On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
[..]
>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>> you have cited supports your claim.
>
>It *ALL* supports my  claim

No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> [..]
>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
> 
> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.

And of course, with the degree of civilization and 
specialization that has developed as a direct result of 
our meat eating history, you now have the option of 
following a 100% vegetarian diet, if you choose.  But 
that diet is available and feasible for humans *only* 
because of the "invention" of agriculture, some 10,000 
years ago, following several million years of human 
meat consumption - meat consumption that occurred and 
continues to occur at all times and places.

Kind of funny, isn't it?  Our history of meat eating 
makes vegetarianism possible.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:07:53 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>> [..]
>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>
>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>> 
>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>
>And of course, with the degree of civilization and 
>specialization that has developed as a direct result of 
>our meat eating history, you now have the option of 
>following a 100% vegetarian diet, if you choose.  But 
>that diet is available and feasible for humans *only* 
>because of the "invention" of agriculture, some 10,000 
>years ago, following several million years of human 
>meat consumption - meat consumption that occurred and 
>continues to occur at all times and places.
>
>Kind of funny, isn't it?  Our history of meat eating 
>makes vegetarianism possible.

I've been following these threads closely, and I was 
hoping that she could provide evidence to show that we
originated as vegetarians, but you're right; we've always
eaten meat in all places and at all times, just like other 
omnivores. And, like you say, it's only because of that
that we can now choose to follow a vegetarian diet.
Thanks for sticking with these arguments and clearing 
all this up, because, honestly, up until this week I've 
always believed that we were natural vegetarians, not 
omnivores.

"Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> [..]
> >> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >> you have cited supports your claim.
> >
> >It *ALL* supports my  claim
>
> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.

More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.

   "At the period and place, whenever and wherever it
   was, when man first lost his hairy covering, he probably
   inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourable for
   the frugi-ferous diet on which, judging from analogy, he
   subsisted."  Charles Darwin - Quoted way back by Derek.

"Studies of frugivorous communities elsewhere suggest that dietary
divergence is highest when preferred food (succulent fruit) is scarce,
and that niche separation is clear only at such times (Gautier-Hion
& Gautier 1979: Terborgh 1983). - Foraging profiles of sympatric
lowland gorillas and chimpanzees in the Lopé Reserve, Gabon,
p.179, Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334,
159-295, No. 1270

&

'.. Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying that
the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest provides both
chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary spectrum that seems
wide enough to meet their nutritional requirements, without hunting
and killing of vertebrates being necessary. It is in the poorer
nutritional environments, where plant sources may be scarce or of
low quality where carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says
that the meat obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet
basic needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of
course, to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists
have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this matter
that have emerged from both nutritional science and primate research."
..'
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm

&

'Paleoecological reconstruction is possible through the study of
correlates to environment and ecology. Plants and animals which
existed in particular types of environments are carefully extracted
and catalogued as fluctuations in the biosphere over a period of time.
Added to this is the use of oxygen isotopes, which indicate worldwide
temperature fluctuations. More recently, analysis of aeolian (wind)
dust deposition has provided a more detailed record of climate
change and seasonality. All of these forms of evidence point towards
an increasingly cold and dry environment with greater seasonality
during the late Miocene and Pliocene eras. Reduction in forested
areas most likely spelled to end for many Miocene hominoid species.
The hominids successfully adapted to open savanna and woodland
environments, developing a series of different strategies for predator
defense, foraging, and social behavior. One of these behavioral
adaptations was possibly a shift to accomodate quantities of meat
in the diet, to augment plant resources.
..
"Much of the archaeological evidence also points to a shift in dietary
composition, although direct evidence of meat eating is rarely found.
Instead, meat eating has been inferred from many different sources.
One source is through the interpretation of presence and quantity of
different skeletal elements found in living floors (supposed places of
hominid occupation). High densities of bones found in association
with stone tools have led researchers to believe that processing and
consumption of carcasses took place at these sites. However,
interpretation of this information can often be misleading, particularly
if taphonomy has not been adequately investigated. Accumulations of
bones and stone tools, while intriguing as evidence of hominid
meat-eating, could also be the result of unrelated processes. Careful
examination of the surrounding matrix is required to determine
depositional integrity."
..'
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/anthro/bioanth/ch12/chap12.htm

&

'Ethnographic parallels with modern hunter-gatherer communities have
been taken to show that the colder the climate, the greater the reliance
on meat. There are sound biological and economic reasons for this, not
least in the ready availability of large amounts of fat in arctic mammals.
From this, it has been deduced that the humans of the glacial periods
were primarily hunters, while plant foods were more important during
the interglacials. '
http://www.phancocks.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/naturalhistory/devensian.htm

- Posted by 'pearl' for years.  So Derek knows well that frugivores
(including humans) could have included animal flesh in their diet,
but that it's a behavioral adaptation.  Humans are still frugivores.

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 "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/

End of.

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:07:53 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>> [..]
>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>> And of course, with the degree of civilization and 
>> specialization that has developed as a direct result of 
>> our meat eating history, you now have the option of 
>> following a 100% vegetarian diet, if you choose.  But 
>> that diet is available and feasible for humans *only* 
>> because of the "invention" of agriculture, some 10,000 
>> years ago, following several million years of human 
>> meat consumption - meat consumption that occurred and 
>> continues to occur at all times and places.
>>
>> Kind of funny, isn't it?  Our history of meat eating 
>> makes vegetarianism possible.
> 
> I've been following these threads closely, and I was 
> hoping that she could provide evidence to show that we
> originated as vegetarians, but you're right; we've always
> eaten meat in all places and at all times, just like other 
> omnivores. And, like you say, it's only because of that
> that we can now choose to follow a vegetarian diet.
> Thanks for sticking with these arguments and clearing 
> all this up, because, honestly, up until this week I've 
> always believed that we were natural vegetarians, not 
> omnivores.

I do think a case can be made that, since the advent of 
agriculture, we eat too much meat and too much grain. 
These advocates of "paleodiet" and "evolutionary 
medicine" all seem to suggest that we should cut a lot 
of the meat out of our diet; that what remains should 
be much leaner than what most meat-consumers eat today; 
that grains should also be greatly reduced; and that 
intake of fruits, berries and nuts should increase. 
There's also a lot of evidence that early hominids were 
eating a lot of tubers.  I could live quite comfortably 
on some lean beef, chicken, lamb and fish; a little bit 
of rice, bread and maize; a good bit of fruit and nuts; 
and quite a lot of root vegetables such as beets, 
carrots, parsnips and potatoes.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfkit8e8j6o86@corp.supernews.com...

> I do think a case can be made that, since the advent of
> agriculture, we eat too much meat and too much grain.
> These advocates of "paleodiet" and "evolutionary
> medicine" all seem to suggest that we should cut a lot
> of the meat out of our diet; that what remains should
> be much leaner than what most meat-consumers eat today;
> that grains should also be greatly reduced; and that
> intake of fruits, berries and nuts should increase.
> There's also a lot of evidence that early hominids were
> eating a lot of tubers.  I could live quite comfortably
> on some lean beef, chicken, lamb and fish; a little bit
> of rice, bread and maize; a good bit of fruit and nuts;
> and quite a lot of root vegetables such as beets,
> carrots, parsnips and potatoes.

'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

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>"Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> >"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>> [..]
>> >> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>> >> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>> >> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>> >> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>> >> you have cited supports your claim.
>> >
>> >It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>
>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>
>More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.

Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places 
and at all times, just like other omnivores.

"Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >"Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >> >"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> >> [..]
> >> >> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >> >> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >> >> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >> >> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >> >> you have cited supports your claim.
> >> >
> >> >It *ALL* supports my  claim
> >>
> >> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> >> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> >> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> >> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
> >
> >More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>
> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
> and at all times, just like other omnivores.

Such as?

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfkit8e8j6o86@corp.supernews.com...
> 
>> I do think a case can be made that, since the advent of
>> agriculture, we eat too much meat and too much grain.
>> These advocates of "paleodiet" and "evolutionary
>> medicine" all seem to suggest that we should cut a lot
>> of the meat out of our diet; that what remains should
>> be much leaner than what most meat-consumers eat today;
>> that grains should also be greatly reduced; and that
>> intake of fruits, berries and nuts should increase.
>> There's also a lot of evidence that early hominids were
>> eating a lot of tubers.  I could live quite comfortably
>> on some lean beef, chicken, lamb and fish; a little bit
>> of rice, bread and maize; a good bit of fruit and nuts;
>> and quite a lot of root vegetables such as beets,
>> carrots, parsnips and potatoes.
> 
> '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.

You don't know what "relative risk" means.  You're 
blowing smoke out your ass.  Even if you did know, you 
still don't know anything about the absolute risk.


> ..'
> http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/148/8/761.pdf

Another paper you haven't read, and in fact *CANNOT* 
read because you are INCOMPETENT to read it.

pearl wrote:
> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> [..]
>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
> 
> Such as?

All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was 
part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:44:48 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:07:53 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>> Derek wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> [..]
>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>
>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>
>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>
>>> And of course, with the degree of civilization and 
>>> specialization that has developed as a direct result of 
>>> our meat eating history, you now have the option of 
>>> following a 100% vegetarian diet, if you choose.  But 
>>> that diet is available and feasible for humans *only* 
>>> because of the "invention" of agriculture, some 10,000 
>>> years ago, following several million years of human 
>>> meat consumption - meat consumption that occurred and 
>>> continues to occur at all times and places.
>>>
>>> Kind of funny, isn't it?  Our history of meat eating 
>>> makes vegetarianism possible.
>> 
>> I've been following these threads closely, and I was 
>> hoping that she could provide evidence to show that we
>> originated as vegetarians, but you're right; we've always
>> eaten meat in all places and at all times, just like other 
>> omnivores. And, like you say, it's only because of that
>> that we can now choose to follow a vegetarian diet.
>> Thanks for sticking with these arguments and clearing 
>> all this up, because, honestly, up until this week I've 
>> always believed that we were natural vegetarians, not 
>> omnivores.
>
>I do think a case can be made that, since the advent of 
>agriculture, we eat too much meat and too much grain. 
>These advocates of "paleodiet" and "evolutionary 
>medicine" all seem to suggest that we should cut a lot 
>of the meat out of our diet; that what remains should 
>be much leaner than what most meat-consumers eat today; 
>that grains should also be greatly reduced; and that 
>intake of fruits, berries and nuts should increase. 
>There's also a lot of evidence that early hominids were 
>eating a lot of tubers.  I could live quite comfortably 
>on some lean beef, chicken, lamb and fish; a little bit 
>of rice, bread and maize; a good bit of fruit and nuts; 
>and quite a lot of root vegetables such as beets, 
>carrots, parsnips and potatoes.

If I were to revert to our natural diet, I would live
exclusively on blue vein cheese and crackers for
at least a month first.

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:44:48 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:07:53 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>> And of course, with the degree of civilization and 
>>>> specialization that has developed as a direct result of 
>>>> our meat eating history, you now have the option of 
>>>> following a 100% vegetarian diet, if you choose.  But 
>>>> that diet is available and feasible for humans *only* 
>>>> because of the "invention" of agriculture, some 10,000 
>>>> years ago, following several million years of human 
>>>> meat consumption - meat consumption that occurred and 
>>>> continues to occur at all times and places.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of funny, isn't it?  Our history of meat eating 
>>>> makes vegetarianism possible.
>>> I've been following these threads closely, and I was 
>>> hoping that she could provide evidence to show that we
>>> originated as vegetarians, but you're right; we've always
>>> eaten meat in all places and at all times, just like other 
>>> omnivores. And, like you say, it's only because of that
>>> that we can now choose to follow a vegetarian diet.
>>> Thanks for sticking with these arguments and clearing 
>>> all this up, because, honestly, up until this week I've 
>>> always believed that we were natural vegetarians, not 
>>> omnivores.
>> I do think a case can be made that, since the advent of 
>> agriculture, we eat too much meat and too much grain. 
>> These advocates of "paleodiet" and "evolutionary 
>> medicine" all seem to suggest that we should cut a lot 
>> of the meat out of our diet; that what remains should 
>> be much leaner than what most meat-consumers eat today; 
>> that grains should also be greatly reduced; and that 
>> intake of fruits, berries and nuts should increase. 
>> There's also a lot of evidence that early hominids were 
>> eating a lot of tubers.  I could live quite comfortably 
>> on some lean beef, chicken, lamb and fish; a little bit 
>> of rice, bread and maize; a good bit of fruit and nuts; 
>> and quite a lot of root vegetables such as beets, 
>> carrots, parsnips and potatoes.
> 
> If I were to revert to our natural diet, I would live
> exclusively on blue vein cheese and crackers for
> at least a month first.

Heh heh heh...I /love/ blue vein cheese:  Roquefort, 
Gorgonzola, you name it.  What's the famous British 
one?  I've had it, but can't think of the name. 
Stilton, maybe?  They're all great.

Derek wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:44:48 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> Derek wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:07:53 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> Derek wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and 
>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates 
>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>> And of course, with the degree of civilization and 
>>>> specialization that has developed as a direct result of 
>>>> our meat eating history, you now have the option of 
>>>> following a 100% vegetarian diet, if you choose.  But 
>>>> that diet is available and feasible for humans *only* 
>>>> because of the "invention" of agriculture, some 10,000 
>>>> years ago, following several million years of human 
>>>> meat consumption - meat consumption that occurred and 
>>>> continues to occur at all times and places.
>>>>
>>>> Kind of funny, isn't it?  Our history of meat eating 
>>>> makes vegetarianism possible.
>>> I've been following these threads closely, and I was 
>>> hoping that she could provide evidence to show that we
>>> originated as vegetarians, but you're right; we've always
>>> eaten meat in all places and at all times, just like other 
>>> omnivores. And, like you say, it's only because of that
>>> that we can now choose to follow a vegetarian diet.
>>> Thanks for sticking with these arguments and clearing 
>>> all this up, because, honestly, up until this week I've 
>>> always believed that we were natural vegetarians, not 
>>> omnivores.
>> I do think a case can be made that, since the advent of 
>> agriculture, we eat too much meat and too much grain. 
>> These advocates of "paleodiet" and "evolutionary 
>> medicine" all seem to suggest that we should cut a lot 
>> of the meat out of our diet; that what remains should 
>> be much leaner than what most meat-consumers eat today; 
>> that grains should also be greatly reduced; and that 
>> intake of fruits, berries and nuts should increase. 
>> There's also a lot of evidence that early hominids were 
>> eating a lot of tubers.  I could live quite comfortably 
>> on some lean beef, chicken, lamb and fish; a little bit 
>> of rice, bread and maize; a good bit of fruit and nuts; 
>> and quite a lot of root vegetables such as beets, 
>> carrots, parsnips and potatoes.
> 
> If I were to revert to our natural diet, I would live
> exclusively on blue vein cheese and crackers for
> at least a month first.

Wow, there are more kinds of blue cheese than I 
imagined:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_cheese

According to this page, Stilton is a relative newcomer, 
but 18th century is still plenty old.

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:05:55 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>"Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> >"Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> >> >"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> [..]
>> >> >> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>> >> >> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>> >> >> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>> >> >> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>> >> >> you have cited supports your claim.
>> >> >
>> >> >It *ALL* supports my  claim
>> >>
>> >> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>> >> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>> >> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>> >> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>> >
>> >More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>>
>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>
>Such as?

Earlier today you provided evidence showing that we followed
a HIGH QUALITY diet which consisted of meat, and that
this high quality diet is responsible for the expansion of our brain.

    "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in 
     body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence 
     of achievement of a high quality diet. 
    .....
     electron microscope examination of bones collected from 
     early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely 
     scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores. 
     While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors 
     is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene 
    diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."

On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:17:21 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>>
>> If I were to revert to our natural diet, I would live
>> exclusively on blue vein cheese and crackers for
>> at least a month first.
>
>Wow, there are more kinds of blue cheese than I 
>imagined:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_cheese
>
>According to this page, Stilton is a relative newcomer, 
>but 18th century is still plenty old.

Stilton's the only one I can remember, and boy can I
remember it well. Also, I should've included Parmesan
cheese. Spag bol covered in Parmesan cheese - I'd eat
that exclusively for the following month or maybe two.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfloupkcfl4b@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>> [..]
> >>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
> >>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
> >>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> >>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> >>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> >>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
> >>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
> >> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
> >> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
> >> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
> >
> > Such as?
>
> All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was
> part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.

"In all places and at all times, just like 'other' omnivores"?
None of the evidence I've cited 'shows' or suggests that.

"Derek"  wrote in message news:2jmfp3lflqdvt3oifmrg1k4p4sboqahlhu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:17:21 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >Derek wrote:
> >>
> >> If I were to revert to our natural diet, I would live
> >> exclusively on blue vein cheese and crackers for
> >> at least a month first.
> >
> >Wow, there are more kinds of blue cheese than I
> >imagined:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_cheese
> >
> >According to this page, Stilton is a relative newcomer,
> >but 18th century is still plenty old.
>
> Stilton's the only one I can remember, and boy can I
> remember it well. Also, I should've included Parmesan
> cheese. Spag bol covered in Parmesan cheese - I'd eat
> that exclusively for the following month or maybe two.

'*Meta-Analysis: "Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate
cancer.... In conclusion, we found a positive association between
milk consumption and prostate cancer."
Nutr Cancer. 2004;48(T):22-7. [Search Pubmed.org for 15203374.]

* "Among the food items we examined, cheese was most closely
correlated with the incidence of testicular cancer at ages 20-39,
followed by animal fats and milk.... Concerning prostatic cancer,
milk was most closely correlated with its incidence, followed by
meat and coffee.... The food that was most closely correlated
with the mortality rate of prostatic cancer was milk, followed by
coffee, cheese and animal fats." Int J Cancer. 2002
Mar 10;98(2):262-7. [Search Pubmed.org for 11857417.]
..
* "Suggestive positive associations were also seen between fatal
prostate cancer and the consumption of milk, cheese, eggs, and
meat. There was an orderly dose-response between each of the
four animal products and risk." Am J Epidemiol. 1984
Aug: 120(2):244-50. [Search PubMed.org for 6465122.]
..
* "Positive correlations between foods and cancer mortality rates
were particularly strong in the case of meats and milk for breast
cancer, milk for prostate and ovarian cancer, and meats for colon
cancer." Cancer 1986 Dec 1;58(11):2363-71. [Search Pubmed.org
for 3768832.]
....'
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_257/ai_n7638034

Carry on....

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfloupkcfl4b@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>>> Such as?
>> All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was
>> part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.
> 
> "In all places and at all times, just like 'other' omnivores"?
> None of the evidence I've cited 'shows' or suggests that.

Of course it does.  All the "evidence" you've cited 
talks about various hominids eating meat.  The evidence 
for meat eating - stone tools, plus cut marks on bones 
- has been found everywhere, and throughout the fossil 
record.

"Derek"  wrote in message news:5vlfp35oqs0eo6igtep9grhveb25qtaqu9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:05:55 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >"Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >> >"Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >> >> >"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> >> >> [..]
> >> >> >> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >> >> >> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >> >> >> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >> >> >> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >> >> >> you have cited supports your claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >It *ALL* supports my  claim
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> >> >> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> >> >> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> >> >> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
> >> >
> >> >More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
> >>
> >> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
> >> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
> >> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
> >
> >Such as?
>
> Earlier today

Oh, so not "over the last few days" then.

> you provided evidence showing that we followed
> a HIGH QUALITY diet which consisted of meat, and that
> this high quality diet is responsible for the expansion of our brain.
>
>     "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in
>      body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence
>      of achievement of a high quality diet.
>     .....
>      electron microscope examination of bones collected from
>      early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely
>      scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores.
>      While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
>      is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
>     diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."

That's a very clumsy edit, Derek, even for you.  Here's the
complete cite, which further confirms your status as a liar.

Emphasis now added**:

'Dr. Milton claims that the crafty Homo sapiens were better
equipped to solve the dietary problems wrought by changing
environmental conditions. Expansion of brain power in
combination with growth in body size and reduction in the
jaw and teeth, are evidence of achievement of a high quality
diet. Without the high quality diet, the increased body size
simply produces a slow moving, fairly sedentary and unsociable
ape, like present-day orangutans and gorillas. **Dental patterns
among fossils of hominids support evidence of a high quality,
plant-based diet.** The decreased mass of the jaw and teeth
signify that either our ancestors were eating less fibrous,
easier-to-chew foods or they were processing them to remove
material that would be hard to digest.

Some researchers have proposed that modification in dental
structures resulted partly from specialization in hunting and
scavenging. However, electron microscope examination of
bones collected from early hominid sites reveals that our
ancestors most likely scavenged bones that were already
ravaged by carnivores. While the amount of meat consumed
by our distant ancestors is still hotly debated, there is
consensus that the Pleistocene diet consisted overwhelmingly
of vegetable material. While chimpanzees are known to kill,
this behaviour is not necessarily dietary but ritualistic and their
diet is at least 94% plants and fruits.

Wild chimps take in 100 grams of fibre each day, much more
than the 10 grams or less that the average North American ingests
today. Dr. Milton's studies have shown that the chimpanzee gut
is strikingly similar to the human gut in the efficiency with which
it processes fibre. According to Dr. Milton, our digestive tract
does not seem to be greatly modified from that of the common
ancestor of apes and humans, which was undoubtedly a
predominately herbivorous animal.
..'
http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/

+  (in that post)

"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."  ...

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

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:35:41 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>"Derek"  wrote in message news:2jmfp3lflqdvt3oifmrg1k4p4sboqahlhu@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:17:21 -0800, Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>> >Derek wrote:
>> >>
>> >> If I were to revert to our natural diet, I would live
>> >> exclusively on blue vein cheese and crackers for
>> >> at least a month first.
>> >
>> >Wow, there are more kinds of blue cheese than I
>> >imagined:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_cheese
>> >
>> >According to this page, Stilton is a relative newcomer,
>> >but 18th century is still plenty old.
>>
>> Stilton's the only one I can remember, and boy can I
>> remember it well. Also, I should've included Parmesan
>> cheese. Spag bol covered in Parmesan cheese - I'd eat
>> that exclusively for the following month or maybe two.
>
>'*Meta-Analysis: "Milk consumption is a risk factor for prostate
>cancer

The sun can give you cancer as well. Don't forget to fix a 
chin strap to your tinfoil hat this summer.

pearl wrote:
> "Derek"  wrote in message news:5vlfp35oqs0eo6igtep9grhveb25qtaqu9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:05:55 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>>> Such as?
>> Earlier today
> 
> Oh, so not "over the last few days" then.

Yes, over *all* the last several days.


> 
>> you provided evidence showing that we followed
>> a HIGH QUALITY diet which consisted of meat, and that
>> this high quality diet is responsible for the expansion of our brain.
>>
>>     "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in
>>      body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence
>>      of achievement of a high quality diet.
>>     .....
>>      electron microscope examination of bones collected from
>>      early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely
>>      scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores.
>>      While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
>>      is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
>>     diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."
> 
> That's a very clumsy edit, Derek, even for you.  Here's the
> complete cite, which further confirms your status as a liar.
> 
> Emphasis now added**:
> 
> 'Dr. Milton claims 

*HERE* is what "Dr. Milton" claims:

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).

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfnigb85so2ce@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfloupkcfl4b@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
> >>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
> >>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> >>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> >>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> >>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
> >>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
> >>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
> >>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
> >>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
> >>> Such as?
> >> All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was
> >> part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.
> >
> > "In all places and at all times, just like 'other' omnivores"?
> > None of the evidence I've cited 'shows' or suggests that.
>
> Of course it does.  All the "evidence" you've cited
> talks about various hominids eating meat.

So now omnivores eat a basically raw vegetarian diet?

> The evidence
> for meat eating - stone tools, plus cut marks on bones
> - has been found everywhere, and throughout the fossil
> record.

We've seen what's been going on, ball.  Give it up.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfo0e40nmi889@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Derek"  wrote in message news:5vlfp35oqs0eo6igtep9grhveb25qtaqu9@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:05:55 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
> >>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
> >>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> >>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> >>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> >>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
> >>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
> >>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
> >>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
> >>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
> >>> Such as?
> >> Earlier today
> >
> > Oh, so not "over the last few days" then.
>
> Yes, over *all* the last several days.

<yawn>

> >> you provided evidence showing that we followed
> >> a HIGH QUALITY diet which consisted of meat, and that
> >> this high quality diet is responsible for the expansion of our brain.
> >>
> >>     "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in
> >>      body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence
> >>      of achievement of a high quality diet.
> >>     .....
> >>      electron microscope examination of bones collected from
> >>      early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely
> >>      scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores.
> >>      While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
> >>      is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
> >>     diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."
> >
> > That's a very clumsy edit, Derek, even for you.  Here's the
> > complete cite, which further confirms your status as a liar.
> >
> > Emphasis now added**:
> >
> > 'Dr. Milton claims
>
> *HERE* is what "Dr. Milton" claims:

What I was replying to.

> 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).
>
> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html

In that reply..

"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."  ...

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

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:42:40 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>"Derek"  wrote in message news:5vlfp35oqs0eo6igtep9grhveb25qtaqu9@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:05:55 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> >"Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> >> >"Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>> >> >> >"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>> >> >> [..]
>> >> >> >> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>> >> >> >> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>> >> >> >> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>> >> >> >> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>> >> >> >> you have cited supports your claim.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >It *ALL* supports my  claim
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>> >> >> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>> >> >> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>> >> >> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>> >> >
>> >> >More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>> >> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>> >> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>> >
>> >Such as?
>>
>> Earlier today
>
>Oh, so not "over the last few days" then.

Yes, over the last few days, but the example I gave was
something you produced earlier today.

>> you provided evidence showing that we followed
>> a HIGH QUALITY diet which consisted of meat, and that
>> this high quality diet is responsible for the expansion of our brain.
>>
>>     "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in
>>      body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence
>>      of achievement of a high quality diet.
>>     .....
>>      electron microscope examination of bones collected from
>>      early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely
>>      scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores.
>>      While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
>>      is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
>>     diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."
>
>That's a very clumsy edit, Derek, even for you.  

I included the relevant parts to make it more readable.

>Here's the
>complete cite, which further confirms your status as a liar.
>
>Emphasis now added**:
>
>'Dr. Milton claims that the crafty Homo sapiens were better
>equipped to solve the dietary problems wrought by changing
>environmental conditions. Expansion of brain power in
>combination with growth in body size and reduction in the
>jaw and teeth, are evidence of achievement of a high quality
>diet. 

Which, according to the rest of this article, included meat.

>Without the high quality diet, the increased body size
>simply produces a slow moving, fairly sedentary and unsociable
>ape, like present-day orangutans and gorillas. **Dental patterns
>among fossils of hominids support evidence of a high quality,
>plant-based diet.** 

Which, according to the rest of this article, included meat.

>The decreased mass of the jaw and teeth
>signify that either our ancestors were eating less fibrous,
>easier-to-chew foods or they were processing them to remove
>material that would be hard to digest.
>
>Some researchers have proposed that modification in dental
>structures resulted partly from specialization in hunting and
>scavenging. However, electron microscope examination of
>bones collected from early hominid sites reveals that our
>ancestors most likely scavenged bones that were already
>ravaged by carnivores. While the amount of meat consumed
>by our distant ancestors is still hotly debated, 

 ... but not contested,

>there is
>consensus that the Pleistocene diet consisted overwhelmingly
>of vegetable material. 

Which, according to the rest of this article, included meat.

>While chimpanzees are known to kill,
>this behaviour is not necessarily dietary but ritualistic and their
>diet is at least 94% plants and fruits.
>
>Wild chimps take in 100 grams of fibre each day, much more
>than the 10 grams or less that the average North American ingests
>today. Dr. Milton's studies have shown that the chimpanzee gut
>is strikingly similar to the human gut in the efficiency with which
>it processes fibre. According to Dr. Milton, our digestive tract
>does not seem to be greatly modified from that of the common
>ancestor of apes and humans, which was undoubtedly a
>predominately herbivorous animal.
>..'
>http://veg.ca/content/view/285/113/
>
>+  (in that post)
>
>"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."  ...
>
>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,

There you go - we ate meat.

> 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

Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
meat.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfnigb85so2ce@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfloupkcfl4b@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>>>>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>>>>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>>>>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>>>>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>>>>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>>>>> Such as?
>>>> All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was
>>>> part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.
>>> "In all places and at all times, just like 'other' omnivores"?
>>> None of the evidence I've cited 'shows' or suggests that.
>> Of course it does.  All the "evidence" you've cited
>> talks about various hominids eating meat.
> 
> So now omnivores eat a basically raw vegetarian diet?

non sequitur


You really are 'round the bend, aren't you?


>> The evidence
>> for meat eating - stone tools, plus cut marks on bones
>> - has been found everywhere, and throughout the fossil
>> record.
> 
> We've seen what's been going on, Rudy.  Give it up.

No, bitch - YOU give up.  You're crushed.  Your own 
sources establish that meat has been eaten by hominids 
at all times and places.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfo0e40nmi889@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:5vlfp35oqs0eo6igtep9grhveb25qtaqu9@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:05:55 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>>>>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>>>>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>>>>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>>>>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>>>>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>>>>> Such as?
>>>> Earlier today
>>> Oh, so not "over the last few days" then.
>> Yes, over *all* the last several days.
> 
> <yawn>

No.


>>>> you provided evidence showing that we followed
>>>> a HIGH QUALITY diet which consisted of meat, and that
>>>> this high quality diet is responsible for the expansion of our brain.
>>>>
>>>>     "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in
>>>>      body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence
>>>>      of achievement of a high quality diet.
>>>>     .....
>>>>      electron microscope examination of bones collected from
>>>>      early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely
>>>>      scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores.
>>>>      While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
>>>>      is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
>>>>     diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."
>>> That's a very clumsy edit, Derek, even for you.  Here's the
>>> complete cite, which further confirms your status as a liar.
>>>
>>> Emphasis now added**:
>>>
>>> 'Dr. Milton claims
>> *HERE* is what "Dr. Milton" claims:
> 
> What I was replying to.

Your reply is empty.


> 
>> 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).
>>
>> http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html
> 
> In that reply..
> 
> "Plio-Pleistocene 

Shows that hominids at meat.  Thanks you.  You can go now.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfost8gqtr4ca@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfnigb85so2ce@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfloupkcfl4b@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
> >>>>>>>> [..]
> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
> >>>>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
> >>>>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
> >>>>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
> >>>>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
> >>>>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
> >>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
> >>>>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
> >>>>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
> >>>>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
> >>>>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
> >>>>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
> >>>>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
> >>>>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
> >>>>> Such as?
> >>>> All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was
> >>>> part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.
> >>> "In all places and at all times, just like 'other' omnivores"?
> >>> None of the evidence I've cited 'shows' or suggests that.
> >> Of course it does.  All the "evidence" you've cited
> >> talks about various hominids eating meat.
> >
> > So now omnivores eat a basically raw vegetarian diet?
>
> non sequitur

Sequitur.

> You really are 'round the bend, aren't you?

Projection.

> >> The evidence
> >> for meat eating - stone tools, plus cut marks on bones
> >> - has been found everywhere, and throughout the fossil
> >> record.
> >
> > We've seen what's been going on, Rudy.  Give it up.
>
> No, bitch - YOU give up.  You're crushed.  Your own
> sources establish that meat has been eaten by hominids
> at all times and places.

You're deluded.  The evidence establishes it as a fall-back food.
Perfectly consistent with the feeding habits of some frugivores.
That doesn't mean that it's our natural food, though, or a staple.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfoucos38ihf3@corp.supernews.com...

> > "Plio-Pleistocene
>
> Shows that hominids at meat.  Thanks you.  You can go now.

"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."  ...

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

"Derek"  wrote in message news:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...

> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
> meat.

Who's "we"?  What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?

Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>"Derek"  wrote in message news:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>
>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>> meat.
>
>Who's "we"?  

Don't pretend to be more stupid than you actually are, Lesley.
You know exactly what I mean by "we": man and his early
ancestors. You've been talking about them all week. We ate 
meat, according to your sources. There's no getting away from 
that fact.

>What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
>but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?

Early males competed against each other by making a display,
allegedly, but, more importantly, they ate meat according to 
your sources. You snipped all that away, of course, no doubt 
to continue promoting the lie that early man didn't eat meat.

 <restore>
  "Expansion of brain power in combination with growth in
   body size and reduction in the jaw and teeth, are evidence
   of achievement of a high quality diet.
    .....
   electron microscope examination of bones collected from
   early hominid sites reveals that our ancestors most likely
   scavenged bones that were already ravaged by carnivores.
   While the amount of meat consumed by our distant ancestors
   is still hotly debated, there is consensus that the Pleistocene
   diet consisted overwhelmingly of vegetable material."
   ......
  (2) meat was consumed at or near the point of acquisition, not 
  at home bases
  .....
  (3) carcasses were taken at highly variable rates and in varying 
  degrees of completeness ..."
 <end restore>

From your own sources there's no doubt that early man ate
meat. Whether they scavenged it or hunted it is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that they did eat it, so stop lying.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfost8gqtr4ca@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfnigb85so2ce@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfloupkcfl4b@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:fokfp3tob0ipodrjmtfsed9r661e74h5n6@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:44:14 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:a6hfp3t7i9bck0564n68107d8o498r1n25@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 22:10:33 -0000, "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfe8jr91ct185@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>>>>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, because the stuff I snipped does not support your
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim.  The claim you're trying to make is that meat is
>>>>>>>>>>>> not a natural staple of human diet, and that bullshit
>>>>>>>>>>>> about calcium in no way supports your claim.  *NOTHING*
>>>>>>>>>>>> you have cited supports your claim.
>>>>>>>>>>> It *ALL* supports my  claim
>>>>>>>>>> No, it doesn't. In fact the evidence you've presented here and
>>>>>>>>>> in other threads over the last few days clearly indicates
>>>>>>>>>> that we HAVE ALWAYS eaten meat. I've always believed
>>>>>>>>>> that we were natural vegetarians, from ages old, until now.
>>>>>>>>> More games, and lies.  You believe that humans are frugivores.
>>>>>>>> Yes, I certainly did believe it, but the evidence you've provided
>>>>>>>> here over the last few days shows that we ate meat in all places
>>>>>>>> and at all times, just like other omnivores.
>>>>>>> Such as?
>>>>>> All the links you've posted that *AFFIRM* that meat was
>>>>>> part of hominid diet, you stupid fencepost.
>>>>> "In all places and at all times, just like 'other' omnivores"?
>>>>> None of the evidence I've cited 'shows' or suggests that.
>>>> Of course it does.  All the "evidence" you've cited
>>>> talks about various hominids eating meat.
>>> So now omnivores eat a basically raw vegetarian diet?
>> non sequitur
> 
> Sequitur.

No, it's a total non sequitur.  The evidence - YOUR 
evidence - all establishes that hominids ate meat.


> 
>> You really are 'round the bend, aren't you?
> 
> Projection.

Nope - observation.


> 
>>>> The evidence
>>>> for meat eating - stone tools, plus cut marks on bones
>>>> - has been found everywhere, and throughout the fossil
>>>> record.
>>> We've seen what's been going on, Rudy.  Give it up.
>> No, bitch - YOU give up.  You're crushed.  Your own
>> sources establish that meat has been eaten by hominids
>> at all times and places.
> 
> You're deluded.  The evidence establishes it as a fall-back food.

No, it doesn't.  Nothing you've posted from any of your 
tertiary sources or <scoff> Google result sets says 
that or implies it.  That was *REALLY* funny, you 
posting the Google result as if that was material itself.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pfoucos38ihf3@corp.supernews.com...
> 
>>> "Plio-Pleistocene
>> Shows that hominids at meat.  Thanks you.  You can go now.
> 
> "Plio-Pleistocene site location and assemblage composition 

...show that hominids ate meat.  Thank you.

pearl wrote:
> "Derek"  wrote in message news:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
> 
>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>> meat.
> 
> Who's "we"? 

Humans and their predecessor hominid species:  at all 
times and all places.

chico wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
>> "Derek"  wrote in message news:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>>
>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>>> meat.
>> Who's "we"?  What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
> 
> You don't get it, you daft little skank. Hominids have always eaten meat. Your meatless idealism is a sham.
>  
>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
> 
> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.

Haw haw haw!  Excellent!

Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> > chico wrote:
> > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
> > >> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>
> > >>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
> > >>> meat.
> > >> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
> > >> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
>
> > > You don't get it,

It's you that's not getting it, .. or pretending not to.

> > >> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
>
> > > That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
>
> > Haw haw haw! Excellent!

It's a lie.

> > Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.

Ran away after a thrashing.

> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.

No surprise, for someone who believes

---------------------

Part fact, part fiction.

"pearl"  wrote in message news:fncgef$etq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
> > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> > > chico wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
> > > >> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
> >
> > > >>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
> > > >>> meat.
> > > >> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
> > > >> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
> >
> > > > You don't get it,
>
> It's you that's not getting it, .. or pretending not to.
>
> > > >> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
> >
> > > > That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
> >
> > > Haw haw haw! Excellent!
>
> It's a lie.
>
> > > Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
>
> Ran away after a thrashing.
>
> > I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
>
> No surprise, for someone who believes
>
> ---------------------
>
> Part fact, part fiction.

- The 'list', of course.

'A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations
and/or questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness,
your "true" motivations, your "real" character, your sanity
and judgement.
...'
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/psychopath.htm

A desperate ploy by these desperate abnormal individuals.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>> chico wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>>>>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>>>>>> meat.
>>>>> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
>>>>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
>>>> You don't get it,
> 
> It's you that's not getting it,

No, bitch, it's you.  You live in a fantasy world.  For 
some reason, you want to argue in an ethics forum that 
we "ought" to do what is "natural" for us, rather than 
what is right; but you fundamentally are wrong about 
what is natural.  Eating meat is natural for humans - 
homo sapiens ate meat, and quite a lot of it, when the 
species first appeared some 250,000 years ago, and the 
predecessor hominid species had been eating it for at 
least 2.25 MILLION years before that.  Meat eating 
couldn't BE more natural.  But you want to fabricate 
your own pseudo-reality.  Feel free; just don't expect 
sane people to buy into your bullshit.


>>>>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
>>>> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
>>> Haw haw haw! Excellent!
> 
> It's a lie.

It's not a lie, you diseased little Chelsea.


>>> Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
> 
> Ran away after a thrashing.

Yeah, after the thrashing he administered to your slimy 
little ass.


>> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
> 
> No surprise, for someone who believes
> 
> ---------------------
> 
> Part fact,

*ALL* fact.

pearl wrote:
> "pearl"  wrote in message news:fncgef$etq$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>> chico wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>>>>>>> meat.
>>>>>> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
>>>>>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
>>>>> You don't get it,
>> It's you that's not getting it, .. or pretending not to.
>>
>>>>>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
>>>>> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
>>>> Haw haw haw! Excellent!
>> It's a lie.
>>
>>>> Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
>> Ran away after a thrashing.
>>
>>> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
>> No surprise, for someone who believes
>>
>> ---------------------
>>
>> Part fact, part fiction.
> 
> - The 'list', of course.

The list is entirely accurate.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pk1vecguebu66@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>> chico wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
> >>>>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
> >>>>>> meat.
> >>>>> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
> >>>>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
> >>>> You don't get it,
> >
> > It's you that's not getting it,
>
> No, bitch, it's you.  You live in a fantasy world.  For
> some reason, you want to argue in an ethics forum that
> we "ought" to do what is "natural" for us, rather than
> what is right; but you fundamentally are wrong about
> what is natural.  Eating meat is natural for humans -
> homo sapiens ate meat, and quite a lot of it, when the
> species first appeared some 250,000 years ago, and the
> predecessor hominid species had been eating it for at
> least 2.25 MILLION years before that.  Meat eating
> couldn't BE more natural.  But you want to fabricate
> your own pseudo-reality.  Feel free; just don't expect
> sane people to buy into your bullshit.

So your repeated assertion that *all* humans, everywhere, at all
times ate meat as a staple, is crucial to your claim that meat-eating
is natural for humans?  Well, you're premise has been debunked.
Every sane person reading this knows that.  You've snipped and
dodged, and can't refute the evidence, yet persist in your claim..

> >>>>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
> >>>> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
> >>> Haw haw haw! Excellent!
> >
> > It's a lie.
>
> It's not a lie, you diseased little Chelsea.

It's a lie, you disgusting filthy old 'man', and you bought it.

> >>> Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
> >
> > Ran away after a thrashing.
>
> Yeah, after the thrashing he administered to your slimy
> little ass.

Obsessed with ass and shit, aren't you ball.

See for yourself: http://tinyurl.com/2wshgk .

> >> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
> >
> > No surprise, for someone who believes
> >
> > ---------------------
> >
> > Part fact,
>
> *ALL* fact.

You've zero credibility, write with caps, asterisks, jump up
and down, and rant and rage all you like.  It's part fiction.
You've repeatedly been challenged to support every item
with a direct quote, and ran away every time.  Your crazy
little pal made multiple tinyurls to one item to make it look
like every item was covered.  Your list is a fraud, like you.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pk1vecguebu66@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>> chico wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>>>>>>>> meat.
>>>>>>> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
>>>>>>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
>>>>>> You don't get it,
>>> It's you that's not getting it,
>> No, bitch, it's you.  You live in a fantasy world.  For
>> some reason, you want to argue in an ethics forum that
>> we "ought" to do what is "natural" for us, rather than
>> what is right; but you fundamentally are wrong about
>> what is natural.  Eating meat is natural for humans -
>> homo sapiens ate meat, and quite a lot of it, when the
>> species first appeared some 250,000 years ago, and the
>> predecessor hominid species had been eating it for at
>> least 2.25 MILLION years before that.  Meat eating
>> couldn't BE more natural.  But you want to fabricate
>> your own pseudo-reality.  Feel free; just don't expect
>> sane people to buy into your bullshit.
> 
> So your repeated assertion that *all* humans, everywhere, at all
> times ate meat as a staple, is crucial to your claim that meat-eating
> is natural for humans?

I never said "*all*" humans.  I said humans.  The 
established fact - not "merely" an assertion - that 
humans at all times and all places ate meat is 
identical with the claim that meat is a natural food 
for humans.  Note that not only humans, by which we 
mean homo sapiens sapiens, ate meat from a figurative 
Day One, but their predecessor hominid species, back as 
far as australopithecus afarensis, also ate meat:  at 
all times and places.

This is accepted as established fact by all 
anthropologists and other highly qualified scientists - 
meaning, not you - who study these things.  There is no 
one with a Ph.D. in anthropology from an accredited 
university who believes homo erectus did not eat meat. 
  There is no such Ph.D. who believes the homo species 
preceding erectus didn't eat meat.

All the species in the homo genus ate meat.  Meat is a 
natural food for us.  If you want to argue against meat 
eating, you stupid bitch, you need to find some line of 
attack other than claiming that it isn't a natural food 
for us, because that line fails.  Meat *is* a natural 
food for us.


>>>>>>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
>>>>>> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
>>>>> Haw haw haw! Excellent!
>>> It's a lie.
>> It's not a lie, you diseased little Chelsea.
> 
> It's a lie, 

It's not a lie, you HIV-spewing lying stinking Chelsea. 
  Your felonious ex-husband might have been a piece of 
moldy dog shit as a human being, but he told the truth 
about you.


>>>>> Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
>>> Ran away after a thrashing.
>> Yeah, after the thrashing he administered to your slimy
>> little ass.
> 
> Obsessed with

Mr. Chupacabra administered a brutal thrashing to your 
slimy little ass.


> 
>>>> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
>>> No surprise, for someone who believes
>>>
>>> ---------------------
>>>
>>> Part fact,
>> *ALL* fact.
> 
> You've zero credibility,

False.

"Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pmss98aa0il74@corp.supernews.com...
> pearl wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pk1vecguebu66@corp.supernews.com...
> >> pearl wrote:
> >>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >>> On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
> >>>>> chico wrote:
> >>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
> >>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
> >>>>>>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
> >>>>>>>> meat.
> >>>>>>> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
> >>>>>>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
> >>>>>> You don't get it,
> >>> It's you that's not getting it,
> >> No, bitch, it's you.  You live in a fantasy world.  For
> >> some reason, you want to argue in an ethics forum that
> >> we "ought" to do what is "natural" for us, rather than
> >> what is right; but you fundamentally are wrong about
> >> what is natural.  Eating meat is natural for humans -
> >> homo sapiens ate meat, and quite a lot of it, when the
> >> species first appeared some 250,000 years ago, and the
> >> predecessor hominid species had been eating it for at
> >> least 2.25 MILLION years before that.  Meat eating
> >> couldn't BE more natural.  But you want to fabricate
> >> your own pseudo-reality.  Feel free; just don't expect
> >> sane people to buy into your bullshit.
> >
> > So your repeated assertion that *all* humans, everywhere, at all
> > times ate meat as a staple, is crucial to your claim that meat-eating
> > is natural for humans?
>
> I never said "*all*" humans.  I said humans.

That's what's implied in the absence of any qualification.

So, not all humans then.  Is that normal for omnivores?

> The
> established fact - not "merely" an assertion - that
> humans at all times and all places ate meat is
> identical with the claim that meat is a natural food
> for humans.  Note that not only humans, by which we
> mean homo sapiens sapiens, ate meat from a figurative
> Day One, but their predecessor hominid species, back as
> far as australopithecus afarensis, also ate meat:  at
> all times and places.

If they did, then it was minimal - occasional - for lengthy periods.
That's what's meant by "near-vegetarian", ".. the diet consisted
overwhelmingly of plant material" and "basically raw vegetarian".
Not forgetting "low-level scavenging ... *not* for purposes of
provisioning,."  So meat was -not- a staple for much of human
and proto-human history, but a fall-back 'food' in times of need.

> >>>>>>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
> >>>>>> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
> >>>>> Haw haw haw! Excellent!
> >>> It's a lie.
> >> It's not a lie,
> >
> > It's a lie,
>
> It's not a lie,

It is.

> >>>>> Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
> >>> Ran away after a thrashing.
> >> Yeah, after the thrashing he administered to your slimy
> >> little ass.
> >
> > Obsessed with
>
> Mr. Chupacabra

LOL.

> >>>> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
> >>> No surprise, for someone who believes
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------
> >>>
> >>> Part fact,
> >> *ALL* fact.
> >
> > You've zero credibility,
>
> False.

ZERO.

"chico" <chico@chico.chico> wrote in message news:20080125154948.316e0b16.chico@chico.chico...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:37:36 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:

> > > Part fact, part fiction.
> >
> > - The 'list', of course.
>
> The last is completely accurate. Even Sophist Bob stopped defending you.

It's a twisted and inaccurate device.  I suggest you check the archive.

> > 'A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
> > I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations
> > and/or questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness,
> > your "true" motivations, your "real" character, your sanity
> > and judgement.
>
> No need to do that because the list is true. The links show that you support, defend, believe in, etc., the things in that list.
Shall we go through it again point by point?.

Like you taking the word of a "violent skinhead" as gospel truth?

> > A desperate ploy by these desperate abnormal individuals.
>
> Taken any more "chemtrail" pics lately?

Just a few minutes ago - just for you.  And included is a photo
of a concurrent contrail being created through the chemhaze --
same atmospheric conditions, but completely different effect...
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/chemfilth.html .

A relevant topic for this crosspost though, I'll grant you that.

'STRANGE DAYS STRANGE SKIES

YOU ARE NOW BREATHING ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE,
NANO-PARTICULATES OF ALUMINUM AND BARIUM
AND CATIONIC POLYMER FIBERS WITH UNIDENTIFIED
BIOACTIVE MATERIAL: "We the people have not been warned,
advised or consulted but are certainly vulnerable to the outcomes."
chemtrailshallofshame.com "Biologic components have been
reported in airborne samples that include: modified molds,
desiccated red blood cells and exotic strains of bacteria" .
Welcome to the brave new world of toxic barium skies, weather
control, mind control and population control through the use of
chemtrails modulated with electromagnetic frequencies generated
by HAARP. Our health is under attack as evidenced by the
skyrocketing rates of chemtrail induced lung cancer, asthma and
pulmonary/respiratory problems. Our natural environment and
planetary weather systems are under attack resulting in freak
lightening strikes, bizarre weather, 20% less sunlight reaching the
Earth' surface, the alarming, nearly complete collapse in certain
areas of the west coast marine ecosystem and the creation of
some of the largest tornadoes and hurricanes on record. Our skies
are increasingly hazed over with fake barium/ aluminum particulate,
ethylene dibromide chemtrail clouds. Whether in the atmosphere
or in the Ocean this added particulate matter is a hazard to the
health of every living thing on this planet. My health and the health
of my family has already been drastically affected. There is a main-
stream media blackout on this subject so the only way to get the
word out is by word of mouth.          ...................'
http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies

Lots more interesting pics there, suspect.  Take a good long look.

"chico" <chico@chico.chico> wrote in message news:20080125154948.316e0b16.chico@chico.chico...
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:37:36 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:

> > > Part fact, part fiction.
> >
> > - The 'list', of course.
>
> The last is completely accurate. Even Sophist Bob stopped defending you.

It's a twisted and inaccurate device, and nothing you say is credible.

> > 'A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
> > I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations
> > and/or questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness,
> > your "true" motivations, your "real" character, your sanity
> > and judgement.
>
> No need to do that because the list is true. The links show

Duplicates.  Put a direct quote from me with every item.

> that you support, defend, believe in, etc., the things in that list.
> Shall we go through it again point by point?.

Like you taking the words of a "violent skinhead" as gospel truth?

> > A desperate ploy by these desperate abnormal individuals.
>
> Taken any more "chemtrail" pics lately?

A little earlier today - just for you.  Also included, is a photo
of a concurrent contrail being created through the chemhaze --
same atmospheric conditions, but completely different effect...
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/chemfilth.html .

A relevant topic for this crosspost though, I'll grant you that.

'STRANGE DAYS STRANGE SKIES

YOU ARE NOW BREATHING ETHYLENE DIBROMIDE,
NANO-PARTICULATES OF ALUMINUM AND BARIUM
AND CATIONIC POLYMER FIBERS WITH UNIDENTIFIED
BIOACTIVE MATERIAL: "We the people have not been warned,
advised or consulted but are certainly vulnerable to the outcomes."
chemtrailshallofshame.com "Biologic components have been
reported in airborne samples that include: modified molds,
desiccated red blood cells and exotic strains of bacteria" .
Welcome to the brave new world of toxic barium skies, weather
control, mind control and population control through the use of
chemtrails modulated with electromagnetic frequencies generated
by HAARP. Our health is under attack as evidenced by the
skyrocketing rates of chemtrail induced lung cancer, asthma and
pulmonary/respiratory problems. Our natural environment and
planetary weather systems are under attack resulting in freak
lightening strikes, bizarre weather, 20% less sunlight reaching the
Earth' surface, the alarming, nearly complete collapse in certain
areas of the west coast marine ecosystem and the creation of
some of the largest tornadoes and hurricanes on record. Our skies
are increasingly hazed over with fake barium/ aluminum particulate,
ethylene dibromide chemtrail clouds. Whether in the atmosphere
or in the Ocean this added particulate matter is a hazard to the
health of every living thing on this planet. My health and the health
of my family has already been drastically affected. There is a main-
stream media blackout on this subject so the only way to get the
word out is by word of mouth.          ...................'
http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies

Lots more interesting pics there, suspect.  Have a good long look.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pmss98aa0il74@corp.supernews.com...
>> pearl wrote:
>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:13pk1vecguebu66@corp.supernews.com...
>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>> "Rudy Canoza"  wrote in message news:8875ce5a-d459-484f-a6ce-43442d1b60de@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jan 24, 1:43 pm, chico <ch...@chico.chico> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:17:46 -0800 Rudy Canoza  wrote:
>>>>>>> chico wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 12:18:17 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Derek"  wrote in messagenews:50ofp3hkndj9adoj75mkf72e20jukbp5s1@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for that, but I read it all earlier and found that we did eat
>>>>>>>>>> meat.
>>>>>>>>> Who's "we"? What part of "*not* for purposes of provisioning,
>>>>>>>>> but in the context of competitive male displays." don't you get?
>>>>>>>> You don't get it,
>>>>> It's you that's not getting it,
>>>> No, bitch, it's you.  You live in a fantasy world.  For
>>>> some reason, you want to argue in an ethics forum that
>>>> we "ought" to do what is "natural" for us, rather than
>>>> what is right; but you fundamentally are wrong about
>>>> what is natural.  Eating meat is natural for humans -
>>>> homo sapiens ate meat, and quite a lot of it, when the
>>>> species first appeared some 250,000 years ago, and the
>>>> predecessor hominid species had been eating it for at
>>>> least 2.25 MILLION years before that.  Meat eating
>>>> couldn't BE more natural.  But you want to fabricate
>>>> your own pseudo-reality.  Feel free; just don't expect
>>>> sane people to buy into your bullshit.
>>> So your repeated assertion that *all* humans, everywhere, at all
>>> times ate meat as a staple, is crucial to your claim that meat-eating
>>> is natural for humans?
>> I never said "*all*" humans.  I said humans.
> 
> That's what's implied in the absence of any qualification.

No, it isn't.  It's what you stupidly want to read into it.

Restore:
This [universal meat eating among hominids] is accepted 
as established fact by all anthropologists and other 
highly qualified scientists - meaning, not you - who 
study these things.  There is no one with a Ph.D. in 
anthropology from an accredited university who believes 
homo erectus did not eat meat.  There is no such Ph.D. 
who believes the homo species preceding erectus didn't 
eat meat.

All the species in the homo genus ate meat.  Meat is a 
natural food for us.  If you want to argue against meat 
eating, you stupid bitch, you need to find some line of 
attack other than claiming that it isn't a natural food 
for us, because that line fails.  Meat *is* a natural 
food for us.


> So, not all humans then.  Is that normal for omnivores?

Established:  humans are omnivores.  Thanks.


>> The
>> established fact - not "merely" an assertion - that
>> humans at all times and all places ate meat is
>> identical with the claim that meat is a natural food
>> for humans.  Note that not only humans, by which we
>> mean homo sapiens sapiens, ate meat from a figurative
>> Day One, but their predecessor hominid species, back as
>> far as australopithecus afarensis, also ate meat:  at
>> all times and places.
> 
> If they did, then it was minimal

False.  That's the thing for which you have *ZERO* 
support.  You're fabricating that claim out of thin air.


>>>>>>>>> Talking about evolution, there's precious little evidence of that..
>>>>>>>> That's very rich coming from someone who shaved her head to seduce a violent skinhead.
>>>>>>> Haw haw haw! Excellent!
>>>>> It's a lie.
>>>> It's not a lie,
>>> It's a lie,
>> It's not a lie,
> 
> It is.

Not a lie.


>>>>>>> Glad to see you again, Mr. C.; been awhile.
>>>>> Ran away after a thrashing.
>>>> Yeah, after the thrashing he administered to your slimy
>>>> little ass.
>>> Obsessed with
>> Mr. Chupacabra administered a brutal thrashing to your slimy little ass. 
> 
> LOL.

Yes, the rest of us laughed and laughed as he thrashed 
your slimy ass.


>>>>>> I see Leslie's still having a very difficult time with this "reality" thing.
>>>>> No surprise, for someone who believes
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Part fact,
>>>> *ALL* fact.
>>> You've zero credibility,
>> False.
> 
> Z

False.  I have more credibility than you could ever 
dream of having.  You announced to the world "I, 
lesley, have no credibility" when you posted that 
"inner earth beings" and "hollow earth" bullshit.

pearl wrote:
> "chico" <chico@chico.chico> wrote in message news:20080125154948.316e0b16.chico@chico.chico...
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:37:36 -0000 "pearl"  wrote:
> 
>>>> Part fact, part fiction.
>>> - The 'list', of course.
>> The last is completely accurate. Even Sophist Bob stopped defending you.
> 
> It's a twisted and inaccurate device. 

The list is accurate.  Sophist Boob *did* stop 
defending you.


>>> 'A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
>>> I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations
>>> and/or questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness,
>>> your "true" motivations, your "real" character, your sanity
>>> and judgement.
>> No need to do that because the list is true. The links show that you support, defend, believe in, etc., the things in that list.
> Shall we go through it again point by point?.

No need - we already did that, and the accuracy of the 
list is established and not in dispute by rational people.


> Like you taking the word of a "violent skinhead" as gospel truth?

On that one issue, he told the unvarnished truth, you 
sleazy little Chelsea.


>>> A desperate ploy by these desperate abnormal individuals.
>> Taken any more "chemtrail" pics lately?
> 
> Just a few minutes ago - just for you.

YOU didn't take any "chemtrail" pics, you lying whore. 
  You posted some STOLEN pictures on your wretchedly 
sloppy and amateurish web page.

Anyway, those are simple jet contrails:  mostly H2O.