other places and on a larger scale then she
first observed.
Post by h***@indero.com
3. humans have historically eaten meat in proportion to it being
available. In areas with little animal sources they ate little, in
areas where it is abundant and easy to hunt they ate very much more.
"It's the other way round. - Humans have historically eaten
meat in proportion to availability and quality of plant foods."

I'm sorry, this can not be supported by the ethnographic record. Humans
eat whatever they can get their hands on and that is a function of what is
in the environment. If you consult the 'ethnographic atlas' by g. murdoch
for the several hundreds of cultures recorded there meat consumption as a
ratio of total consumption clearly shows it relates to overall level of
meat available and as a function of seasonality of all food sources and the
technology of obtaining food from all sources.
Post by h***@indero.com
In
high latitudes where vegetable sources are few they ate mostly all meat.
".. Like that."

Indeed, a perfect example of that mentioned above and of the broader point
humans eat what they can get their hands on.
Post by h***@indero.com
4. for each bit of information you posted suggesting vegetable as
having some advantage over meat one can easily post several with an
oppisite view. It alldepends on what medical and/or nutritional qustion
one is asking.
"I'm not interested in views. If you have research - post it!"

Research about what? As said, answers are a function of questions asked.
Post by h***@indero.com
5. there are groups claiming vegetable sources are superior and those
claiming the oppisite, sites on the internet ffor both can be provided.
"Ditto."

And your point is exactly what? As mentioned before, both are guilty of
sloppy and dishonest science.
Post by h***@indero.com
6. the flaw with each is they pick and choose their research to the
exclusion of the broad range of same that exists in the scientific
community. That is not honest science, that is propaganda.
"Ditto! Let's see you post some honest science refuting 'mine'."

First you must make it clear just what you are supporting. So far we mostly see the picking and choosing mentioned above.
Post by h***@indero.com
7. The one area with the world's longest lifespan is parts of japan and
its island of okinawa in particular. They eat a great deal of seafood,
some poultry, and pork for special events among other animal sources.
The average life expectancy in fish-eating Okinawa is 81.2 years.
For vegetarian (lacto/ovo) Seventh-day Adventists, the average
life expectancy is 85.7 years for women, and 83.3 years for men.

My example is about longest lifespan and eating traditions have changed in
the parts of japan discussed so qualification must be made as you did for
the adventists as to which exact group is considered. As in the cancer
example the variables are many. Where in either life expectancy or
lifespan would the tamils fall compared to either group; to make the point?
Post by h***@indero.com
I'm interested in science and to follow the direction research leads
about human biology and history and nutrition. I do not have an agenda
rooted in a non-scientific ground for answering questions in those areas
which makes one free to go where the evidence leads.
Sadly the nutrition agenda people are not so free and this is clearly
seen in the question and answers they allow themselves and the methods
and directions chosen. Too much of it is working backwards to fit
information into the box of the agenda with which they began.
"'The BBC is failing in its supposed role as a public service
broadcaster, says the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation (VVF),
after giving widespread publicity to a seriously flawed,
unscientific piece of propaganda claiming that vegan children
risk damaging their health by excluding meat. The claim, made
by Lindsay Allen of the US Agricultural Research Service, was
given prominent billing by BBC News on-line and featured on
the Jeremy Vine show and Ken Bruce shows on BBC Radio 2.
It concerned Paul McCartney so much that he made a rare
phone-in to the Jeremy Vine show.

"One meaningless study on 544 malnourished children raised
chiefly on a starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean diet has no
relevance to children in the West" says Tony Wardle,
Associate Director of the VVF. "Yet it commands major media
coverage with almost no counterview, despite having been
made by the organization which supports and promotes the
mass factory farming of animals. This is not good journalism
and it is extremely bad public service broadcasting.

"The VVF reports regularly on the growing volume of science
showing the link between animal products and the collapsing
health of our children and is largely ignored. Sensationalism is
clearly more news-worthy than science. The truth is that meat,
dairy are junk foods are destroying our children's health. The
facts are":

'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are
appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.
Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful,
nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the
prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain
diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease,
strokes, cancers, diabetes etc.

This is the view of the world's most prestigious health
advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature. It is
backed up by the British Medical Association:

'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart
disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders,
cancers and gall stones.'

The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with
increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other
animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.' ...'
http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html"

And your point is exactly what? As before you go on muchlyy about points I
did not make, otherwise known as strawmen arguments. We need to qualify the
above more recently. S. asia now has the highest rate of diabetes and
heart disease and related metabolic disorders which are strongly related to
dietary habits among other things.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-12 14:27:30 UTC
Permalink
"The point is that meat is an unnatural, disease-causing 'food'."
Post by h***@indero.com
We need to qualify the
above more recently. S. asia now has the highest rate of diabetes and
heart disease and related metabolic disorders which are strongly related to
dietary habits among other things.
"I gave you a link to a paper specifically addressing that very question
just recently, and you failed to respond. Were you truly concerned about
this, and not just trying to harass vegetarian Hindus, you would have
looked into it properly."

I did read the article, it did not address why india has the world's
highest rate of diabetes and heart disease and related metabolic disorders,
all related to dietary habits among other things.

In the above first sentence we have the nub of your disagreement with the
science presented you Your agenda is to start with a traditional held bit
of cultural ideology. You then work backwards to pick information that fits
that agenda, anything contradicting it must by definition be wrong or other
wise motivated by suspicious motivations.

We see the latter in the bit about your speculation about my motivation. I
have never in this discussion made reference to any ethnicity nor have I
made any point that degrades vegetarianism as a viable personal diet
pattern choice for whatever reason one chooses.

That is where science and propaganda part ways. The former considers all
evidence and forms a consensus as to what model of explanation forms the
best account of that evidence. Propaganda is the process of making
information fit an agenda as above.

If you wish to consider the science of the claims of many vegetarian people
then we need a body of common knowledge by which to evaluate them.

I suggest this site which represents the mainstream of the science
community on the topics we have been discussing:

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml#TOC

If you are serious about wanting to discuss the science of the topic and
not just exercise your culturally held preferences then may I suggest
you read the above site in some detail. In particular the sections
devoted to human biology, evolution, and nutritional behavior as it
relates to history and geography. This will take a sincere commitment
on your part of time and effort.

Otherwise, don't waste my time with further recitation of your agenda and
cheap attacks on my person.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-12 20:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
If you wish to consider the science of the claims of many vegetarian
people
Post by h***@indero.com
then we need a body of common knowledge by which to evaluate them.
I suggest this site which represents the mainstream of the science
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/hb/hb-interview1a.shtml#TOC
If you are serious about wanting to discuss the science of the topic
and
Post by h***@indero.com
not just exercise your culturally held preferences then may I suggest
you read the above site in some detail. In particular the sections
devoted to human biology, evolution, and nutritional behavior as it
relates to history and geography. This will take a sincere commitment
on your part of time and effort.
"I've looked at it, and found it to be largely dishonest spin."

So there we have your answer, agenda not science is your desire. Fine,
now that we know. That site is the mainstream view of the scientific
community and all its points are documented extensively with mainstream
scientific research.

Considering the thime since posting it and your response, you have had
little time but to read link labels on that very large site with
multiple links on each page and see that your ideas fall point by point,
that is evidence enough for you; by definition it must be "spin".
h***@indero.com
2008-02-13 00:15:02 UTC
Permalink
"I've examined one popular page in depth, and I speak the truth.

(Funny seeing billings' virtual acrobatics trying to avoid admitting
that humans are frugivores, and twisting what the scientists say.)"

Good, now at least you are willing to discuss a common body of
information to explore the claims made about human evolution and food
history.

The exact page if you please.

On the main page there is ample treatment of the history of change from
insects to fruits and then vegitables in prehuman primate evolution and
continuing into the lines that became modern humans and the introduction
of meat. The biological change resulting is discussed accordingly.

There is no attempt to hide nor minimize that record of change. The
previous primarly biological adaptions to use insects and then
fruit/vegies is the basis on which biological change evolved to include
meat also. That is how evolution proceeds, it builds on existing forms
to make new forms. Our two leg locomotion is another example, it is a
change from what was previous primate forms of same.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-13 20:52:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Good, now at least you are willing to discuss a common body of
information to explore the claims made about human evolution and food
history.
The exact page if you please.
On the main page there is ample treatment of the history of change from
insects to fruits and then vegitables in prehuman primate evolution and
continuing into the lines that became modern humans and the introduction
of meat. The biological change resulting is discussed accordingly.
There is no attempt to hide nor minimize that record of change. The
previous primarly biological adaptions to use insects and then
fruit/vegies is the basis on which biological change evolved to include
meat also. That is how evolution proceeds, it builds on existing forms
to make new forms. Our two leg locomotion is another example, it is a
change from what was previous primate forms of same.
Thank you for providing the page:

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6d.shtml

Now if you please, describe the information that is "twisted" on that
page, which is provided with specific and ample references.

2/3 of the remainder of the reply snipped:

As in previous posts you are unable to provide coherent responses and
most is not applicable to the point at hand. Your last is a case in
point. From a comment that just as human biology changed to consume a
larger range of food sources it built on previous adaptations for same.
The case of bipedalism in humans was offered as an additional example of
previous forms being modified into another.

You spent 2/3 of the post confirming this bipedal point and making
points as to why it happened. This does not relate in the least to your
"twisted" remark concerning the nature of humandigestive
adaptations which is our most recent starting (again) point of
departure.

Sadly most of your previous posts wertaken up with similar irrelevant to
the point material, with references, but still irrelevant material.

As mentioned, these are strawman arguements,ie. argue a point related to
the main point and then declare the main point solved in your favor. 2/3
of your entire post was taken up with discussing bipedalism and in that
entire 2/3 the only mention of food was this:


"they were fruit and nut eaters."

The prehuman species to which that was discussed on the first page given
you made a similar point. Thus you wasted 2/3 of a post to provide one
small snip of information already made.

As to your constant request for references, I chose the body of
information at hand as a common point of discussion speciffically
because extensive references for each of the many many topics is given.
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-refs1b.shtml

is the large page of references used by billings regarding his several
web page discussion of comparitive human primate digestion and
metabolism. Note it includes material from vegitarian sources also.

All of which leads us to the real response now you have provided the
billings page about which you replied "twisted". Exactly what was
twisted?
pearl
2008-02-14 13:26:04 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 13, 8:52 pm, ***@indero.com wrote:
<.>
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
The exact page if you please.
<.>
Post by h***@indero.com
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6d.shtml
Now if you please, describe the information that is "twisted" on that
page, which is provided with specific and ample references.
My pleasure. All the cites are from that page...

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
"frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
several other populations, present and past, to feed
extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
pp. 696-697]'

Immediately following the paragraph above, billings
writes:

"The first sentence above, re: carnivorous adaptation,
must be understood in context: as a comment on the
Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It claims that there is
no major change in gut surface areas as the Expensive
Tissue Hypothesis suggests. It does not mean there is
absolutely no adaptation to faunivory [eating of some
animal foods]: the major adaptation to faunivory in
humans was previously identified as a reduction in
size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. [1985]
and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote does
not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers."

Let's see (emphasis added #).....

' The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
Refinement needed in analytical techniques used in
earlier study. The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
provides an extension and analytical refinement of
Martin et al. [1985].
..
Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:
..
Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations.
(BV heading)

From MacLarnon et al. [1986, p. 297]:
...[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the
approach using logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3
and 5) is particularly interesting in that it suggests a
marked departure of Cebus[Capuchin monkey] and
Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates
lacking any special adaptation for folivory ...in the
direction of faunivorous non-primate mammals....

5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering
purposes suggests that Cebus and Homo possess
gastrointestinal tracts that have become adapted in
parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with
notable reduction in size of caecum relative to body
size. Nevertheless, # because of the artificiality of
most modern human diets, it cannot be concluded
with confidence that the small human sample examined
to date reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular
kind of diet. The results obtained so far are suggestive
but by no means conclusive.#

(billings goes on to acknowledge this, and elaborate:)

Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests,
but is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human
GI tract is adapted for the consumption of animal foods.

Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The
gut dimensions of animals can vary significantly between
wild and captive animals (of the same species, of course).
Gut dimensions can change quickly (in captivity or in the
wild) in response to changes in dietary quality. For
information on this topic, consult Hladik [1967] as cited
in Chivers and Hladik [1980]; also the following sources
cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and Savory [1975]; Gross,
Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation]; Koong et al.
[1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray, Tulloch,
and Winter [1977].'

http://www.beyondveg.com/billi ngs-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.s html

But he'd said... "It does not mean there is absolutely no
adaptation to faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the
major adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and colon,
per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]."
- as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!

So there's some (more) food for thought for you, hari.

<.>
Post by h***@indero.com
As mentioned, these are strawman arguements,ie. argue a point related to
the main point and then declare the main point solved in your favor. 2/3
of your entire post was taken up with discussing bipedalism and in that
"they were fruit and nut eaters."
Well spotted. And they were already bipedal, right?

<Rest of repetitive screed devoid of cites, evidence,
explanations, science, acknowledgment of the science
and its authenticity, apologies for misrepresentation,
or open admission regarding health in India, snipped.>
.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-14 14:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Now if you please, describe the information that is "twisted" on that
page, which is provided with specific and ample references.
"My pleasure. All the cites are from that page..."

'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
"frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
several other populations, present and past, to feed
extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
pp. 696-697]'

Immediately following the paragraph above, billings
writes:

"The first sentence above, re: carnivorous adaptation,
must be understood in context: as a comment on the
Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It claims that there is
no major change in gut surface areas as the Expensive
Tissue Hypothesis suggests. It does not mean there is
absolutely no adaptation to faunivory [eating of some
animal foods]: the major adaptation to faunivory in
humans was previously identified as a reduction in
size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. [1985]
and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote does
not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers."

Let's see (emphasis added #).....

' The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
Refinement needed in analytical techniques used in
earlier study. The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
provides an extension and analytical refinement of
Martin et al. [1985].
..
Conclusions. MacLarnon et al. [1986] conclude that:
..
Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations.
(BV heading)

From MacLarnon et al. [1986, p. 297]:
...[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the
approach using logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3
and 5) is particularly interesting in that it suggests a
marked departure of Cebus[Capuchin monkey] and
Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates
lacking any special adaptation for folivory ...in the
direction of faunivorous non-primate mammals....

5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering
purposes suggests that Cebus and Homo possess
gastrointestinal tracts that have become adapted in
parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with
notable reduction in size of caecum relative to body
size. Nevertheless, # because of the artificiality of
most modern human diets, it cannot be concluded
with confidence that the small human sample examined
to date reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular
kind of diet. The results obtained so far are suggestive
but by no means conclusive.#

(billings goes on to acknowledge this, and elaborate:)

Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests,
but is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human
GI tract is adapted for the consumption of animal foods.

Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The
gut dimensions of animals can vary significantly between
wild and captive animals (of the same species, of course).
Gut dimensions can change quickly (in captivity or in the
wild) in response to changes in dietary quality. For
information on this topic, consult Hladik [1967] as cited
in Chivers and Hladik [1980]; also the following sources
cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and Savory [1975]; Gross,
Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation]; Koong et al.
[1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray, Tulloch,
and Winter [1977].'

http://www.beyondveg.com/billi ngs-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.s html

"But he'd said... "It does not mean there is absolutely no
adaptation to faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the
major adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and colon,
per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]."
- as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!

So there's some (more) food for thought for you, hari."

Not at all, this but shows you are not familiar with normal scientific
discourse on complex topics such as this. He makes his points and decribes
what he thinks its strengths and areas of continuing uncertanity up for
discussion. What in this is "twisted"? If you were really familiar with
scientific exchange you would have known this is par for the course.


<.>
Post by h***@indero.com
As mentioned, these are strawman arguements,ie. argue a point related to
the main point and then declare the main point solved in your favor. 2/3
of your entire post was taken up with discussing bipedalism and in that
"they were fruit and nut eaters."
"Well spotted. And they were already bipedal, right?"

Yes, but this is a perfect example of my observation of most of your
information in most of the posts you have made, irrelevant to the point
being made. The interaction between changing dietary habits and bipedalism
was never a point I raised. This is why it is a strawman argument.

We must not confuse making a great amount of response, any response however
irrelevant, with a quality and on topic response.

<Rest of repetitive screed devoid of cites, evidence, explanations,
science, acknowledgment of the science and its authenticity, apologies for
misrepresentation, or open admission regarding health in India, snipped.>"


If you would like one at a time to take up other individual topics then it
would be welcome. As to the current point of "twisted" you have but
illustrated your lack of knowledge and/or experience with typical normal
scientific discourse among scholars.

The views I have proposed are not mine in origin. They are the normal
mainstream views in the scientific community. Open any typical university
textbook concerning human evolution and changing dietary behaviors across
time and space, it is all right there. Scholars can disagree with the
specific details but they do not disagree that it happened. What you have
mentioned in the examples above is an example of working out those details.
pearl
2008-02-14 14:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
Now if you please, describe the information that is "twisted" on that
page, which is provided with specific and ample references.
"My pleasure. All the cites are from that page..."
'A specialized carnivorous adaptation in humans that
would correspond to a minimized gut size is obviously
not supported by our data (fig. 1). The large variations
in human diets (Hladik and Simmen 1996) are probably
allowed by our gut morphology as unspecialized
"frugivores," a flexibility allowing Pygmies, Inuit, and
several other populations, present and past, to feed
extensively on animal matter...' Hladik et al. [1999,
pp. 696-697]'
Immediately following the paragraph above, billings
"The first sentence above, re: carnivorous adaptation,
must be understood in context: as a comment on the
Expensive Tissue Hypothesis. It claims that there is
no major change in gut surface areas as the Expensive
Tissue Hypothesis suggests. It does not mean there is
absolutely no adaptation to faunivory [eating of some
animal foods]: the major adaptation to faunivory in
humans was previously identified as a reduction in
size of the caecum and colon, per Martin et al. [1985]
and MacLarnon et al. [1986]. The above quote does
not contradict the 1985 and 1986 papers."
Let's see (emphasis added #).....
' The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
Refinement needed in analytical techniques used in
earlier study. The research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
provides an extension and analytical refinement of
Martin et al. [1985].
..
..
Human GI tract shows possible faunivore adaptations.
(BV heading)
...[T]his being the case, the new evidence from the
approach using logarithmic quotient values (Fig. 1, 3
and 5) is particularly interesting in that it suggests a
marked departure of Cebus[Capuchin monkey] and
Homo [humans] from the typical pattern of primates
lacking any special adaptation for folivory ...in the
direction of faunivorous non-primate mammals....
5. Use of logarithmic quotient values for clustering
purposes suggests that Cebus and Homo possess
gastrointestinal tracts that have become adapted in
parallel to those of faunivorous mammals, with
notable reduction in size of caecum relative to body
size. Nevertheless, # because of the artificiality of
most modern human diets, it cannot be concluded
with confidence that the small human sample examined
to date reflects any "natural" adaptation for a particular
kind of diet. The results obtained so far are suggestive
but by no means conclusive.#
(billings goes on to acknowledge this, and elaborate:)
Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986] suggests,
but is not (by itself) conclusive proof, that the human
GI tract is adapted for the consumption of animal foods.
Gut dimensions can vary in response to current diet. The
gut dimensions of animals can vary significantly between
wild and captive animals (of the same species, of course).
Gut dimensions can change quickly (in captivity or in the
wild) in response to changes in dietary quality. For
information on this topic, consult Hladik [1967] as cited
in Chivers and Hladik [1980]; also the following sources
cited in Milton [1987]: Gentle and Savory [1975]; Gross,
Wang, and Wunder [in press per citation]; Koong et al.
[1982]; Miller [1975]; Moss [1972]; and Murray, Tulloch,
and Winter [1977].'
http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/comp-anat/comp-anat-6e.s html
"But he'd said... "It does not mean there is absolutely no
adaptation to faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the
major adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and colon,
per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al. [1986]."
- as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!
So there's some (more) food for thought for you, hari."
Not at all, this but shows you are not familiar with normal scientific
discourse on complex topics such as this. He makes his points and decribes
what he thinks its strengths and areas of continuing uncertanity up for
discussion. What in this is "twisted"? If you were really familiar with
scientific exchange you would have known this is par for the course.
He lies in an effort to deceive, stupidly. "Birds of a feather....".
Post by h***@indero.com
<.>
Post by h***@indero.com
As mentioned, these are strawman arguements,ie. argue a point related to
the main point and then declare the main point solved in your favor. 2/3
of your entire post was taken up with discussing bipedalism and in that
"they were fruit and nut eaters."
"Well spotted. And they were already bipedal, right?"
Yes, but this is a perfect example of my observation of most of your
information in most of the posts you have made, irrelevant to the point
being made. The interaction between changing dietary habits and bipedalism
was never a point I raised. This is why it is a strawman argument.
But it is a point that has been raised in that context.
Post by h***@indero.com
We must not confuse making a great amount of response, any response however
irrelevant, with a quality and on topic response.
But it wasn't irrelevant. Nor was it lacking in value.
Post by h***@indero.com
<Rest of repetitive screed devoid of cites, evidence, explanations,
science, acknowledgment of the science and its authenticity, apologies for
misrepresentation, or open admission regarding health in India, snipped.>"
If you would like one at a time to take up other individual topics then it
would be welcome. As to the current point of "twisted" you have but
illustrated your lack of knowledge and/or experience with typical normal
scientific discourse among scholars.
Pull the other one. If you won't even acknowledge
a bare-faced lie because you regard /that/ source as
a credible one (it supports what you want to believe
and/or your agenda), what's the point in discussing
anything with you? All you do is spout disgusting
smear, and demonstrate exactly what you accuse
others of - picking and choosing to suit yourself.

When you're ready to address the points already
made in an intellectually honest manner, feel free
to pick up the threads you've previously dropped.
Post by h***@indero.com
The views I have proposed are not mine in origin. They are the normal
mainstream views in the scientific community. Open any typical university
textbook concerning human evolution and changing dietary behaviors across
time and space, it is all right there. Scholars can disagree with the
specific details but they do not disagree that it happened. What you have
mentioned in the examples above is an example of working out those details.
Don't you understand that science isn't static, but
ever progressing forward with each new discovery?
pearl
2008-02-14 16:01:33 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 14, 1:26 pm, pearl <***@esatclear.ie> wrote:
..
Post by pearl
- as we see, it wasn't identified - it was only suggested!
Just to drive the point home..

'identify
v., -fied, -fy·ing, -fies.
v.tr.
1. To establish the identity of.
2. To ascertain the origin, nature, or definitive
characteristics of.
3. Biology. To determine the taxonomic
classification of (an organism).
4. To consider as identical or united; equate.
..'
http://www.answers.com/identified&r=67

suggest
tr.v., -gest·ed, -gest·ing, -gests.
1. To offer for consideration or action; propose: ..
2. To bring or call to mind by logic or association;
evoke: ..
..
SYNONYMS suggest, imply, hint, intimate, insinuate.
These verbs mean to convey thoughts or ideas by
indirection. Suggest refers to the calling of something
to mind as the result of an association of ideas: ...
..'
http://www.answers.com/suggest

"scientific discourse among scholars." Hah!
h***@indero.com
2008-02-14 17:27:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
If you would like one at a time to take up other individual topics then it
would be welcome. As to the current point of "twisted" you have but
illustrated your lack of knowledge and/or experience with typical normal
scientific discourse among scholars.
Pull the other one. If you won't even acknowledge "a bare-faced lie
because you regard /that/ source as a credible one (it supports what you
want to believe and/or your agenda), what's the point in discussing
anything with you? All you do is spout disgusting smear, and
demonstrate exactly what you accuse others of - picking and choosing to
suit yourself."

Whose lie, mine or the "twisted" author? You mistake being "twisted"
with a conclusion not agreeing with your own dearly held cultural norm.
The author made no attempt to decieve nor mislead nor slant his
discussion because of any cultural norm, he found the evidence based on
his analysis supporting a different conclusion then the one he is
dealing with. The reasons for his analysis and conclusion are there for
all to see step by logical step in an accepted and normal scientific
manner. That is what bypractice and definition adds no support to your
claim of "twisted" in the least.

"When you're ready to address the points already
made in an intellectually honest manner, feel free
to pick up the threads you've previously dropped."

Not dropped, one by one we can deal with any topic you choose. What I
will not tolerate is your tactic of throwing as much mud at the wall as
possible regardless of how irrelevant to the topic and hoping some of it
will stick, such as your "twisted" remark. Stick to the topic, present
logical narrative, avoid excessive use of irrelevant information.
Post by h***@indero.com
The views I have proposed are not mine in origin. They are the normal
mainstream views in the scientific community. Open any typical
university
Post by h***@indero.com
textbook concerning human evolution and changing dietary behaviors across
time and space, it is all right there. Scholars can disagree with the
specific details but they do not disagree that it happened. What you have
mentioned in the examples above is an example of working out those details.
"Don't you understand that science isn't static, but ever progressing
forward with each new discovery?"

Yes, as clearly implied in the above of "working out details" and
another irrelevant to the topic issue. If there is one problem with the
information on that page it is the date of most of the material. If you
wish to show in more recent material of equal quality in recognized
journals that the broad view of mainstream science on the topic has
changed substanually, thenplease do so.

Quibbling about the meaning as used in such scientific discussion of
such terms as "suggestive" will not do. Were you familiar with the
practices of normal scientific discourse, such terms are normal fare.

Aside from having your cultural toes stepped on, it is now difficult to
recall what exactly you object to in the current understanding about
human evolution and changes in dietary habits over time and space.
pearl
2008-02-15 18:44:41 UTC
Permalink
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.

True or False?
JackBruce
2008-02-15 20:15:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
Jay Stevens(aka "Dr.Jai maharaj") is a moron, that is the only truth.
Any other belief is false.

That is all that matters.
pearl
2008-02-15 21:13:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>

Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?

That's very kind of you! So...

'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'

True or False?

I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
IsraelCACHAOLopez
2008-02-15 21:33:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You just hated the answer, you stupid cunt.
That's why you snipped it!

Eat some meat!
It does a body good.

Tonight I have fish! BRAIN FOOD!
You obviously need a dose!
pearl
2008-02-15 22:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You haven't answered the question. Ask a fish?
IsraelCACHAOLopez
2008-02-16 17:19:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You haven't answered the question. Ask a fish?
I did!

Brain food! EAT SOME, you retard!
pearl
2008-02-16 23:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You haven't answered the question. Ask a fish?
I did!
Whatever.
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Brain food! EAT SOME, you retard!
'BBC - Test The Nation - Results [IQ]

Studio groups
-------------------------------
Vegetarians 113
Public Schools 111
Butchers 105
Celebrities 105
Estate Agents 104
Footballers' Wives 101

[UK Average - 109.25 ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/iq/results/index.shtml
gitarthi
2008-02-17 11:55:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You just hated the answer, you stupid cunt.
That's why you snipped it!
Eat some meat!
It does a body good.
Tonight I have fish! BRAIN FOOD!
You obviously need a dose!
Manu said the "Rohit" or grass-carp fish is the best
IsraelCACHAOLopez
2008-02-17 20:12:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by gitarthi
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You just hated the answer, you stupid cunt.
That's why you snipped it!
Eat some meat!
It does a body good.
Tonight I have fish! BRAIN FOOD!
You obviously need a dose!
Manu said the "Rohit" or grass-carp fish is the best
That's possibly all he had available.
I have a problem with bottom feeding fish like carp or cat fish.
(after all, fish shit doesn't float!:)
CYBERHINWA
2008-02-18 06:45:12 UTC
Permalink
TO THINK THAT I STARTED THIS THREAD AND FOOLS

ARE STILL DISCUSSSSING THIS



AAAAAAH THE POWER OF INTERNET ////
gitarthi
2008-02-18 11:42:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by gitarthi
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You just hated the answer, you stupid cunt.
That's why you snipped it!
Eat some meat!
It does a body good.
Tonight I have fish! BRAIN FOOD!
You obviously need a dose!
Manu said the "Rohit" or grass-carp fish is the best
That's possibly all he had available.
I have a problem with bottom feeding fish like carp or cat fish.
(after all, fish shit doesn't float!:)
There are three types of Indian carps. Rohit Or Rahu, which Manu
recommends, is a top-feeding Carp. The big head Carp. which is called
katla in India, is a middle-feeding carp. The third variety in India
is bottom-feeding carp which many people hesitate to take.
IsraelCACHAOLopez
2008-02-18 20:23:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by gitarthi
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by gitarthi
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by pearl
Post by pearl
S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?
<mindless abuse>
Wading in to help your pal out then, smartarse?
That's very kind of you! So...
'S was identified as C.' = 'S was suggestive of C.'
True or False?
I'll predict that you won't answer this question.
I did respond.
You just hated the answer, you stupid cunt.
That's why you snipped it!
Eat some meat!
It does a body good.
Tonight I have fish! BRAIN FOOD!
You obviously need a dose!
Manu said the "Rohit" or grass-carp fish is the best
That's possibly all he had available.
I have a problem with bottom feeding fish like carp or cat fish.
(after all, fish shit doesn't float!:)
There are three types of Indian carps. Rohit Or Rahu, which Manu
recommends, is a top-feeding Carp. The big head Carp. which is called
katla in India, is a middle-feeding carp. The third variety in India
is bottom-feeding carp which many people hesitate to take.
Carp is carp.

No such thing as a 'top feeding' carp.
"Top feeding" would mean that they eat other fish.
They don't!

They eat the crap that is covered by shit.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-15 20:52:26 UTC
Permalink
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.

True or False?"

With out doubt.
pearl
2008-02-15 21:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?"
With out doubt.
What? Is it true or false? It can't be both.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-15 22:45:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?"
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."

Correct, without doubt.
pearl
2008-02-16 10:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?"
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?
h***@indero.com
2008-02-16 15:07:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
"What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"

Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
normal english usage.
pearl
2008-02-16 22:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
"What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
normal english usage.
Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.

You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.

Enjoy.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-16 23:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
"What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
normal english usage.
"Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.

You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.

Enjoy."

"Irrelevant", was it not you who based an entire critique of a web site
of 240 pages based on the use of two words on one page?

"Credible", was it not you who revealed however unwillingly one's
ignorance of the basic science of human evolution anddietary habits
through time and space as held in mainstream science?

Was it not you who revealed however unwillingly that' one's real talent
lies in picking and choosing returns from a search enjine inquiry that
fits your agenda?

"Enjoy", my pleasure, now you can take your balls and go home, although
I read you in fact have none.

You and anyone can make food choices based on whatever one chooses. But
please don't start with a recieved cultural food preference and pretend
one can work backwards to find human evolutionary justification for it.

Humans eat whatever they can get their hands on, that is why they have
thrived in allplaces on the globe.

Now to really make your day. Going against my own rules not to reveal
personal information, I'm a vegitarian in my food choices.
pearl
2008-02-17 00:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
"What is correct? That's it's true, or that it's false?"
Neither, "That's it's" and "that it's false" are not equivalent in
normal english usage.
"Irrelevant, but your evasion was highly entertaining.
You're now fully exposed as lacking any credibility.
Enjoy."
"Irrelevant", was it not you who based an entire critique of a web site
of 240 pages based on the use of two words on one page?
You wanted evidence - you got it, and you couldn't handle it.
Post by h***@indero.com
"Credible", was it not you who revealed however unwillingly one's
ignorance of the basic science of human evolution anddietary habits
through time and space as held in mainstream science?
I did no such thing. I even explained it to you.
Post by h***@indero.com
Was it not you who revealed however unwillingly that' one's real talent
lies in picking and choosing returns from a search enjine inquiry that
fits your agenda?
Your standard 'defense' when you can't address the evidence.
Post by h***@indero.com
"Enjoy", my pleasure, now you can take your balls and go home, although
I read you in fact have none.
You're a joke. Caught out good and proper.
Post by h***@indero.com
You and anyone can make food choices based on whatever one chooses. But
please don't start with a recieved cultural food preference and pretend
one can work backwards to find human evolutionary justification for it.
The proof is in the nutritional research, if nothing else.
Post by h***@indero.com
Humans eat whatever they can get their hands on, that is why they have
thrived in allplaces on the globe.
They've done what they had to to survive.
Post by h***@indero.com
Now to really make your day. Going against my own rules not to reveal
personal information, I'm a vegitarian in my food choices.
Good for you.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-17 02:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet

By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs

BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that
provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of
the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have
secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their
African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable,
intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have
deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that
forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

Her thesis complements the discovery last month by UC Berkeley
professor Tim White and others that early human species were
butchering and eating animal meat as long ago as 2.5 million years.
Milton's article integrates dietary strategy with the evolution of
human physiology to argue that meat eating was routine. It is
published this month in the journal "Evolutionary Anthropology"
(Vol.8, #1).

Milton said that her theories do not reflect on today's vegetarian
diets, which can be completely adequate, given modern knowledge of
nutrition.

"We know a lot about nutrition now and can design a very satisfactory
vegetarian diet," said Milton, a professor in the Department of
Environmental Science, Policy & Management.

But she added that the adequacy of a vegetarian diet depends either on
modern scientific knowledge or on traditional food habits, developed
over many generations, in which people have worked out a complete diet
by putting different foods together.

In many parts of the world where people have little access to meat,
they have run the risk of malnutrition, said Milton. This happened,
for instance, in Southeast Asia where people relied heavily on a
single plant food, polished rice, and developed the nutritional
disease, beriberi. Closer to home, in the Southern United States, many
people dependent largely on corn meal developed the nutritional
disease, pellagra.

Milton argues that meat supplied early humans not only with all the
essential amino acids, but also with many vitamins, minerals and other
nutrients they required, allowing them to exploit marginal, low
quality plant foods, like roots - foods that have few nutrients but
lots of calories. These calories, or energy, fueled the expansion of
the human brain and, in addition, permitted human ancestors to
increase in body size while remaining active and social.

"Once animal matter entered the human diet as a dependable staple, the
overall nutrient content of plant foods could drop drastically, if
need be, so long as the plants supplied plenty of calories for
energy," said Milton.

The brain is a relentless consumer of calories, said Milton. It needs
glucose 24 hours a day. Animal protein probably did not provide many
of those calories, which were more likely to come from carbohydrates,
she said.

Buffered against nutritional deficiency by meat, human ancestors also
could intensify their use of plant foods with toxic compounds such as
cyanogenic glycosides, foods other primates would have avoided, said
Milton. These compounds can produce deadly cyanide in the body, but
are neutralized by methionine and cystine, sulfur-containing amino
acids present in meat. Sufficient methionine is difficult

to find in plants. Most domesticated grains - wheat, rice, maize,
barley, rye and millet - contain this cyanogenic compound as do many
beans and widely-eaten root crops such as taro and manioc.

Since plant foods available in the dry and deforested early human
environment had become less nutritious, meat was critical for weaned
infants, said Milton. She explained that small infants could not have
processed enough bulky plant material to get both nutrients for growth
and energy for brain development.

"I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food
for early humans," said Milton. "I have come to believe that the
incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely
essential role in human evolution."

Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
pearl
2008-02-17 13:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet
By Patricia McBroom, Public Affairs
BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of
Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in
their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of
plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University
of California, Berkeley.
'Male strategies and Plio-Pleistocene archaeology
Authors: O'Connell J.F.1; Hawkes K.2; Lupo K.D.3; Blurton
Jones N.G.4 Source: Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 43,
Number 6, December 2002 , pp. 831-872(42)
Publisher: Academic Press

Abstract:
Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea
that big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly
through its role in offspring provisioning. This argument has
been disputed on two grounds: (1) ethnographic observations
on modern foragers show that although hunting may contribute
a large fraction of the overall diet, it is an unreliable day-to-day
food source, pursued more for status than subsistence; (2)
archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene, coincident
with the emergence of Homo can be read to reflect low-yield
scavenging, *not* hunting. Our review of the archaeology
yields results consistent with these critiques: (1) early humans
acquired large-bodied ungulates primarily by aggressive
scavenging, not hunting; (2) meat was consumed at or near
the point of acquisition, not at home bases, as the hunting
hypothesis requires; (3) carcasses were taken at highly
variable rates and in varying degrees of completeness, making
meat from big game an even less reliable food source than it
is among modern foragers. Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site
location and assemblage composition are consistent with the
hypothesis that large carcasses were taken *not* for purposes
of provisioning, but in the context of competitive male displays.
Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the archaeology
indicates, its consumption cannot account for the significant
changes in life history now seen to distinguish early humans
from ancestral australopiths. The coincidence between the
earliest dates for Homo ergaster and an increase in the
archaeological visibility of meat eating that many find so
provocative instead reflects: (1) changes in the structure of
the environment that concentrated scavenging opportunities
in space, making evidence of their pursuit more obvious to
archaeologists; (2) H. ergaster's larger body size (itself a
consequence of other factors), which improved its ability at
interference competition.

Document Type: Research article
DOI: 10.1006/jhev.2002.0604
Affiliations: 1: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah,
270 South 1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
2: Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, 270 South
1400 East, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84112, U.S.A.
3: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington, 99164, U.S.A. 4: Departments of
Anthropology and Psychiatry, and Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Los Angeles, California, 90095, U.S.A.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604

'The New Scientist September 16, 2007

Starchy tubers gave our ancestors' brains a boost

By Bob Holmes

A DRAMATIC shift in diet sometime during the evolution
of modern humans has left its imprint on our genome. The
discovery could provide some of the strongest evidence to
date in support of a controversial hypothesis that purports
to explain why humans, alone among all the apes, suddenly
evolved such big brains.

One plausible reason is that early hominins suddenly
stumbled on a new, rich food source capable of fuelling
a large, energetically expensive brain. For many years,
anthropologists presumed the crucial food source was
meat, which became more accessible as our ancestors
began to use stone tools for hunting or cutting. More
recently, however, others have proposed an alternative -
starchy tubers. Proponents of this view argue that early
hominins had teeth better suited to grinding plant matter
than tearing flesh. Recent studies of isotope ratios in
hominin fossils also suggest a plant-rich diet.

But definitive proof is hard to come by. "We're talking
millions of years ago, we're talking perishable food items.
We're just not going to find archaeological evidence for it,"
says Nathaniel Dominy, an evolutionary anthropologist at
the University of California, Santa Cruz.

So Dominy and his colleagues decided to look for
evidence in an unusual place: our genome. They focused
on a gene called AMY1, which codes for salivary amylase,
a starch-digesting enzyme. They already knew that the
number of copies of AMY1 varies widely from person to
person, and when the researchers surveyed 50 American
college students of European descent, they found anywhere
from 2 to 15 copies. Moreover, individuals with more
copies had higher levels of amylase in their saliva. By
contrast,chimpanzees, whose natural diet contains very little
starch, have just two copies and very little salivary amylase.

The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups
that traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans,
Japanese and the African Hadza people - with those whose
traditional diet is very low in starch, such as the African
Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a high-starch
background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch
background (Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123).
"We think that selection is strongly favouring more copies
in populations with more starch in the diet," says Dominy.
The study is one of the first to show that natural selection
can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers.

If that increase coincided with the dramatic expansion in
our ancestor's brain size about 1.8 million years ago, that
would be the strongest possible evidence that roots and
tubers, not meat, fuelled our intelligence.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19526215.100-starchy-tubers-gave-our-ancestors-brains-a-boost.html
h***@indero.com
2008-02-18 13:47:10 UTC
Permalink
Good, you are willing once again to leave dancing with the semantics of
word choices by an author and inter into scientific discussion.

"Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through its
role in offspring provisioning."

Show one current scholar who says the above. The standard model says
humans first ate animals already dead, just as the article said.

We know the human line used meat starting at least 2 million years ago
because stone tools are found in conjunction with stone tool cut marks
on animal bones from butchering them.

Stone tools to break bones to extract the marrow are likewise found with
broken bones.

As the first time you used it, that article is a strawman argument.

"The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that
traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and
the African Hadza people - with those whose traditional diet is very low
in starch, such as the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a
high-starch background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch background
(Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is
strongly favouring more copies in populations with more starch in the
diet," says Dominy. The study is one of the first to show that natural
selection can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers."

Congratulations, you confirm another part of the standard model. Humans
spread to all parts of the world and ate whatever was there; and minor
adaptations in digestive biology evolved to accomidate this. I can show
other examples in illustration also.

"If that increase coincided with the dramatic expansion in our
ancestor's brain size about 1.8 million years ago, that would be the
strongest possible evidence that roots and tubers, not meat, fuelled our
intelligence."

An interesting hypothetical model. But as they confirm elsewhere in the
article, evidence for it is completely lacking for the time period 2
million years ago in question. The evidence they discuss is from
current populations only.


In contrast we have the tool and bone and other biochemical evidence
such as above to show whatever happened meat was part of it.

When considering two models we go with the one with the evidence,
science proceeds in the direction evidence leads however interesting
other models seem
pearl
2008-02-18 20:04:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Good, you are willing once again to leave dancing with the semantics of
word choices by an author and inter into scientific discussion.
You're still trying to downplay what he did? This has
nothing to do with "semantics", "word choices", or
"two words", and he certainly can't plead ignorance..

"because of the artificiality of most modern human
diets, it cannot be concluded with confidence that
the small human sample examined to date reflects
any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet.
The results obtained so far are suggestive but by
no means conclusive.

Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
suggests, but is not (by itself) conclusive proof,
that the human GI tract is adapted for the
consumption of animal foods." - billings

"It does not mean there is absolutely no adaptation to
faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the major
adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and
colon, per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al.
[1986]. " - billings

Too funny.
Post by h***@indero.com
"Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through its
role in offspring provisioning."
Show one current scholar who says the above. The standard model says
humans first ate animals already dead, just as the article said.
'Aiello & Wheeler (1995) propose that the apparent
ecological shift from partly closed environments
associated with A. afarensis to the more open habitats
associated with H. ergaster may have coincided with a
redirection of the body's metabolic budget in favour
of a rapidly expanding brain, itself made possible by
a shift in trophic level, in which meat, and hunting,
played a very important part. '
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571301
Post by h***@indero.com
We know the human line used meat starting at least 2 million years ago
because stone tools are found in conjunction with stone tool cut marks
on animal bones from butchering them.
Stone tools to break bones to extract the marrow are likewise found with
broken bones.
As the first time you used it, that article is a strawman argument.
And again you predictably ignore the relevant points:

A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Post by h***@indero.com
"The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that
traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and
the African Hadza people - with those whose traditional diet is very low
in starch, such as the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a
high-starch background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch background
(Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is
strongly favouring more copies in populations with more starch in the
diet," says Dominy. The study is one of the first to show that natural
selection can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers."
Congratulations, you confirm another part of the standard model. Humans
spread to all parts of the world and ate whatever was there;
Then why were plant-foods more important during the
interglacials? Do you still wish to maintain that it was
due to scarcity of animals ("the availability of meat")?
Post by h***@indero.com
and minor
adaptations in digestive biology evolved to accomidate this.
What are you talking about?
Post by h***@indero.com
I can show other examples in illustration also.
You can start with "digestive adaptations"...
Post by h***@indero.com
"If that increase coincided with the dramatic expansion in our
ancestor's brain size about 1.8 million years ago, that would be the
strongest possible evidence that roots and tubers, not meat, fuelled our
intelligence."
An interesting hypothetical model. But as they confirm elsewhere in the
article, evidence for it is completely lacking for the time period 2
million years ago in question. The evidence they discuss is from
current populations only.
Your own cited source (Milton) thinks similarly.
Post by h***@indero.com
In contrast we have the tool and bone and other biochemical evidence
such as above to show whatever happened meat was part of it.
A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Post by h***@indero.com
When considering two models we go with the one with the evidence,
science proceeds in the direction evidence leads however interesting
other models seem
"Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the
archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account
for the significant changes in life history now seen to
distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. "
h***@indero.com
2008-02-18 22:44:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
"Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through its
role in offspring provisioning."
Show one current scholar who says the above. The standard model says
humans first ate animals already dead, just as the article said.
'Aiello & Wheeler (1995) propose that the apparent
ecological shift from partly closed environments
associated with A. afarensis to the more open habitats
associated with H. ergaster may have coincided with a
redirection of the body's metabolic budget in favour
of a rapidly expanding brain, itself made possible by
a shift in trophic level, in which meat, and hunting,
played a very important part. '
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571301

Indeed, a perfect for seeing you read into something not there but dearly
hoped for. "Big game humting" is mentioned nowhere in your segment.
Scavaging is thought to be the source in the current standard model, along
with a possible small animals eggs and so on which do not show up in
archeology.
Post by h***@indero.com
We know the human line used meat starting at least 2 million years ago
because stone tools are found in conjunction with stone tool cut marks
on animal bones from butchering them.
Stone tools to break bones to extract the marrow are likewise found with
broken bones.
As the first time you used it, that article is a strawman argument.
"And again you predictably ignore the relevant points:

A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Post by h***@indero.com
"The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that
traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and
the African Hadza people - with those whose traditional diet is very low
in starch, such as the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a
high-starch background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch background
(Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is
strongly favouring more copies in populations with more starch in the
diet," says Dominy. The study is one of the first to show that natural
selection can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers."
Congratulations, you confirm another part of the standard model. Humans
spread to all parts of the world and ate whatever was there;"
Show me where the standard model is contridicted by the above. They say
elsewhere they have no evidence, it is a proposed model while the standard
model has physical evidence in support of it. The 2nd part supports the
biological changes made as to place and what is there and eating what one
can get their hands on.

"Then why were plant-foods more important during the interglacials? Do you
still wish to maintain that it was due to scarcity of animals ("the
availability of meat")?"

No, consistant with my view, man eats whatever is available and is at hand.
This would vary with changes in climate, illustrating again the inherent
adaptive nature of human metabolism to consume all food sources in all
places in time and space as in the example you provide.
Post by h***@indero.com
and minor
adaptations in digestive biology evolved to accomidate this.
"What are you talking about?"

The 2nd part of your article illustrates genetic change to accomdate foods
available,ie. whatever they can get theirhands on.
Post by h***@indero.com
I can show other examples in illustration also.
"You can start with "digestive adaptations"..."

Lactase which metabolises lactose in milk stopped early in a child's life
when milk consumption is stopped in areas with little external milk
consumption. In areas where cattle and milk are common an adaptation
occured to continue lactase for life.
Post by h***@indero.com
"If that increase coincided with the dramatic expansion in our
ancestor's brain size about 1.8 million years ago, that would be the
strongest possible evidence that roots and tubers, not meat, fuelled our
intelligence."
An interesting hypothetical model. But as they confirm elsewhere in the
article, evidence for it is completely lacking for the time period 2
million years ago in question. The evidence they discuss is from
current populations only.
"Your own cited source (Milton) thinks similarly."
Post by h***@indero.com
In contrast we have the tool and bone and other biochemical evidence
such as above to show whatever happened meat was part of it.
A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."

Do you read response posts? I made this exact point that both make a
similar point which is in illustration of working out the details of how
digestive adaptive genetics occurs with changing diet through time and
space of human history.
Post by h***@indero.com
When considering two models we go with the one with the evidence,
science proceeds in the direction evidence leads however interesting
other models seem
"Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the
archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account
for the significant changes in life history now seen to
distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. "

A conclusion based on assuming the declared hypothetical model which is
confessed to have no evidence for the time in question.

There were varieties of australopiths. One major difference in them is
their teeth and jaw adaptations based on eating differing food sources,
which is part of the standard model explanation for the fossil evidence
for those differences. At the same time tools for meat butchering show
up and bones that confirm being worked by tools. Those tools are in
association with the form most like modern humans. Again, evidence for
pre human evolution with regard to different food sources through time
and place.
pearl
2008-02-19 13:11:50 UTC
Permalink
On Feb 18, 10:44 pm, ***@indero.com wrote:

Abandoning billings then? <collective "Ahhhh">
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
"Archaeological data are frequently cited in support of the idea that
big game hunting drove the evolution of early Homo, mainly through its
role in offspring provisioning."
Show one current scholar who says the above. The standard model says
humans first ate animals already dead, just as the article said.
'Aiello & Wheeler (1995) propose that the apparent
ecological shift from partly closed environments
associated with A. afarensis to the more open habitats
associated with H. ergaster may have coincided with a
redirection of the body's metabolic budget in favour
of a rapidly expanding brain, itself made possible by
a shift in trophic level, in which meat, and hunting,
played a very important part. '
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1571301
Indeed, a perfect for seeing you read into something not there but dearly
hoped for. "Big game humting" is mentioned nowhere in your segment.
Hunting is. But do you really imagine the authors
aren't thoroughly familiar with the literature? Look:

James F. O'Connell
Distinguished Professor
http://www.anthro.utah.edu/people/faculty/james-f.-oconnell.html

Kristen Hawkes
Distinguished Professor
http://www.anthro.utah.edu/people/faculty/kristen-hawkes.html

Dr. Karen D. Lupo
Ph.D., University of Utah
Associate Professor
Archaeology and Evolutionary Anthropology
http://libarts.wsu.edu/anthro/faculty/lupo.html

Nicholas Blurton-Jones
Professor Emeritus
http://www.international.ucla.edu/person.asp?Facultystaff_ID=78
Post by pearl
Scavaging is thought to be the source in the current standard model, along
with a possible small animals eggs and so on which do not show up in
archeology.
That's nice. But those scientists can be stubborn..
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
We know the human line used meat starting at least 2 million years ago
because stone tools are found in conjunction with stone tool cut marks
on animal bones from butchering them.
Stone tools to break bones to extract the marrow are likewise found with
broken bones.
As the first time you used it, that article is a strawman argument.
A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Post by h***@indero.com
"The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that
traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and
the African Hadza people - with those whose traditional diet is very low
in starch, such as the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a
high-starch background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch background
(Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is
strongly favouring more copies in populations with more starch in the
diet," says Dominy. The study is one of the first to show that natural
selection can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers."
Congratulations, you confirm another part of the standard model. Humans
spread to all parts of the world and ate whatever was there;"
Show me where the standard model is contridicted by the above. They say
elsewhere they have no
definitive
Post by pearl
evidence, it is a proposed model while the standard
model has physical evidence in support of it.
But it doesn't support what you want it to support.
Post by pearl
The 2nd part supports the
biological changes made as to place and what is there and eating what one
can get their hands on.
"Then why were plant-foods more important during the interglacials? Do you
still wish to maintain that it was due to scarcity of animals ("the
availability of meat")?"
No, consistant with my view, man eats whatever is available and is at hand.
But animals were always 'available' and 'at hand'.
Post by pearl
This would vary with changes in climate, illustrating again
Reliance on animals when plant foods were scarce.
Post by pearl
the inherent
adaptive nature of human metabolism to consume all food sources
Flexibility essentially for allowing the consumption
of various types of plant foods, not for carnivory.
Post by pearl
in all
places in time and space as in the example you provide.
You think "*not* for purposes of provisioning, but in
the context of competitive male displays." counts?
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
and minor
adaptations in digestive biology evolved to accomidate this.
"What are you talking about?"
The 2nd part of your article illustrates genetic change to accomdate foods
available,ie. whatever they can get theirhands on.
See above.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
I can show other examples in illustration also.
"You can start with "digestive adaptations"..."
Lactase which metabolises lactose in milk stopped early in a child's life
when milk consumption is stopped in areas with little external milk
consumption. In areas where cattle and milk are common an adaptation
occured to continue lactase for life.
That's a matter of existing genes remaining switched on.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
"If that increase coincided with the dramatic expansion in our
ancestor's brain size about 1.8 million years ago, that would be the
strongest possible evidence that roots and tubers, not meat, fuelled our
intelligence."
An interesting hypothetical model. But as they confirm elsewhere in the
article, evidence for it is completely lacking for the time period 2
million years ago in question. The evidence they discuss is from
current populations only.
"Your own cited source (Milton) thinks similarly."
Post by h***@indero.com
In contrast we have the tool and bone and other biochemical evidence
such as above to show whatever happened meat was part of it.
A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Do you read response posts? I made this exact point that both make a
similar point which is in illustration of working out the details of how
digestive adaptive genetics occurs with changing diet through time and
space of human history.
There's an inherent flexibility, not carnivorous adaptation.

Just how long will it take for you to get this, I wonder.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
When considering two models we go with the one with the evidence,
science proceeds in the direction evidence leads however interesting
other models seem
"Even if meat were acquired more reliably than the
archaeology indicates, its consumption cannot account
for the significant changes in life history now seen to
distinguish early humans from ancestral australopiths. "
A conclusion based on assuming the declared hypothetical model which is
confessed to have no evidence for the time in question.
You're confusing the two studies.

"Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large
carcasses were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning,
but in the context of competitive male displays. Even if meat
were acquired more reliably than the archaeology indicates,
its consumption cannot account for the significant changes
in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from
ancestral australopiths.
..
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
Post by pearl
There were varieties of australopiths. One major difference in them is
their teeth and jaw adaptations based on eating differing food sources,
which is part of the standard model explanation for the fossil evidence
for those differences.
All australopiths had teeth and jaws suited for the
processing of plant foods, but not animal flesh.
Post by pearl
At the same time tools for meat butchering show
up and bones that confirm being worked by tools. Those tools are in
association with the form most like modern humans. Again, evidence for
pre human evolution with regard to different food sources through time
and place.
See above.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-19 15:34:52 UTC
Permalink
"Abandoning billings then? <collective "Ahhhh">"

Not at all, not continuing the cat and mouse game with you over a tempest
in a teapot sematic choice of words. There was never anything there but
allowing you to go on and on was very revealing to whomever cares.

"Hunting is. But do you really imagine the authors
aren't thoroughly familiar with the literature? Look:"

Yep, and your assumption of "big game" hunting is not supported. The early
stone tools were for meat butchering not hunting. Tools for hunting large
animals came later in the record. That is why the standard model assumes
scavenging as the meat source.

"That's nice. But those scientists can be stubborn.."

Smile, you mean those mainstream folk of the standard model who form the
majority concensus on the topic?
Post by pearl
A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Who is disagreeing, nomadic scavenging and gathering was the mode of
collection of both meat and plant material; they went where it was most
likely to be. The perfect strawman argument you present because you are
ignorant of the most basic information on the subject. The ignorant have
the luxury of any old conclusion where the informed are bound by the
evidence. Having a basic grasp of a body of knowledge is quite different
then having access to a search enjine for cherry picking information which
even more often then not to contridict that into which you try to force it.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
"The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that
traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and
the African Hadza people - with those whose traditional diet is very low
in starch, such as the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a
high-starch background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch background
(Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is
strongly favouring more copies in populations with more starch in the
diet," says Dominy. The study is one of the first to show that natural
selection can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers."
Congratulations, you confirm another part of the standard model. Humans
spread to all parts of the world and ate whatever was there;"
Show me where the standard model is contridicted by the above. They say
elsewhere they have no
"definitive"

Huh?
Post by pearl
evidence, it is a proposed model while the standard
model has physical evidence in support of it.
"But it doesn't support what you want it to support."

How so?
Post by pearl
The 2nd part supports the
biological changes made as to place and what is there and eating what one
can get their hands on.
"Then why were plant-foods more important during the interglacials? Do you
still wish to maintain that it was due to scarcity of animals ("the
availability of meat")?"
No, consistant with my view, man eats whatever is available and is at hand.
"But animals were always 'available' and 'at hand'."

Sure, which doesn't contridict the observation that people eat what they
can get their hands on, which in practical fact will vary as the proportion
of food sources vary.
Post by pearl
This would vary with changes in climate, illustrating again
"Reliance on animals when plant foods were scarce."

Sure, eating what they can get their hands on.
Post by pearl
the inherent
adaptive nature of human metabolism to consume all food sources
"Flexibility essentially for allowing the consumption
of various types of plant foods, not for carnivory."

Another strawman argument. "Flexibility" means that biologically humans
can and do consume successfully a huge range of plant and animal food
sources. This allowed existing in all parts of the globe. When required,
additional biological adaptations were made.
Post by pearl
in all
places in time and space as in the example you provide.
"You think "*not* for purposes of provisioning, but in
the context of competitive male displays." counts?"

No "provisioning" was going on, they ate what they could get their hands on
seasonally as they roamed about. "Provisioning" was not available to
humans until much much later in history. They followed the seasonal plant
cycles and the trek of animals in order to get the dead ones.

And just exactly what is the specific evidence for "male displays" is?
None, as the authors confess they have no evidence from the period in
question, only conjecture of a "could be" idea.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
and minor
adaptations in digestive biology evolved to accomidate this.
"What are you talking about?"
The 2nd part of your article illustrates genetic change to accomdate foods
available,ie. whatever they can get theirhands on.
"See above."

We have and it still doesn't float.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
I can show other examples in illustration also.
"You can start with "digestive adaptations"..."
Lactase which metabolises lactose in milk stopped early in a child's life
when milk consumption is stopped in areas with little external milk
consumption. In areas where cattle and milk are common an adaptation
occured to continue lactase for life.
"That's a matter of existing genes remaining switched on."

Which is also a perfect example of genetic mutation leading to adaptive
dietary habits.

"There's an inherent flexibility, not carnivorous adaptation.

Just how long will it take for you to get this, I wonder."

I provided the example of the genetic adaptation to produce an enzyme to
metabolize connective tissue in animal flesh. That is not a "flexability"
but a biological change. This most likely preceed plants in primate diet
as the major source when the first primates ate insects and later added
plant consumption adaptations.

On a common sense level, does ham from a sandwich come out intact in your
feces?

"You're confusing the two studies."

No, I'm seeing what is there not what one wants to pour into it.

"Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large
carcasses were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning,
but in the context of competitive male displays. Even if meat
were acquired more reliably than the archaeology indicates,
its consumption cannot account for the significant changes
in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from
ancestral australopiths.
..
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/art00604
Post by pearl
There were varieties of australopiths. One major difference in them is
their teeth and jaw adaptations based on eating differing food sources,
which is part of the standard model explanation for the fossil evidence
for those differences.
"All australopiths had teeth and jaws suited for the
processing of plant foods, but not animal flesh."

Web source if you please. What were they doing with those meat butchering
tools and why did they add, as your own article clearly says, scavenged
meat to their diet if the jaw and teeth did not allow it? The major
differences in teeth and jaw is that one is clearly for using large amounts
of plant material while the other was not so specialized but became more a
generalist, which make it more like later modern humans.
Post by pearl
At the same time tools for meat butchering show
up and bones that confirm being worked by tools. Those tools are in
association with the form most like modern humans. Again, evidence for
pre human evolution with regard to different food sources through time
and place.
"See above."

I have, no cigar.

You have not touched in the least the majority concensus mainstream model
about human evolution and adaptive changes with regard to changing dietary
behaviors.

You try only without success to pick at the marjins of the standard model.
pearl
2008-02-20 14:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
"Abandoning billings then? <collective "Ahhhh">"
Not at all, not continuing the cat and mouse game with you over a tempest
in a teapot sematic choice of words. There was never anything there but
allowing you to go on and on was very revealing to whomever cares.
What's revealed is yours and his abject dishonesty.

<restore>

You're still trying to downplay what he did? This has
nothing to do with "semantics", "word choices", or
"two words", and he certainly can't plead ignorance..

"because of the artificiality of most modern human
diets, it cannot be concluded with confidence that
the small human sample examined to date reflects
any "natural" adaptation for a particular kind of diet.
The results obtained so far are suggestive but by
no means conclusive.

Thus the research of MacLarnon et al. [1986]
suggests, but is not (by itself) conclusive proof,
that the human GI tract is adapted for the
consumption of animal foods." - billings

"It does not mean there is absolutely no adaptation to
faunivory [eating of some animal foods]: the major
adaptation to faunivory in humans was previously
identified as a reduction in size of the caecum and
colon, per Martin et al. [1985] and MacLarnon et al.
[1986]. " - billings

Too funny.

<end>
Post by h***@indero.com
"Hunting is. But do you really imagine the authors
aren't thoroughly familiar with the literature? Look:"
Yep, and your assumption of "big game" hunting is not supported.
It's not my assumption.
Post by h***@indero.com
The early
stone tools were for meat butchering not hunting. Tools for hunting large
animals came later in the record. That is why the standard model assumes
scavenging as the meat source.
"That's nice. But those scientists can be stubborn.."
Smile, you mean those mainstream folk of the standard model who form the
majority concensus on the topic?
Saying "majority", you acknowledge there are exceptions.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
A. "archaeological evidence from the Plio-Pleistocene,
coincident with the emergence of Homo can be read
to reflect low-yield scavenging." B. "carcasses were
taken at highly variable rates and in varying degrees of
completeness" - an unreliable food source. C. "Meat
was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not
at home bases".."*not* for purposes of provisioning."
Who is disagreeing, nomadic scavenging and gathering was the mode of
collection of both meat and plant material; they went where it was most
likely to be.
You're disagreeing. You're still implying that all scavenged.
Post by h***@indero.com
The perfect strawman argument you present because you are
ignorant of the most basic information on the subject. The ignorant have
the luxury of any old conclusion where the informed are bound by the
evidence. Having a basic grasp of a body of knowledge is quite different
then having access to a search enjine for cherry picking information which
even more often then not to contridict that into which you try to force it.
Trying to make yourself feel better? Try honesty for a change.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
"The researchers then compared the genes of ethnic groups that
traditionally eat a high-starch diet - such as Europeans, Japanese and
the African Hadza people - with those whose traditional diet is very low
in starch, such as the African Datog and Asian Yakut. Those from a
high-starch background averaged 6.72 gene copies, significantly higher
than the 5.44 copies carried by those from a low-starch background
(Nature Genetics, DOI:10.1038/ng2123). "We think that selection is
strongly favouring more copies in populations with more starch in the
diet," says Dominy. The study is one of the first to show that natural
selection can lead to an increase in gene copy numbers."
Congratulations, you confirm another part of the standard model. Humans
spread to all parts of the world and ate whatever was there;"
Show me where the standard model is contridicted by the above. They say
elsewhere they have no
"definitive"
Huh?
conclusive
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
evidence, it is a proposed model while the standard
model has physical evidence in support of it.
(Not forgetting an increase in gene copy numbers.)
Post by h***@indero.com
"But it doesn't support what you want it to support."
How so?
The archaeological evidence does not reflect routine
meat-eating, especially by the population as a whole.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
The 2nd part supports the
biological changes made as to place and what is there and eating what one
can get their hands on.
"Then why were plant-foods more important during the interglacials?
Do you still wish to maintain that it was due to scarcity of animals
("the availability of meat")?"
No, consistant with my view, man eats whatever is available and is at hand.
"But animals were always 'available' and 'at hand'."
Sure,
So why were plant foods more important during the
interglacials when animals were around in abundance?
Post by h***@indero.com
which doesn't contridict the observation that people eat what they
can get their hands on,
It does. Your 'mantra' holds no water.
Post by h***@indero.com
which in practical fact will vary as the proportion
of food sources vary.
As the availability of plant foods varied.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
This would vary with changes in climate, illustrating again
"Reliance on animals when plant foods were scarce."
Sure, eating what they can get their hands on.
Eating what they had to to survive.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
the inherent
adaptive nature of human metabolism to consume all food sources
"Flexibility essentially for allowing the consumption
of various types of plant foods, not for carnivory."
Another strawman argument. "Flexibility" means that biologically humans
can and do consume successfully a huge range of plant and animal food
sources. This allowed existing in all parts of the globe. When required,
additional biological adaptations were made.
Endless repetition. Explain the colon cancer, etc.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
in all
places in time and space as in the example you provide.
"You think "*not* for purposes of provisioning, but in
the context of competitive male displays." counts?"
No "provisioning" was going on, they ate what they could get their hands on
seasonally as they roamed about.
The context was competitive male displays, not food.
Post by h***@indero.com
"Provisioning" was not available to
humans until much much later in history. They followed the seasonal plant
cycles and the trek of animals in order to get the dead ones.
So you admit that not all early humans were eating meat.
Post by h***@indero.com
And just exactly what is the specific evidence for "male displays" is?
None, as the authors confess they have no evidence from the period in
question, only conjecture of a "could be" idea.
They base their findings on the archaeological evidence.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
and minor
adaptations in digestive biology evolved to accomidate this.
"What are you talking about?"
The 2nd part of your article illustrates genetic change to accomdate foods
available,ie. whatever they can get theirhands on.
"See above."
We have and it still doesn't float.
Say you, from the murky depths.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
I can show other examples in illustration also.
"You can start with "digestive adaptations"..."
Lactase which metabolises lactose in milk stopped early in a child's life
when milk consumption is stopped in areas with little external milk
consumption. In areas where cattle and milk are common an adaptation
occured to continue lactase for life.
"That's a matter of existing genes remaining switched on."
Which is also a perfect example of genetic mutation leading to adaptive
dietary habits.
About the only one as far as I can see, and unsurprising.
Post by h***@indero.com
"There's an inherent flexibility, not carnivorous adaptation.
Just how long will it take for you to get this, I wonder."
I provided the example of the genetic adaptation to produce an enzyme to
metabolize connective tissue in animal flesh.
...
Post by h***@indero.com
That is not a "flexability"
I was referring to gut dimensions.
Post by h***@indero.com
but a biological change.
Elastase is produced in all vertebrates.
Post by h***@indero.com
This most likely preceed plants in primate diet
as the major source when the first primates ate insects and later added
plant consumption adaptations.
'Fossil Implies Our Early Kin Lived in Trees, Study Says
..
The Carpolestes, which weighed about 4 ounces (100 grams),
had a long tail, and a body about 14 inches (35 centimeters) long,
shared some, but not all of the characteristics of modern primates,
and thus can be viewed as a transitional animal. It had very primate
like teeth that were highly specialized for eating flowers, seeds, and
fruit. The opposable big toe gave it a grasping ability that indicates
it spent most of its time climbing trees.

Carpolestes also had a nail on its big toe, but its eyes were not
forward facing, and it did not have the bone structure that would
allow for specialized leaping, like some of the earliest primates.

Bloch and his co-author Doug Boyer conclude that Carpolestes
spent most of its time clinging to tree branches and eating fruit,
rather than spotting prey or leaping for its dinner. Boyer has been
working with Bloch under a National Science Foundation grant
to study plesiadapiform skeletons from Wyoming and the origin
of primates.

The authors speculate that as the diversity of fruits, flowers,
leaf buds, and nectar increased in the Paleocene, 65 to 55 million
years ago, Carpolestes took to the trees to exploit a new food
source and to avoid competition with early rodents.
...'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1121_021121_PrimateOrigins_2.html
Post by h***@indero.com
On a common sense level, does ham from a sandwich come out intact in your
feces?
'According to Harper's Biochemistry, the putrefaction
bacteria in the large intestine convert amino acids from
undigested protein into toxic amines or ptomaines, such
as cadaverine (from lysine), agmatine (from arginine),
tyramine (from tyroseine), putrescine (from orithine)
and histamine (from histidine). And these amines are
"powerful vasopressor substances". Tryptophan
undergoes a series of reactions to form indole and
methylindole (skatole), which produces the distinctive
putrefying faecal smell of a high protein diet. The
sulphur-containing amino acids (cysteine and methionine)
are transformed into mercaptans such as ethyl and methyl
mercaptan as well as hydrogen sulphide (H2S). All these
compounds are very poisonous and unpleasant.
Phosphatidylcholine, only found in meats, breaks down
into choline and the related toxic amines such as neurine.
This is evidence that meat is not well digested. Herbivores
do not produce putrid excrement, but "dung" instead,
some still contains sufficient nutrients to warrant eating
again, as with rabbits.
..
A high protein food at least doubles the quantity of protein
that is potentially subject to putrefication in the bowels.
Worse still, the reason that plant protein is less digestible is
because it is found in the tough cellulose walls of plant cells
which pass through the gut undigested if not sufficiently
masticated. These proteins are not available as soil for
putrefying bacteria in the bowel. Animal protein wastes are
highly bioavailable to putrefying bowel bacteria since they
have no cellulose cell wall. It seems that only putrefying
bacteria benefit from the "highly digestible" animal proteins.
..'
http://tinyurl.com/3t7qn

<restore>
Post by h***@indero.com
A conclusion based on assuming the declared hypothetical model which is
confessed to have no evidence for the time in question.
<>
Post by h***@indero.com
"You're confusing the two studies."
No, I'm seeing what is there not what one wants to pour into it.
Where is it a "declared hypothetical model" with
"no evidence evidence for the time in question"?
Post by h***@indero.com
"Collectively, Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage
composition are consistent with the hypothesis that large
carcasses were taken *not* for purposes of provisioning,
but in the context of competitive male displays. Even if meat
were acquired more reliably than the archaeology indicates,
its consumption cannot account for the significant changes
in life history now seen to distinguish early humans from
ancestral australopiths.
..http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap/hu/2002/00000043/00000006/ar...
Post by pearl
There were varieties of australopiths. One major difference in them is
their teeth and jaw adaptations based on eating differing food sources,
which is part of the standard model explanation for the fossil evidence
for those differences.
"All australopiths had teeth and jaws suited for the
processing of plant foods, but not animal flesh."
Web source if you please.
'While no shearing crest length studies have been
conducted on early hominids, all australopithecines
have relatively flat, blunt molar teeth and lack the
long shearing crests seen in some extant hominoids
(e.g., Kay, 1985). By itself, this indicates that the
earliest hominids would have had difficulty breaking
down tough, pliant foods, such as soft seed coats
and the veins and stems of leaves -- although they
probably were capable of processing buds, flowers,
and shoots.

Interestingly, as suggested by Lucas and Peters
(in press) another tough pliant food they would have
had difficulty in processing is meat. In other words,
the early hominids were not dentally preadapted to
eat meat - they simply did not have the sharp,
reciprocally-concave shearing blades necessary to
retain and cut such foods. By contrast, given their
flat, blunt teeth, they were admirably equipped to
process hard brittle objects. What about soft fruits?
It really depends on the toughness of those fruits. If
they were tough, then they would also need to be
precisely retained and sliced between the teeth. Again,
early hominids would be very inefficient at it. If they
were not tough, then the hominids could certainly
process soft fruits.
..'
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/pungar/satalk.htm
Post by h***@indero.com
What were they doing with those meat butchering
tools and why did they add, as your own article clearly says, scavenged
meat to their diet if the jaw and teeth did not allow it?
Maybe they were hacking at it with jagged rocks.
Post by h***@indero.com
The major
differences in teeth and jaw is that one is clearly for using large amounts
of plant material while the other was not so specialized but became more a
generalist, which make it more like later modern humans.
How would you manage with a lump of raw flesh?

Why do humans cook meat?
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
At the same time tools for meat butchering show
up and bones that confirm being worked by tools. Those tools are in
association with the form most like modern humans. Again, evidence for
pre human evolution with regard to different food sources through time
and place.
"See above."
I have, no cigar.
You have no cigar.
Post by h***@indero.com
You have not touched in the least the majority concensus mainstream model
about human evolution and adaptive changes with regard to changing dietary
behaviors.
You certainly put a lot of emphasis on what you think
the majority believes. I've given you actual research.
Post by h***@indero.com
You try only without success to pick at the marjins of the standard model.
You just keep telling yourself that.
pearl
2008-02-17 13:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
'Journal Human Evolution
The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal
Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2
(1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, Éco-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE
2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du
Petit Château, 91800 Brunoy, (France)
(2) Dynamique de l'évolution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44,
rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France
Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thriftygenotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/
h***@indero.com
2008-02-18 14:03:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
'Journal Human Evolution
The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal
Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2
(1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, =C9co-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE
2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du
Petit Ch=E2teau, 91800 Brunoy, (France)
(2) Dynamique de l'=E9volution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44,
rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France
Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thriftygenotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/
And exactly what is your point, both are saying substanually the same or
almost so thing. No scholar says humans are specifically adaptated for
meat and meat alone. That is another strawman argument. What the
standard model says is that the previous adaptations for first eating
insects and them more plants was later added to by including adaptations
to accomidate more meat.

For example the human pancreas produces enzymes whos specific function
is to digest connective tissue from animal flesh.

This is again an example of scholars discussing among themselves the
details of the standard model of human evolution and dietary habits as
environments change. Your article is not a rejection of the standard
model, it is an illustration of normal science at work.

In fact your article says exactly what I have been saying, humans live
almost everywhere and eat what they can get their hands on and their
biology accomidates it because it is not narrowly specialized for one
food source.
pearl
2008-02-18 19:55:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
'Journal Human Evolution
The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal
Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2
(1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, =C9co-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE
2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du
Petit Ch=E2teau, 91800 Brunoy, (France)
(2) Dynamique de l'=E9volution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44,
rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France
Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thrifty genotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/
And exactly what is your point, both are saying substanually the same or
almost so thing. No scholar says humans are specifically adaptated for
meat and meat alone. That is another strawman argument.
So stop constructing them.

'Specialized' doesn't mean to become adapted to
a specific function to the exclusion of all others.
Post by h***@indero.com
What the
standard model says is that the previous adaptations for first eating
insects and them more plants was later added to by including adaptations
to accomidate more meat.
But you've just read that there is no such adaptation.
Post by h***@indero.com
For example the human pancreas produces enzymes whos specific function
is to digest connective tissue from animal flesh.
Cite?
Post by h***@indero.com
This is again an example of scholars discussing among themselves the
details of the standard model of human evolution and dietary habits as
environments change. Your article is not a rejection of the standard
model, it is an illustration of normal science at work.
In fact your article says exactly what I have been saying, humans live
almost everywhere and eat what they can get their hands on
Why was H. erectus eating a "basically raw vegetarian diet"?
Post by h***@indero.com
and their
biology accomidates it because it is not narrowly specialized for one
food source.
Explain why meat causes chronic degenerative diseases...
h***@indero.com
2008-02-18 22:39:59 UTC
Permalink
Re: Why am I a vegetarian?

From: pearl <***@esatclear.ie>
Reply to: pearl
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Newsgroups:
alt.fan.jai-maharaj,
alt.religion.hindu,
soc.culture.indian,
soc.culture.bengali,
soc.culture.indian.gujarati
Followup to: newsgroups
References:
<23b87964-6582-4eaa-a124-***@e60g2000hsh.googlegroups.
com>
Post by h***@indero.com
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
'Journal Human Evolution
The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal
Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2
(1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, =C9co-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE
2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du
Petit Ch=E2teau, 91800 Brunoy, (France)
(2) Dynamique de l'=E9volution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44,
rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France
Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001

Abstract

In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thrifty genotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/

nd exactly what is your point, both are saying substanually the same or
lmost so thing. No scholar says humans are specifically adaptated for
eat and meat alone. That is another strawman argument.

stop constructing them."

e come back, to what one might wonder. I have not argued a partially
ated side point and then declared the main poit in my favor as you do
tiniously.

ecialized' doesn't mean to become adapted to
pecific function to the exclusion of all others.

hat the
tandard model says is that the previous adaptations for first eating
nsects and them more plants was later added to by including adaptations
o accomidate more meat.

t you've just read that there is no such adaptation."

I was not in this context saying so either, another sign of a straman
ument. The above does in the strongest terms support my central
tention that humans eat anything they can get their hands on depending
environment which allowed living in all places. Digestive adaptation is
ly flexableenough to accomidate this. Just as your snip above clearly
s.

or example the human pancreas produces enzymes whos specific function
s to digest connective tissue from animal flesh.

te?"

us save both some time. When I make such a declaration I always do so
h full knowledge it can be backed up.

m the wikipedea entries for 'elastin' in connective tissue and
astase' the human produced enzyme to metabolise it:

stin

"Elastase breaks down elastin, an elastic fiber that, together with
collagen, determines the mechanical properties of connective tissue."

elastase

"It is present in all vertebrates above the jawless fish"

Thus humans produce a specific enzyme for digestion of connective tissue
found in animals.
Post by h***@indero.com
This is again an example of scholars discussing among themselves the
details of the standard model of human evolution and dietary habits as
environments change. Your article is not a rejection of the standard
model, it is an illustration of normal science at work.
In fact your article says exactly what I have been saying, humans live
almost everywhere and eat what they can get their hands on
"Why was H. erectus eating a "basically raw vegetarian diet"?"

Was he exclusively? How do we know? Did he have tools for meat butchering
and other indications of meat consumption? Did his range includes areas
where eating meat seasonally would be demanded? Are there other indications
of meatconsumption?
Post by h***@indero.com
and their
biology accomidates it because it is not narrowly specialized for one
food source.
"Explain why meat causes chronic degenerative diseases..."

Explain why consumers of little or no meat in india have the world's
highest rate of chronic diabetes and heart disease and associated metabolic
disorders.

The real scientific answer to both is complex and not revealed in the
cookie cutter black and white assumptions on which your food agenda is
constructed. People who advocate eating a great deal of meat, a sister
food agenda group, make similar sweeping statements.
pearl
2008-02-19 13:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
Milton's paper also demonstrates that the human digestive system is
fundamentally that of a plant-eating primate, except that humans have
developed a more elongated small intestine rather than retaining the
huge colon of apes - a change in the human lineage which indicates a
diet of more concentrated nutrients.
'Journal Human Evolution
The human adaptations to meat eating: a reappraisal
Hladik C. M. 1 and Pasquet P. 2
(1) Laboratoire d'Ecologie, =C9co-Anthropologie, CNRS (FRE
2323) and Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du
Petit Ch=E2teau, 91800 Brunoy, (France)
(2) Dynamique de l'=E9volution humaine CNRS (UPR 2147) 44,
rue de l'Amiral Mouchez, 75014, France
Received: 10 April 2001 Accepted: 28 December 2001
Abstract
In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thrifty genotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/rr78052089583418/
nd exactly what is your point, both are saying substanually the same or
lmost so thing. No scholar says humans are specifically adaptated for
eat and meat alone. That is another strawman argument.
So stop constructing them."
e come back, to what one might wonder. I have not argued a partially
ated side point and then declared the main poit in my favor as you do
tiniously.
Even the formatting is reflective of your distortion.
Post by pearl
'specialized' doesn't mean to become adapted to
a specific function to the exclusion of all others.
hat the
tandard model says is that the previous adaptations for first eating
nsects and them more plants was later added to by including adaptations
o accomidate more meat.
But you've just read that there is no such adaptation."
I was not in this context saying so either, another sign of a straman
ument. The above does in the strongest terms support my central
tention that humans eat anything they can get their hands on depending
environment which allowed living in all places. Digestive adaptation is
ly flexableenough to accomidate this. Just as your snip above clearly
s.
I snipped nothing. See other post.
Post by pearl
or example the human pancreas produces enzymes whos specific function
s to digest connective tissue from animal flesh.
Cite?"
us save both some time. When I make such a declaration I always do so
h full knowledge it can be backed up.
m the wikipedea entries for 'elastin' in connective tissue and
stin
"Elastase breaks down elastin, an elastic fiber that, together with
collagen, determines the mechanical properties of connective tissue."
elastase
"It is present in all vertebrates above the jawless fish"
Thus humans produce a specific enzyme for digestion of connective tissue
found in animals.
ALL vertebrates. So cows, horses, sheep, rabbits,
etc. are all adapted to eating meat (connective tissue)?
Doesn't that strike you as so improbable that there
has to be another explanation - one that makes sense?

'Most of the protein in the intestine is collagen. The
rest is elastine. The elastine is found in the blood
vessels of the intestine. ...
www.fortis-batavia.nl/onderwerpen/faq/index.asp?navid=3&subnav=5

'The digestive system of a wild animal may need to
take some abuse. The cell receptors of any animal
cell, are quite likely to be able to take up similar
chemicals found in other animal tissues - but this
does not mean they are supposed to eat them.
..'
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
This is again an example of scholars discussing among themselves the
details of the standard model of human evolution and dietary habits as
environments change. Your article is not a rejection of the standard
model, it is an illustration of normal science at work.
In fact your article says exactly what I have been saying, humans live
almost everywhere and eat what they can get their hands on
"Why was H. erectus eating a "basically raw vegetarian diet"?"
Was he exclusively? How do we know? Did he have tools for meat butchering
and other indications of meat consumption? Did his range includes areas
where eating meat seasonally would be demanded? Are there other indications
of meatconsumption?
Yes, but the diet consisted overwhelmingly of plant foods.
Post by pearl
Post by h***@indero.com
and their
biology accomidates it because it is not narrowly specialized for one
food source.
"Explain why meat causes chronic degenerative diseases..."
Evasion noted.
Post by pearl
Explain why consumers of little or no meat
Only?
Post by pearl
in india have the world's
highest rate of chronic diabetes and heart disease and associated metabolic
disorders.
The real scientific answer to both is complex and not revealed in the
cookie cutter black and white assumptions on which your food agenda is
constructed. People who advocate eating a great deal of meat, a sister
food agenda group, make similar sweeping statements.
Again:

'.. a genetic susceptibility, mediated through elevated levels
of lipoprotein(a) {Lp(a)}, which magnifies the adverse effects
of lifestyle factors associated with urbanization, affluence, and
changes in diet. .....'
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijc/vol1n2/cadi.xml
h***@indero.com
2008-02-19 15:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by pearl
In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thrifty genotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.
Again, your article above is exactly what I have been saying. It is a
variation of the standard model which says humans can and do eat anything
they can get their hands on as a function of what the environment provides
through time and space. Biology can change accordingly.
Post by pearl
or example the human pancreas produces enzymes whos specific function
s to digest connective tissue from animal flesh.
snip
Post by pearl
m the wikipedea entries for 'elastin' in connective tissue and
stin
"Elastase breaks down elastin, an elastic fiber that, together with
collagen, determines the mechanical properties of connective tissue."
elastase
"It is present in all vertebrates above the jawless fish"
Thus humans produce a specific enzyme for digestion of connective tissue
found in animals.
"ALL vertebrates. So cows, horses, sheep, rabbits,
etc. are all adapted to eating meat (connective tissue)?

Doesn't that strike you as so improbable that there
has to be another explanation - one that makes sense?"

You need to learn to read more carefully. It says all animals have the
conective tissue that the human produced enzyme is speciffically produced
to metabolize. It does not say all animals have the enzyme.

"'Most of the protein in the intestine is collagen. The
rest is elastine. The elastine is found in the blood
vessels of the intestine. ..."

Yes, an example of the protein, but it appears in many other places also,
it is universal in animal flesh.

"'The digestive system of a wild animal may need to
take some abuse. The cell receptors of any animal
cell, are quite likely to be able to take up similar
chemicals found in other animal tissues - but this
does not mean they are supposed to eat them.
..'
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm

I had to smile when seeing the url above, how revealing. The quoate is a
throw away bit of polemical trash, just as the site url claims. "Chemicals"
can only be "taken up" if first metabolized enough. The enzyme in question
does that for humans. Along with many other digestive substances the human
pancreas produces it and delivers it to the gut at the time of eating to
metabolize food. It is not a happenstance accident of some kind that by
accident that connective tissue is metabolized.
Post by pearl
"Why was H. erectus eating a "basically raw vegetarian diet"?"
Was he exclusively? How do we know? Did he have tools for meat butchering
and other indications of meat consumption? Did his range includes areas
where eating meat seasonally would be demanded? Are there other indications
of meatconsumption?
"Yes, but the diet consisted overwhelmingly of plant foods."

Yes, with the addition of meat when easily available and seasonally when
plant foods were not at hand. A perfect example of my point, eat what is
there and they can get their hands on; the standard model of which h.
erectus is an example.
Post by pearl
"Explain why meat causes chronic degenerative diseases..."
"Evasion noted."

How so?
Post by pearl
Explain why consumers of little or no meat
Only?
Post by pearl
in india have the world's
highest rate of chronic diabetes and heart disease and associated metabolic
disorders.
The real scientific answer to both is complex and not revealed in the
cookie cutter black and white assumptions on which your food agenda is
constructed. People who advocate eating a great deal of meat, a sister
food agenda group, make similar sweeping statements.
"Again:"

"'.. a genetic susceptibility, mediated through elevated levels
of lipoprotein(a) {Lp(a)}, which magnifies the adverse effects
of lifestyle factors associated with urbanization, affluence, and
changes in diet. .....'
http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijc/vol1n2/cadi.xml"

And the lifestyle over abundance of meat consumption increasing risk of
genetic disposition applies no less to n. american then it does for india
with other lifestyle risks and genetic dispositions and little or no meat
eaters; as it relates to the rate of chronic disorders.

Bottom line, either high meat eaters or low/no meat eaters can and do evoke
genetic disposition for increased risk for disorders.

When seen in the light of what really occurs and why, the sweeping
generalizations of the plant alone and the eat much meat food agenda sister
groups fall away as meaningless rhetoric.
pearl
2008-02-20 14:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
In this paper we discuss the hypothesis, proposed by
some authors, that man is a habitual meat-eater. Gut
measurements of primate species do not support the
contention that human digestive tract is specialized
for meat-eating, especially when taking into account
allometric factors and their variations between folivores,
frugivores and meat-eaters. The dietary status of the
human species is that of an unspecialised frugivore,
having a flexible diet that includes seeds and meat
(omnivorous diet). Throughout the various time periods,
our human ancestors could have mostly consumed
either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter
(with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement),
depending on the availability and nutrient content of
food resources. Some formerly adaptive traits (e.g.
the "thrifty genotype") could have resulted from
selective pressure during transitory variations of
feeding behaviour linked to environmental constraints
existing in the past.
Again, your article above is exactly what I have been saying. It is a
variation of the standard model which says humans can and do eat anything
they can get their hands on as a function of what the environment provides
through time and space. Biology can change accordingly.
Post by pearl
or example the human pancreas produces enzymes whos specific function
s to digest connective tissue from animal flesh.
snip
Post by pearl
m the wikipedea entries for 'elastin' in connective tissue and
stin
"Elastase breaks down elastin, an elastic fiber that, together with
collagen, determines the mechanical properties of connective tissue."
elastase
"It is present in all vertebrates above the jawless fish"
Thus humans produce a specific enzyme for digestion of connective tissue
found in animals.
"ALL vertebrates. So cows, horses, sheep, rabbits,
etc. are all adapted to eating meat (connective tissue)?
Doesn't that strike you as so improbable that there
has to be another explanation - one that makes sense?"
You need to learn to read more carefully. It says all animals have the
conective tissue that the human produced enzyme is speciffically produced
to metabolize. It does not say all animals have the enzyme.
"elastin

"Elastase breaks down elastin, an elastic fiber that, together with
collagen, determines the mechanical properties of connective tissue."

elastase

"It is present in all vertebrates above the jawless fish" "

*Who* needs to learn to read more carefully?
Post by h***@indero.com
"'Most of the protein in the intestine is collagen. The
rest is elastine. The elastine is found in the blood
vessels of the intestine. ..."
Yes, an example of the protein, but it appears in many other places also,
it is universal in animal flesh.
Well as it's present in blood vessels..
Post by h***@indero.com
"'The digestive system of a wild animal may need to
take some abuse. The cell receptors of any animal
cell, are quite likely to be able to take up similar
chemicals found in other animal tissues - but this
does not mean they are supposed to eat them.
..'http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polem...
I had to smile when seeing the url above, how revealing.
I'm sure that you actually grimaced. Revealing indeed.
Post by h***@indero.com
The quoate is a
throw away bit of polemical trash, just as the site url claims.
Definitely grimacing.
Post by h***@indero.com
"Chemicals"
can only be "taken up" if first metabolized enough. The enzyme in question
does that for humans. Along with many other digestive substances the human
pancreas produces it and delivers it to the gut at the time of eating to
metabolize food. It is not a happenstance accident of some kind that by
accident that connective tissue is metabolized.
So rabbits and horses and sheep, et al. are carnivorous.

You heard it here first, folks, and hari is an expert. lol.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
"Why was H. erectus eating a "basically raw vegetarian diet"?"
Was he exclusively? How do we know? Did he have tools for meat butchering
and other indications of meat consumption? Did his range includes areas
where eating meat seasonally would be demanded? Are there other indications
of meatconsumption?
"Yes, but the diet consisted overwhelmingly of plant foods."
Yes, with the addition of meat when easily available and seasonally when
plant foods were not at hand. A perfect example of my point, eat what is
there and they can get their hands on; the standard model of which h.
erectus is an example.
Do you stop to pick up road-kill? Why not, if
humans are natural opportunistic scavengers?
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
"Explain why meat causes chronic degenerative diseases..."
"Evasion noted."
How so?
You know exactly "how so". Explain why now.
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by pearl
Explain why consumers of little or no meat
Only?
Post by pearl
in india have the world's
highest rate of chronic diabetes and heart disease and associated metabolic
disorders.
The real scientific answer to both is complex and not revealed in the
cookie cutter black and white assumptions on which your food agenda is
constructed. People who advocate eating a great deal of meat, a sister
food agenda group, make similar sweeping statements.
"Again:"
"'.. a genetic susceptibility, mediated through elevated levels
of lipoprotein(a) {Lp(a)}, which magnifies the adverse effects
of lifestyle factors associated with urbanization, affluence, and
changes in diet. .....'http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijc/vol1n2/..."
And the lifestyle over abundance of meat consumption increasing risk of
genetic disposition applies no less to n. american then it does for india
with other lifestyle risks and genetic dispositions and little or no meat
eaters; as it relates to the rate of chronic disorders.
Bottom line, either high meat eaters or low/no meat eaters can and do evoke
genetic disposition for increased risk for disorders.
Fatty foods include dairy and eggs, as well as meat and fish.
Post by h***@indero.com
When seen in the light of what really occurs and why, the sweeping
generalizations of the plant alone and the eat much meat food agenda sister
groups fall away as meaningless rhetoric.
'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population
(white meat - fish, poultry)
..
Strong positive trends were shown for red meat intake among
subjects who consumed low levels (0-<1 time/week) of white
meat and for white meat intake among subjects who consumed
low levels of (0-<1 time/week) of red meat. The associations
remained evident after further categorization of the red meat
(relative to no red meat intake): relative risk (RR) for >0-<1
time/week = 1.38, 95 percent CI 0.86-2.20; RR for 1-4 times/
week = 1.77, 95 percent CI 1.05-2.99; and RR for >4 times/
week = 1.98, 95 percent CI 1.0-3.89 and white meat (relative
to no white meat intake): RR for >0-<1 time/week = 1.55,
95 percent CI 0.97-2.50; RR for 1-4 times/week = 3.37,
95 percent CI 1.60-7.11; and RR for >4 times/week = 2.74,
95 percent CI 0.37-20.19 variables to higher intake levels.
..'
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf
h***@indero.com
2008-02-20 15:31:40 UTC
Permalink
For reasons much detailed previously, you have failed utterly to even
make a minor dent in the standard model of human evolution and dietary
change over time and place.

To enter into discussion with an ideologue is a mistake. It confers
some degree of validity on their claims. The ideology of the food
lifestyle group you represent can not be restated to make the science
fit its goals. Neither can the sister food lifestyle group that
advocates consuming a great deal of meat and avoid high starch content
foods sustain their similar but oppisite ideological goal either. Both
are failures as measured by science.

Your logic was weak, your evidant poor grasp of the research on the
topic a handicapp, neither flaw which could be ovrcome by zealous hand
waving.


manner of claims, those who spend years learning a body of scholarship
are not free to do same as they are restrained by the evidence.
pearl
2008-02-21 13:10:07 UTC
Permalink
'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies. Projection is achieved
through blame, criticism and allegation; once you realise this,
every criticism, allegation etc that the bully makes about their
target is actually an admission or revelation about themselves.'
....'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

'When called to account for the way they have chosen to
behave, the bully instinctively exhibits this recognisable
behavioural response:

a) Denial: the bully denies everything. Variations include
Trivialization
..
b) Retaliation: the bully counterattacks. The bully quickly
and seamlessly follows the denial with an aggressive
counter-attack of counter-criticism or counter-allegation,
often based on distortion or fabrication. Lying, deception,
duplicity, hypocrisy and blame are the hallmarks of this
stage. The purpose is to avoid answering the question and
thus avoid accepting responsibility for their behaviour.
..'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm#Denial
h***@indero.com
2008-02-21 13:31:35 UTC
Permalink
While it is usually a mistake to attempt a sincere discussion with an
ideologue, it is even more so with an amateur ideologue.

The amateur lacks the years of training and experience by which to self
evaluate an idea. They are left with only the self serving assertions
of the contents of the ideology which means circular evaluation and
almost certain failure.

The amateur ideologue is free to have any idea while those with long
experience are restrained by the cumulative consensus information built
up over much experience.

Thus the amateur ideologue can with absolute certainty know they are
right in all their assertions in every instance, while the long
experienced are almost absolutely certain to know what is known, what is
yet to know, and what is unknowable.
pearl
2008-02-22 11:23:56 UTC
Permalink

h***@indero.com
2008-02-22 13:31:49 UTC
Permalink
The amateur ideologue is severely restricted by not having a reference
in objective reality. The ideology becomes the sole filter by which
reality is seen. If reality conflicts with the ideology then reality
must be flawed.

At the same time the amateur ideologue is drawn to bits of information
here and there which seem in their limited ability to analysis reality
to fit their ideology. It is grasped as a drowning man does a bit of
floating wood. But more often then not, that bit falls victum to the
amateur ideologue not having reference in reality because it is very
often misunderstood as to what it relally says when seen in the larger
context of those who have spent years achieving a grasp of the body of
knowledge on a topic.

Science goes the direction evidence points and it is being constantly
measured against objective reality.

Explanatory ideas in science are then formed by how well theydescribe
the fit and can account for other evidence. The amateur ideologue is
severely handicapped by floundering about without this constant testing
against reality.

To the amateur ideologue their ideas are correct because accepting the
ideology demands it be true. This makes it more like a religion or
political viewpoint and not like science in the least.
pearl
2008-02-23 15:45:26 UTC
Permalink
'Flame Warriors - Ideologue

The most common variants of Ideologue are
conservative and liberal. Smug and self satisfied in
their certitudes, Ideologue's opinions are merely a
loose collection of intellectual conceits, and he is
genuinely astonished, bewildered and indignant that
his views are not universally embraced as the Truth.
He regards the opposing point of view as a form of
cognitive dissonance whose only cure is relentless
propagandizing and browbeating. The conservative
iteration of Ideologue parades himself as a logical,
clear thinker, while the liberal version trumpets his
higher level of mental, spiritual and social awareness.
Troglodyte is the natural ally of conservative Ideologue,
and for liberal Ideologue it is Weenie. Ideologue is a
fierce, but very predictable Warrior..

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ideologue.htm
h***@indero.com
2008-02-23 16:54:12 UTC
Permalink
When the amateur ideologue starts his ideas are held to be "natural and
pure" and obvious. When however the excuses for those views are then
taken to absolutely define reality it comes as a shock to find reality
caring less.

In science there is no presumption of "natural and pure" as to ideas,
there are only effective and less effective as to their explanitory
powers when they are compared to objective reality.

The amateur ideologue being left with nothing but assertion is forced to
explain the failure for reality to cooprate. He then turns to the
motivations of the messenger of science. It must be that the ideology
remains "natural and pure" and obvious and the error lies in the
messenger of science. The messenger must not be "natural nd pure".

In fact the amateur ideologue must be seen as victum of the not "natural
and pure" messenger, it is the only possible explanation.

IsraelCACHAOLopez
2008-02-17 20:00:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Meat-eating was essential for human evolution, says UC Berkeley
anthropologist specializing in diet
Still is.
Can you imagine a sushi/sashimi joint without it?
IsraelCACHAOLopez
2008-02-16 17:20:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?"
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
That ought to keep her busy for a few years. :)
pearl
2008-02-16 23:08:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by IsraelCACHAOLopez
Post by h***@indero.com
Post by h***@indero.com
"S was identified as C. = S was suggestive of C.
True or False?"
With out doubt.
"What? Is it true or false? It can't be both."
Correct, without doubt.
That ought to keep her busy for a few years. :)
Laughing at the memory of your buddy's predicament..
h***@indero.com
2008-02-09 15:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@indero.com
<<The human digestive system, tooth and jaw structure, and
bodily functions are completely different from carnivorous animals. >>
Indeed, it is because we are omnivores who do and can eat anything.
This has been the pattern of all of human history, eat whatever one
can
Post by h***@indero.com
get their hands on. Being omnivores allowed humans to occupy all
parts
Post by h***@indero.com
of the world. Those who live at high latitude,ie. eskimo and lapps,
have an almost 100 percent meat diet because that is what is there to
eat the year round.
">

Please check:

http://youtu.be/ZzFC7QP628A

Vegetarianism is the better choice for society as a whole. I agree
many cannot take to that But meat consumption has to decrease
substantially any way"

I can not view video on my computer, but the comments allowed me to
grasp the perspective it presents. It has a nutritional agenda not
supported in science. There are othe4rs with a different agenda who
oppose vegitarism and who use india as a specific example of its falure
nutritionally speaking. Both agendas are not supported in science.

The original point was to refute the claim that humans were not
constructed to eat meat. That is correct for meat alone just as it is
for grass alone, humans fall in the middle position where they can and
thrive on anything they can put in their mouths. This has allowed
humans to exist in all parts of the globe.

I must correct myself, humans can exist alone on meat as the eskimo
example shows but the construction of the digestive system allows for
it.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-09 21:39:08 UTC
Permalink
"It is unfortunate you cannot view this. Vegetarianism is based on 1)
ethics- the main thing with Hindus 2) Ecology- the one single thing an
*individual* can do for ecology 3) health. Vegetarians have a far
better life

If one wants for reason of religion to make a point to eat or not to eat
some foods that is fine. It is more "ethical" only relative to that
context however.

"I am not sure what the agenda is that is not supported

Agreed that humans are omnivores but it is clear that vegetarianism is
the better choice and *those who eat meat should consume a lot less than
do now*. That is why even Hindus advise those who eat meat (sudras) to
not eat on many days and eat only on some days. Many sudras I know eat
only once or twice a week and do not eat recklessly."

It is not clear about anything, it is a question that can find an answer
in science. There are two traditional food culture areas of the world
with the longest life span. Neither is s. asia and both eat animal
products in moderation.

Surveys show 80 percent of indians of all cultural traditions consume
animal products some or all of the time. It has nothing to do with
caste.
Wanderer
2008-02-10 22:53:59 UTC
Permalink
The story is similar for the locals of Hunza
Valley, says Khwaja Khan, a physician in the Hunza town of
Karimabad who has treated many of the valley's eldest residents.
The Hunza, Khan says, were cut off from the outside world for
centuries by the 7,000-meter Himalayan peaks ringing the valley, and
until recently were forced to subsist on a spartan menu of apricots,
walnuts, buckwheat cakes and fresh vegetables. Many cross the
century mark, and a few motor on for another 10 years or longer.
..'
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magazine/printout/0,13675,501030721-464472,00.html
Marco Polo [wrote that] sheep, geese, ducks, pheasants and partridge
provided the early Hunza hunters with meat in addition to their sheep,
goats and domesticated Yaks. Chickens were also raised for meat and eggs
until sometime in the 1950s when they were banned by the Mir.
http://www.biblelife.org/hunza.htm
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2008-02-12 22:31:45 UTC
Permalink
Pearl has provided extremely useful information.

More information:

http://www.pcrm.org

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi, Vedic-Hindu Astrologer - A vegetarian since birth
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
JackBruce
2008-02-12 22:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Pearl has provided extremely useful information.
Liar.
Post by and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi, Vedic-Hindu Astrologer - A vegetarian since birth
Liar!
h***@indero.com
2008-02-12 23:02:33 UTC
Permalink
"Pearl has provided extremely useful information.

More information:

http://www.pcrm.org"

There are meat eating advocates with web sites also. Both camps have in
common defence of a food choice agenda. Both freely pick and choose
material that supports their claims and ignores the range of what is
known about the topic.

But the personal views of both agenda camps is irrelevant. The point
has never been meat eaters vs. veggie alone with modification eaters.
The point is the false claims of biology and human history and food
habits that veggie alone and meat advocates make that are not supported
in science about same.

The science of human evolution and history refutes all the points.
Everyone is free to eat whatever they want for any reason they want and
that is fine. But we don't need to invent false scientific claims about
human evolution and history to justify our choices.

Humans have since their beginning eaten whatever they could get their
hands on.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2008-02-12 22:35:59 UTC
Permalink
(posting through groups here, so apologies for broken lines)
Thank you for this, Pearlji.
However, it is unlikely many humans will give up meat. May be the
focus should be on less meat and avoid certain animals and certain
days. That may go better. What do you think? Will that be more
practical than imposing some ideal that seems to be too much for many?
I don't know what Pearl's experience is but I can tell
you from my own that several hundred corpse-eaters become
vegetarian or vegan every year due to my activism (they write
to me), and those are just one person's efforts.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi, Vedic-Hindu Astrologer - A vegetarian since birth
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Peter Kelsey
2008-02-12 22:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
I don't know what Pearl's experience is but I can tell
you from my own that several hundred corpse-eaters become
vegetarian or vegan every year due to my activism (they write
to me), and those are just one person's efforts.
What they ACTUALLY say, is that you make them too sick to eat.
JackBruce
2008-02-13 19:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kelsey
I don't know what Pearl's experience is but I can tell you from my own
that several hundred corpse-eaters become vegetarian or vegan every
year due to my activism (they write to me), and those are just one
person's efforts.
What they ACTUALLY say, is that you make them too sick to eat.
Will "Dr.Jai" divulge just ONE person that wrote to him?
Wanderer
2008-02-14 08:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by JackBruce
Post by Peter Kelsey
I don't know what Pearl's experience is but I can tell you from my
own that several hundred corpse-eaters become vegetarian or vegan
every year due to my activism (they write to me), and those are just
one person's efforts.
What they ACTUALLY say, is that you make them too sick to eat.
Will "Dr.Jai" divulge just ONE person that wrote to him?
That's easy! "harmony" aka Pradipshit Parekh, who normally mans Jay's
glory hole. Of course, Pradipshit may be counted on to echo faithfully
whatever Jay wants, even to the extent of turning on his former "bestest
Texan" George Bush, and may pretend to be someone who became a
vegetarian. One notes that Jay had at one time stuffed sugar and
ghee(clarified butter) down Pradipshit's throat. And, of course,
butter/ghee is by no means vegan, and a meal of 100% fat and simple
carbs is not in the least healthy. Makes you wonder if Jay does his all
his typing while enjoying his surf-and-turf at the Royal Hawaiian's
dumpster.
h***@indero.com
2008-02-10 22:54:35 UTC
Permalink
To pearl, thank you for your interesting series bits of information
about human biology, history, and nutrition. It agrees in the main with
my own views save for these important areas.

1. humans have been consuming meat for about 2 million years and have
made the changes in biology of digestion and metabolism to do it very
effectively.

2. chimps ourclosest primate relative hunts and consumes meat, including
the infants of other chimp groups on a regular basis even though they
mostly eat fruits.

3. humans have historically eaten meat in proportion to it being
available. In areas with little animal sources they ate little, in
areas where it is abundant and easy to hunt they ate very much more. In
high latitudes where vegetable sources are few they ate mostly all meat.

4. for each bit of information you posted suggesting vegetable as
having some advantage over meat one can easily post several with an
oppisite view. It alldepends on what medical and/or nutritional qustion
one is asking.

5. there are groups claiming vegetable sources are superior and those
claiming the oppisite, sites on the internet ffor both can be provided.

6. the flaw with each is they pick and choose their research to the
exclusion of the broad range of same that exists in the scientific
community. That is not honest science, that is propaganda.

7. The one area with the world's longest lifespan is parts of japan and
its island of okinawa in particular. They eat a great deal of seafood,
some poultry, and pork for special events among other animal sources.

I'm interested in science and to follow the direction research leads
about human biology and history and nutrition. I do not have an agenda
rooted in a non-scientific ground for answering questions in those areas
which makes one free to go where the evidence leads.
Sadly the nutrition agenda people are not so free and this is clearly
seen in the question and answers they allow themselves and the methods
and directions chosen. Too much of it is working backwards to fit
information into the box of the agenda with which they began.
Peter Kelsey
2008-02-09 22:27:58 UTC
Permalink
... there's no main reason why they [brahmins] didn't eat meat because they did
eat meat.
I have one phrase for you: "You are what you eat."
Vegetarians are vegetables? *I've* always thought so...
Peter Kelsey
2008-02-09 22:41:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kelsey
... there's no main reason why they [brahmins] didn't eat meat because they did
eat meat.
I have one phrase for you: "You are what you eat."
Vegetarians are vegetables? *I've* always thought so...
If skunks could think,
One could wonder the same thing about vegetarians...

If one cared.
Peter Kelsey
2008-02-09 22:52:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Kelsey
Post by Peter Kelsey
... there's no main reason why they [brahmins] didn't eat meat because they did
eat meat.
I have one phrase for you: "You are what you eat."
Vegetarians are vegetables? *I've* always thought so...
If skunks could think,
One could wonder the same thing about vegetarians...
If one cared.
Vegetarianism is the "end-game."
Exactly. You want to "end", become a vegetarian.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...