Do humans require meat?

You have provided no evidence that man must have been eating raw meat (although certainly they may have, you have no basis for your "must have").

Hominids had mastered fire before h. sapiens arose

You have provided no evidence that the efficiency of the immune system has decreased, by any cause, let alone the hilarious claim that culture has decreased its efficiency.

Your vague question about B12 from lakes, rivers and other waters sources has no attribution.

those foolish questions as i do becuase you say you will be defending veganism, which implies that you think you have answers to those silly questions.

ehBeth provided three sources, two of which were not the Daily Mail, as she has pointed out to you. She has also pointed out to you what i've already pointed out to you, that the diet that vegans promote in our age has only been available for a few generations at most, and is only available because of modern industrial-scale agriculture and industrial agronomic food production techniques.

Your appeals to the diet of ancient man, apart from being founded on stunning ignorance, ignore that such a diet would not have been possible for them.

Prior to the domestication of plants about 10,000 ybp, grains, to use an example to which you alluded, would not have been available to them in quantities sufficiently large to have replaced game.

Also, I was referring to cultural intervention, such as processed glucose, and antigenic nutrition, the gastro intestinal tract contains 3/4 of our immune functions.

Why is meat cooked, if the paleolithic humans consume meat, it must have been raw prior to fire, has culture decreased the efficiency of the immune system, specifically in this case?

verbose
adj
using or containing an excess of words, so as to be pedantic or boring; prolix

Earlier, you trotted out the absense of evidence conundrum speciously without valid reference to what i had written

What evidence do you have that ancient humans did not consistently have control of fire? Paleoanthropologists have found ancient campsites and middens with charred remains of game, and charred vegetable matter, which is precisely why they have that humans have controlledd fire for hundreds of thousands of years.

Now you're just tring to dodge the burden of what you've written.

I was referring to cultural intervention...has culture decreased the efficiency of the immune system, specifically in this case?

We still eat both cooked and raw meat.

Leaving aside your unsubstantiated claims about the control of fire, you have no basis upon which to assume that culture has had any effect on our immune system.

Had you not added that tag at the end about defending veganism, i might have treated this as a serious question. But you protest too much--the entire context of your opening post gives these questions of yours the character of rhetorical questions. You provide no evidence for your assumptions.

You indulge ipse dixit again--upon what basis have you made the amusing claim: ". . . the gastro intestinal tract contains 3/4 of our immune functions?

The immune system, of which approximately 75 percent is located in the gastrointestinal tract

Once again, the entire context of your opening post casts your "questions" into the character of rhetorical questions. You provide no evidence to suggest that open water, especially fresh water, could be any significant source of B12.

Of course i didn't "refute" veganism, i'm not attempting to do so. Neither did i assume that veganism is "correct," on any basis, nevermind your "perjoration" (you can't live without the big words, can you? do you think they make you look wise?) about "fuzzy fire applications." In fact, i have consistently pointed out to you that veganism is only possible in a post-industrial society. Don't make up positions for me to defend, it's the fallacy known as a straw man.

Had you not added that tag at the end about defending veganism, i might have treated this as a serious question.

You have absolutely no basis upon which to allege that a vegan diet would have been possible for ancient man, and you are resolutely ignoring the several reasons which i and others have pointed out to you. No industrial scale agriculture (no agriculture at all) to produce vegetable sources of protein; no agronomics industury to render those vegetable sources of protein digestible. The agriculture argument alone is sufficient to trash any claims about "ancient veganism." Without agriculture, it was not possible to replace game with grain, to once again use the example you advanced. It was only after the domestication of plants that humans began to clear land and to eliminate the plant competitors of emmer and einkorn, allowing a dramatic increase in the production of grain as food.

Earlier, you trotted out the absense of evidence conundrum speciously without valid reference to what i had written

What evidence do you have that ancient humans did not consistently have control of fire? Paleoanthropologists have found ancient campsites and middens with charred remains of game, and charred vegetable matter, which is precisely why they have that humans have controlledd fire for hundreds of thousands of years.

Now you're just tring to dodge the burden of what you've written.

I was referring to cultural intervention...has culture decreased the efficiency of the immune system, specifically in this case?

We still eat both cooked and raw meat.

Leaving aside your unsubstantiated claims about the control of fire, you have no basis upon which to assume that culture has had any effect on our immune system.

Had you not added that tag at the end about defending veganism, i might have treated this as a serious question. But you protest too much--the entire context of your opening post gives these questions of yours the character of rhetorical questions. You provide no evidence for your assumptions.

You indulge ipse dixit again--upon what basis have you made the amusing claim: ". . . the gastro intestinal tract contains 3/4 of our immune functions?

The immune system, of which approximately 75 percent is located in the gastrointestinal tract

Once again, the entire context of your opening post casts your "questions" into the character of rhetorical questions. You provide no evidence to suggest that open water, especially fresh water, could be any significant source of B12.

Of course i didn't "refute" veganism, i'm not attempting to do so. Neither did i assume that veganism is "correct," on any basis, nevermind your "perjoration" (you can't live without the big words, can you? do you think they make you look wise?) about "fuzzy fire applications." In fact, i have consistently pointed out to you that veganism is only possible in a post-industrial society. Don't make up positions for me to defend, it's the fallacy known as a straw man.

Had you not added that tag at the end about defending veganism, i might have treated this as a serious question.

You have absolutely no basis upon which to allege that a vegan diet would have been possible for ancient man, and you are resolutely ignoring the several reasons which i and others have pointed out to you. No industrial scale agriculture (no agriculture at all) to produce vegetable sources of protein; no agronomics industury to render those vegetable sources of protein digestible. The agriculture argument alone is sufficient to trash any claims about "ancient veganism." Without agriculture, it was not possible to replace game with grain, to once again use the example you advanced. It was only after the domestication of plants that humans began to clear land and to eliminate the plant competitors of emmer and einkorn, allowing a dramatic increase in the production of grain as food....I'm assuming nothing about variation in regions. The point, which seems to have shot right over your headd, is that agriculture artificially optimizes the production of the desired plants, by clearing land for planting and by reducing or eliminating plant competitors. As i've already pointed out, you are stunningly ignorant, and you don't seem inclined to remedy your ignorance. I suggest to you a detailed investigation of the rise of plant and animal domestication, as well as a stroll through the open meadows in a woods--the latter to give you a sense of the extent to which plant life in profusion consistently struggles to choke out the competition. Without agricultural manipulation, there is no good reason to assume, and every good reason not to assume, that grains could have been gathered in quantities sufficient to replace game in the diet. You haven't acknowledged that qualifier.

Earlier, you trotted out the absense of evidence conundrum speciously without valid reference to what i had written

What evidence do you have that ancient humans did not consistently have control of fire? Paleoanthropologists have found ancient campsites and middens with charred remains of game, and charred vegetable matter, which is precisely why they have plausibly posited that humans have controlledd fire for hundreds of thousands of years.

Now you're just tring to dodge the burden of what you've written.

I was referring to cultural intervention...has culture decreased the efficiency of the immune system, specifically in this case?

We still eat both cooked and raw meat.

Leaving aside your unsubstantiated claims about the control of fire, you have no basis upon which to assume that culture has had any effect on our immune system.

Had you not added that tag at the end about defending veganism, i might have treated this as a serious question. But you protest too much--the entire context of your opening post gives these questions of yours the character of rhetorical questions. You provide no evidence for your assumptions.

You indulge ipse dixit again--upon what basis have you made the amusing claim: ". . . the gastro intestinal tract contains 3/4 of our immune functions?

The immune system, of which approximately 75 percent is located in the gastrointestinal tract

Once again, the entire context of your opening post casts your "questions" into the character of rhetorical questions. You provide no evidence to suggest that open water, especially fresh water, could be any significant source of B12.

Of course i didn't "refute" veganism, i'm not attempting to do so. Neither did i assume that veganism is "correct," on any basis, nevermind your "perjoration" (you can't live without the big words, can you? do you think they make you look wise?) about "fuzzy fire applications." In fact, i have consistently pointed out to you that veganism is only possible in a post-industrial society. Don't make up positions for me to defend, it's the fallacy known as a straw man.

Had you not added that tag at the end about defending veganism, i might have treated this as a serious question.

You have absolutely no basis upon which to allege that a vegan diet would have been possible for ancient man, and you are resolutely ignoring the several reasons which i and others have pointed out to you. No industrial scale agriculture (no agriculture at all) to produce vegetable sources of protein; no agronomics industury to render those vegetable sources of protein digestible. The agriculture argument alone is sufficient to trash any claims about "ancient veganism." Without agriculture, it was not possible to replace game with grain, to once again use the example you advanced. It was only after the domestication of plants that humans began to clear land and to eliminate the plant competitors of emmer and einkorn, allowing a dramatic increase in the production of grain as food....I'm assuming nothing about variation in regions. The point, which seems to have shot right over your headd, is that agriculture artificially optimizes the production of the desired plants, by clearing land for planting and by reducing or eliminating plant competitors. As i've already pointed out, you are stunningly ignorant, and you don't seem inclined to remedy your ignorance. I suggest to you a detailed investigation of the rise of plant and animal domestication, as well as a stroll through the open meadows in a woods--the latter to give you a sense of the extent to which plant life in profusion consistently struggles to choke out the competition. Without agricultural manipulation, there is no good reason to assume, and every good reason not to assume, that grains could have been gathered in quantities sufficient to replace game in the diet. You haven't acknowledged that qualifier.

My son is autistic, I have to point things like that out as well. He knows what he's talking about, but often there's no context.

If members of this elusive taxon were like current chimpanzees and bonobos, plant foods such as fruits, leaves, gums, and stalks probably comprised at least 95% of their dietary intake with insects, eggs, and small animals making up the remainder(Milton, 1993; Tutin & Fernandez, 1993)

Dietary fiber would have exceeded current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day (Milton, 1993)

Paleolithic humans commonly obtained 65% of their food energy from fruits and vegetables

Paleolithic humans commonly obtained 65% of their food energy from fruits and vegetables

Have you attempted to distinguish the face of other hominids?