|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
 |
|
pearl wrote:
| Quote: |
This craving has given meat
genuine power--the power to cause males to form hunting parties and
organize entire cultures around hunting. And it has given men the power to
manipulate and control women in these cultures. Stanford argues that the
skills developed and required for successful hunting and especially the
sharing of meat spurred the explosion of human brain size over the past
200,000 years. He then turns his attention to the ways meat is shared within
primate and human societies to argue that this all-important activity has had
profound effects on basic social structures that are still felt today.
So why don't those hunting, flesh-eating chimpanzees have a larger brain?
Why don't true predators like lions and wolves have ultra-massive brains?
|
Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Google
Sponsor
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: Advertisement |
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:59 am Post subject: Re: Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian?? |
|
|
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - lied
and presented no challenge:
| Quote: | On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 16:55:19 +0000 (UTC), Elflord <abuse@aol.com> wrote:
Goo - Fuckwit David Harrison, convicted felon - lied and presented no challenge:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008, Rudy Canoza wrote:
First, your attribution is incorrect, I didn't write the
"you're full of shit" comment. Second, I didn't write anything
you're quoting in this thread.
It was a dishonest, bullshit response to Rudy, who
|
Coming into existence is not a "benefit", Goo. It
cannot be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Prisoner at War
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian?? |
|
|
On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Dave <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
to be honest I don't know where they end up. Probably most of
those that aren't deemed suitable for human consumption end up
in pet feed.
|
Weird why I feel this way...I mean, on the one hand, I can see how,
hey, it's just a collection of atoms in a particular arrangement, no
big deal...but on the other hand, damn, it seems wrong for some
reason.
| Quote: | Well, a farmer can't really afford to house them or feed them when
they no longer pay their rent so to speak and there isn't much demand
for them as pets...
|
Yeah, I know, that's why farmers can be such taciturn characters, I
imagine.
I think that Ghandi was right when he said something to the effect
that a society's morality is determined by how it treats its animals.
| Quote: | I have seen it claimed that a calf left in the care of a high
production cow will become sick through overfeeding.
However They can be kept on opposite sides of a fence
where they can still see each other...
|
Huh? Overfeeding?? You know, I would think that the very young can't
overfeed...notice how babies and toddlers just stop eating? And if
you force them, they protest and start crying? It's my pet theory
that young kids naturally have a good sense of balance, but that for
some reason -- likely environmental -- they learn to overeat.
I would've thought that the same applies to baby animals.
| Quote: | An aesthetic matter. Personally I find the variety and tastiness of
plant
food quite satisfactory. It can be a bit awkward eating out sometimes
but you can always choose to be flexible...
|
Oh, it's easy being flexible, still. But the main thing is to think
of eating itself as a discipline...like working out! To think of
eating itself as a training regimen....
| Quote: | I'm other side of the pond to you so I think most of the companies
would be different. Generally I look for the organic or at least the
free range logo. Checking out local farms and buying direct from
farmers who seem to have a good philosophy of animal rearing is
a good idea if you have the time.
|
Geez, might almost raise 'em myself, for all that bother!  Almost
simpler to go wholly vegan....
| Quote: | I can certainly sympathise with that. The animal still gets a life
even so...
|
I'm not one of these people who think life is inherently sacrosanct --
which might seem odd, considering my awakening sympathies, but such a
"value-neutral" or, even, "nihilistic" view of life actually
reinforces my sense of sympathy for animals...mainly in the abstract
right now, but it's a rather regular thought these days.
| Quote: | To be honest I don't think you'd go that far wrong as long as you make
sure you eat a decent range of plant foods. Nuts and seeds are useful
and healthy source of concentrated nutrition. You would probably end
up having to eat more beans, pulses and tofu than you do now.
Wholegrains and vegetables seem to be recommended staples of
any diet, vegan or otherwise. You need supplements or fortified food
for
B12 because there are no reliable plant sources of it. Animal foods
are
more concentrated in protein but you can only convert so much to
muscle per day in any case. Some suggested links:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/http://www.nutrition.org.uk/home.asp?siteId=43§ionId=299&which=1
These are general nutrition resources not written for vegans but
do have sections on vegetarian diets if I remember correctly.
I tend to prefer sources like these than specifically veg*n ones which
are likely to be biased and preachy.
http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan-Complete-Adopting-Plant-Based/dp...
I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".
|
Many thanks. I'm reading up on this stuff at my leisure, and eating
less and less meat considering the week as a whole. I've noticed that
my lips have started to dry out a bit, shrivel like they've been
blasted by arctic air (though we do have a cold spell currently in
NYC), which I notice every time I cut back the fats on a diet. I've
bought a bottle of fish oil capsules so I'll see if supplementing with
them helps out in that regard.
| Quote: | I feel more or less the same way about birds as I do about mammals.
Most of the evidence seems to suggest they have similar emotional
responses and like mammals they share the same brain structures
with us that neuro-scientists hold responsible for emotional
awareness.
|
So is it simply a matter of how closely we can identify with them --
how anthropomorphicable they are??
| Quote: | That seems fair. I'm less concerned about fish because I'm less
convinced of their sentience although I still think it's a distinct
possibility and the method of death does not sound very humane.
On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
ecological footprint out" over land and sea...
|
Yeah, at some point one simply must draw boundaries, even if only for
"logistical" purposes.
Did you read that scientists recently determined that lobsters don't
feel pain? Even though the react, apparently they don't actually have
the neurological apparatus to feel pain, actually...don't know how
they determined it...but, you know, it seems that the feeling of pain
would be a sign of a certain degree of sentience, no? I wonder what a
Zen Buddhist would say...besides "mu," of course...they seem to think
that pain is a psychological illusion (which it certainly can be, as
when amputees still feel pain in their lost limbs)....
That's what I can't stand -- a story like that pops up in the news,
and then you never hear anything again and you wonder whether you
heard it at all in the first place...like the other story about video
on paper -- yeah, moving images on real paper! Some University of
Arizona lab came up with inks that react somehow such that images on
some kind of paper can move....
| Quote: | I think we would be able to develop that technology one day.
I'm not sure how well it would take off though. People would feel
uneasy(suspicious) about something that unnatural and some
would have ethical objections to it, although I don't really
understand why.
|
Well, it will meet with initial skepticism, sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pearl
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 2:29 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13scmrqqi7ad3da@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you.
|
'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
Patrick Pasquet
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique,
FranceClaude-Marcel Hladik
Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, France
ABSTRACT
Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to
meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the
emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of
primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is
likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid
diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
....
The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was
summarized by Milton (1999),who came to the conclusion that
"the incorporation of animal matter into thediet played an
absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise the arid
and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of
hominids would not have provided enough protein. The link
between a high quality diet (including animal matter) and the
enlargement of the brain (characterizing hominization) has been
highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foleyand Lee,
1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).
In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler
(1995) supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue
hypothesis", related to the evolutionary forces implied in the
increase of hominid brain size. They focus on the shift to a
high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation. A reduced
intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy
cost and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-
expenditure of a larger brain. The main point of Aiello and
Wheeler is based on the relationship between body mass and
Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the Kleiber line characterizing the
relationship between BMR and body size is identical for all
mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue
is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler
proposed that gut reduction compensated for brain increase.
Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed
further arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution.
For these authors, the "quantitative similarity of human gut
morphology to guts of carnivorous mammals" is a strong
argument for a human status of "well evolved meat eater". In
fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut
adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted
a characteristic swing towards carnivorousness.
....
Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would
imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of
the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not
supported by the measurements of human gut size that are
plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the
best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). ..
Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary
adaptation, there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly,
Martin (1983) in his allometric analysis of the evolution of the
mammal brain identified four separate "grades" of relative brain
size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope of the major axis of the
relationship between cranial capacity and body weight.
Fig.2 Allometric relationships between cranial capacity and body
weight in different categories of primates and insectivorous
mammals SOURCE: R. D. Martin, 1983.
Since each of these "grades" includes species with different diets
(folivorous, frugivorous, carnivorous), there is no clear-cut
relationship between brain size and dietary adaptation. It is thus
likely that a compensatory energetic reduction that allows the
functioning of the large brain of Homo (with respect to Kleiber's
law) may affect all body parts, rather than being exclusively
focused on gut tissue.
DISCUSSION: DIET AND HOMINIZATION
Most forest primates have a frugivorous diet, with a supplement
of protein provided either by young vegetable shoots and leaves,
or by animal matter (mostly invertebrates). This is a most flexible
dietary adaptation that allows them to switch between the various
categories of food items available in different habitats throughout
the seasons of the year (Hladik, 1988). The ambiguous term
omnivore is used either to describe such flexibility or to emphasize
a supplement of meat included from time to time in a mainly
frugivorous diet. However, it is noticeable that the largest primate
species, especially anthropoids, consume mainly vegetable matter
to provide their protein requirements. Chimpanzees, that occasionally
eat the meat of small mammals, do not receive all their protein
requirements from this source, which is anyway rarely available to
females and never exploited by the youngest animals (Hladik, 1981).
Considering the unspecialised frugivorous-type human gut anatomy,
the dietary history of the genus Homo is likely to display a wide
range of variation. During various historical periods, depending on
availability and the nutrient content of food resources, our human
ancestors would mostly have consumed either vegetable or animal
matter (Isaac et al., 1981; Gordon,1987; Couplan, 1997). The
present consensual picture of our past feeding behaviour includes
three major phases: (1) After the late Miocene climate shift,
hominid feeding behaviour in changing environments progressively
shifted from a mainly vegetarian diet to a diet including more and
more animal matter, either from hunting and/or from scavenging;
(2) the hunter-gatherer way of life and the resulting diet characterized
the mid-Pleistocene period, but in the late Pleistocene, during the
ice-ages, hominids had to specialize in large game; (3) these
successive phases, as described by Gordon(1987), were followed
by progressive control of animal and vegetable resources through
domestication and cultivation, allowing some human groups to eat
more vegetable matter than during previous periods.
Meat was consumed, but it is unlikely that animal flesh (especially
lean meat) was a staple for long periods. As highlighted by Speth
(1989, 1991), fat and fatty meat provide energy for meat eaters,
and lean meat can rapidly become unhealthy if used as an only
food. During "lean periods", meat must be complemented with
vegetable matter as an energy source, especially to provide the
necessary energy for reproduction.
The high quality foods needed to provide enough energy for
the incipient hominids could have been drawn from alternative
sources rather than the fat meat of large game. Wrangham et al.
(1999) have provided a new and very exciting hypothesis on the
possible process of hominization, made possible by the early
use of fire for cooking. As far back as 1.9 My (Plio-Pleistocene),
the first Homo Erectus tended towards a large body (and brain
size), for both sexes, with a reduction of teeth. This was possible
by (and likely to be selected for) a shift to a high caloric diet that
did not require much mastication. Either a cooked fatty meat or
a cooked wild tuber may have provided this type of diet.
Cooking in embers considerably improves the taste and texture
of both kinds of food and may explain why it could have been
rapidly adopted by hominids able to master the technique of fire
(with brain increase obviously related to technical skills). However,
the best efficiency for obtaining calories would be with cooked
starchy tubers (50% more energy from starch after cooking).
Furthermore, most wild yam species are non-toxic and available
in large quantities throughout African forests and savannas (A.
Hladik and Dounias, 1993). Although clearly identified long-lasting
hearth locations have never been found by archaeologists before
the mid-Pleistocene, the evidence of early utilisation of fire based
on charcoal residue fragments mentioned by Wrangham et al.
would be quite a convincing argument for anyone who has recently
visited an abandoned Pygmy forest settlement, and searched for
tiny pieces of charcoal. After a few months, no obvious trace of a
hearth is visible, although meat and tubers,wrapped in large leaves,
have been cooked in the embers by the Pygmies.
Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in
hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted
adaptation to various diets. Taking into account the allometric
factors in the comparative study of primate gut anatomy, there is
no evidence to support theories such as a change in gut anatomy
that allowed carnivorousness and a simultaneous increase in brain
size. Alternatively, the early cooking of gathered foods - and the
nutritional, behavioural and social consequences of this pattern -
could have been a major milestone in the hominization process.
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pearl
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:23 pm Post subject: Re: Why Vegan Instead of Just Vegetarian?? |
|
|
"Prisoner at War" <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eec5f070-5672-408f-9af2-fd4c1a81933a@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | On Feb 27, 1:21 pm, Dave <prp...@hotmail.com> wrote:
...
http://www.amazon.com/Becoming-Vegan-Complete-Adopting-Plant-Based/dp...
I own a copy of this book and would be happy to recommend it to you.
The authors have also written "Becoming Vegetarian".
Many thanks. I'm reading up on this stuff at my leisure, and eating
less and less meat considering the week as a whole. I've noticed that
my lips have started to dry out a bit, shrivel like they've been
blasted by arctic air (though we do have a cold spell currently in
NYC), which I notice every time I cut back the fats on a diet. I've
bought a bottle of fish oil capsules so I'll see if supplementing with
them helps out in that regard.
|
Try a handful of walnuts / pumpkin & hemp seeds, daily (instead).
...
| Quote: | On the other hand I also have this concept of "spreading my
ecological footprint out" over land and sea...
Yeah, at some point one simply must draw boundaries, even if only for
"logistical" purposes.
|
'The FAO scientists publish a two yearly report (SOFIA) on the
state of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. 2 The report is
generally rather conservative regarding the acknowledging of
problems but does show the main issues. In general it can be
stated that the SOFIA report is a number of years behind time
of the real situation.
52% of fish stocks are fully exploited
20% are moderately exploited
17% are overexploited
7% are depleted
1% is recovering from depletion
The above shows that over 25% of all the world's fish stocks
are either overexploited or depleted. Another 52% is fully
exploited, these are in imminent danger of overexploitation
(maximum sustainable production level) and collapse. Thus a
total of almost 80% of the world's fisheries are fully- to over-
exploited, depleted, or in a state of collapse. Worldwide about
90% of the stocks of large predatory fish stocks are already gone.
...
We are losing species as well as entire ecosystems. As a result
the overall ecological unity of our oceans are under stress and
at risk of collapse.
...'
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_overfishing_a_problem.php
| Quote: | Did you read that scientists recently determined that lobsters don't
feel pain? Even though the react, apparently they don't actually have
the neurological apparatus to feel pain, actually...don't know how
they determined it...but, you know, it seems that the feeling of pain
would be a sign of a certain degree of sentience, no?
|
'Scientists have discovered that lobsters have pain receptors
and neurotransmitters that are very much like our own.
University of Pennsylvania neurobiologist Dr. Tom Abrams
says that lobsters have "a full array of senses," and these
senses include the ability to detect noxious chemicals and
changes in water temperature and feel pain. Scientist John
R. Baker states, "The nervous systems of lobsters and crabs
.. are complex; their sensory organs are highly developed;
their responses to certain stimuli are immediate and vigorous."
Dr. Nedim Buyukmihci, professor of veterinary surgery at
the University of California at Davis, explains, "There is no
question that lobsters have the ability to feel pain and suffer
.. Lobsters have a brain and a nervous system and are
responsive to noxious (painful) stimuli. . [I]t would be
inappropriate to do something to lobsters that you would
not consider doing to conscious dogs, cats, or humans."
..
It's difficult to imagine that lobsters would have survived in
the harsh underwater world without the ability to feel pain.
Pain protects animals from danger-when they feel pain,
they know to stay away from whatever caused the discomfort.
In order for lobsters or any animal to have survived through
the millennia, they must be able to sense pain and avoid it.
Even More Vulnerable to Pain
Besides having sensitive pain receptors, lobsters also lack
the pain-dulling mechanisms that our own nervous systems
use to protect us from severe pain. This means that lobsters
may feel even more agony than we would in similar situations.
Explains Wallace, "[L]obsters are maybe even more vulnerable
to pain, since they lack mammalian nervous systems' built-in
analgesia ."
Invertebrate zoologist Dr. Jaren G. Horsley agrees that lobsters
may feel even more pain than we do, saying, "The lobster does
not have an autonomic nervous system that puts it into a state
of shock when it is harmed. . [T]he lobster is in a great deal
of pain from being cut open. . [It] feels all the pain until its
nervous system is destroyed" during cooking.
...'
http://www.lobsterlib.com/feat/lobstersfeelpain/facing.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
pearl wrote:
| Quote: | "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13scmrqqi7ad3da@corp.supernews.com...
Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you.
'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
|
You didn't read any such paper. The dull, fuckwitted
copypasta doesn't refute what I said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:13 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
information.
Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
developed the tools to do so.
In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
completely as a function of environmental factors.
Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
adapted to make this so.
During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
sloppy scholarship.
A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:19 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
pearl wrote:
| Quote: | "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13so6qvghb5dp0d@corp.supernews.com...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13scmrqqi7ad3da@corp.supernews.com...
Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you.
'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
You didn't read any such paper. The dull, fuckwitted
copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
I have read the paper
|
You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
abstract. The abstract is not the paper. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pearl
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13so6qvghb5dp0d@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13scmrqqi7ad3da@corp.supernews.com...
Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you.
'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
You didn't read any such paper. The dull, fuckwitted
copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
|
I have read the paper - *obviously*, and everything you have
repeatedly stated as fact has been successfully refuted, e.g. ..
meat is NOT a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human
hominids did NOT *regularly* eat meat for 2.25 million years,
humans are NOT "biologically adapted to meat", and meat is
NOT responsible for increased brain size. At most it enabled
survival, for which we should be EXTREMELY GRATEFUL.
BTW, I've noted that you've renewed your google account to
try to hide the #10,000 one star - extremely poor - rating. As
you're so fond of consensus', shouldn't you be crawling away
with your tail between your legs? And what happened to your
'profile'? "Occupation: Agriculture" to much of a giveaway? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:20 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
ferrous@paris.com wrote:
| Quote: | In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
information.
|
lesley doesn't "do" science in any way; nor does she
read science. lesley does pseudo-science, and
inappropriate and misunderstood citations from the
abstracts of scientific papers she has not read, and
*cannot* read.
| Quote: |
Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
developed the tools to do so.
In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
completely as a function of environmental factors.
Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
adapted to make this so.
During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
sloppy scholarship.
A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pearl
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
<ferrous@paris.com> wrote in message news:47cc23b7$0$8471$1c4686b2@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
| Quote: | In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
information.
Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
developed the tools to do so.
In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
completely as a function of environmental factors.
Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
adapted to make this so.
During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
sloppy scholarship.
A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
|
So go in peace.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
pearl wrote:
| Quote: | ferrous@paris.com> wrote in message news:47cc23b7$0$8471$1c4686b2@news.club.cc.cmu.edu...
In normal science there is discussion of specific details which over
time result in a concensus which is liable to modification with new
information.
Whatever the current discussion of the details no scholor of not is
saying humans added meat in increasing amounts to their diet and
developed the tools to do so.
In historical examples there are human groups which use meat almost
completely as a function of environmental factors.
Whatever the specific details of human evolution the human diet in all
parts of the globeflect use of all resources as food as the standard
condition of human dietary habits and the human digestive system is
adapted to make this so.
During a discussion in science the range of views can be broad or
narrow. Picking thos views alone from one extreme edge of that range is
misleading, deceptive as to the normal science of the situation, and
sloppy scholarship.
A proper discussion considers the entire range and presents the strength
of evidence and flaws with each view. This includes the specific view
one has. Any thesis is incomplete without a survey of one's weak areas.
Short version, to cherry pick information is a lie and not science.
So go in peace..
|
So stop lying. Stop pretending to have knowledge you
don't have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pearl
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:39 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13so97obnmkl18@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13so6qvghb5dp0d@corp.supernews.com...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13scmrqqi7ad3da@corp.supernews.com...
Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you.
'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
You didn't read any such paper. The dull, fuckwitted
copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
I have read the paper [evasion]
You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
abstract. The abstract is not the paper.
|
It IS the paper. This part is the abstract:
'ABSTRACT
Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching
to meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the
emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of
primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it
is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in
hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary
shift.'
Then there's "INTRODUCTION", and that's to the PAPER. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:40 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
pearl wrote:
| Quote: | "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13so97obnmkl18@corp.supernews.com...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13so6qvghb5dp0d@corp.supernews.com...
pearl wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" <pipes@thedismalscience.not> wrote in message news:13scmrqqi7ad3da@corp.supernews.com...
Meat is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
large brains. High meat diet does not necessarily mean
large brain, but low meat diet necessarily means not
large brain.
Happy to clear that up for you.
'Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating
and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts
You didn't read any such paper. The dull, fuckwitted
copypasta doesn't refute what I said.
I have read the paper
You didn't read the paper. You dully copypastaed the
abstract. The abstract is not the paper.
It IS the paper.
|
You didn't read the paper. You are not competent to
read it. You have no background in the field.
The sloppy copypasta you did does not refute the
central point: meat is a prominent part of the
chimpanzee diet, and pre-human hominids at meat for
more than 2.25 million years before the appearance of
homo sapiens sapiens. H. sapiens evolved from these
pre-hominid ancestors *AS* a meat-eating species, and
we are adapted to meat eating. This is not disputed by
any legitimate scientist. Only irrational religious
loons like you dispute it, and you cannot dispute it on
legitimate scientific grounds, but rather based on your
misapplication of snippets of scientific papers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rudy Canoza
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 03, 2008 4:43 pm Post subject: Re: Meat is a prominent part of chimpanzee diet; pre-human h |
|
|
pearl wrote:
The sloppiest, most amateur hack page anyone ever did.
Truly awful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
