15
   

Do humans require meat?

 
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 04:04 pm
@MontereyJack,
certain of the ACrctic species that Innuits chow on contain huge vats of Vitamin A and the Innuits have learnt through millenia of dietary preferences to stay away from Arctic liver meat from carnivores like polar bears or wolverine (Yum). Apparently, the doseage of Vitamin A can be so high as to be fatal.
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 27 Feb, 2012 11:35 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
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").


Very well.

You have one valid refutation, yes I did pressupose this, and I continue to believe this, is there any evidence to suggest that archiac homo sapien sapiens, or prior hominens had consistent control of fire?

You stated:
Quote:
Hominids had mastered fire before h. sapiens arose


I have viewed the evidence, however there is nothing to suggest consistency, middle paleolith era, following the sub speciation does have evidence.

Quote:
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.


This topic is a discussion, my questions were open to refutation, the previous assertion, "must have" was in fact an error, though I was attempting to defend vaganism, I question all beliefs.

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.

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


My language aquisition has been subjected to 'pejoration', therefore I have PERMANENTLY modified this, and it appears to have been successful, you appear to have acknowledged my communication, yet this is also of repercussion, such as this refutation.

Simply, cyano vitamer of methyl b12 is utilised for the biosynthesis of methyl b12.

Cyanobacteria are common in water, again my questions are open to refutation, which is why I did NOT assert any possibilities of these algaea being active sources of Cyanocobalamin.

Quote:
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.


You did not refute veganism, you assumed vaganism is correct on the basis of fire fuzzy fire applications 500-400 thousand years ago, has it been consistent?

The sources suggest the research, furthermore the research may have been subjected to systematic errors, whilst social scientific assumptions, which is in fact what ehBeth linked.

Quote:
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.


I am open to the possibility that it may or may not be the case, however it appears self refuting, by the evolutionary concept, to genotoxify food sources, this is not of adaptive radiation, it may be of genetic inconsistencies (i.e disease frequency increases).

Quote:
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.


You are assuming consistency of all regions, are you CERTAIN vegatation did not vary?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 04:11 am
@Anomie,
Earlier, you trotted out the absense of evidence conundrum speciously without valid reference to what i had written--so let me use it appropriately. 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.

Here you wrote:
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.


However . . .

In your opening post, you wrote:
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?


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?

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.

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.

I was amazed so see you write an entire post without the irrelevant use of "normative"--which i was sure was a trade mark of your writing.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 04:40 am
@Anomie,
From the online dictionary.

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


You may think you're being very clever, but you're being very dull. Stop maturbating your ego, and have a bash at communicating. Then I might be bothered to read one of your posts.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 04:58 am
@farmerman,
On an entirely unrelated note, my university biology professor alleged that Modeste Mussorgsky was just as crazy as a pet racoon because he obsessively ate fish to the point that he was suffering from vitamin A toxosis.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 05:11 am
@izzythepush,
one of the problems with high end autism is that many dont realize that they engage in repetitive and selective use of specific words ( especially engaging in "fine "vocabularies). I dont think anomie even is aware that he drives us nuts. I have a cousin who is high function autism (aspergers I think) he sounds like hes always trying to "one up" in a word game but he doesnt realize that hes doing it. Its just his way of communicating.

My cousin is able to compare entire whole chromosomal units in his head
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 05:19 am
@farmerman,
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.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 05:21 am
@Setanta,
I dont think I could gag down a plate of polar bear liver and onions .
I always thought that his essential eccentricity and batshit tendencies were from his advancing incoholism.When he was a student of Balakierev, the bunch of them would get hammered nightly and beat up serfs until, of course , the serfs caught up with them after the uprisings.

Moussorgsky would be a damn interesting addition to my thread of "Crazy artists"
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 05:35 am
Well, everyone has their pet theories. I'm not going to attempt to defend that one, i have no source of Modeste's fish-eating habits.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 01:48 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Earlier, you trotted out the absense of evidence conundrum speciously without valid reference to what i had written


You do not apear to acknowledge the functionality of beliefs, such as Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence.

You stated that I am subjected to the "burden of proof", however this is a misconception, scientific methodology acknowledges this, and to CLARIFY, scientific methodology is cognitively synonymous to the burden of evidence.

Hence, it satisfies conditional proofs (formal) of probability, the absence of evidence IS the evience of absence.

You are conforming to legislative normatives, I already defined normatives, simply being an ANTIPOSITIVE construct.

Quote:
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.


These practices deviate from NATURAL scientific methodology, how many samples are there, are you CERTAIN that these are not generalisation fallacies?

This arguement may be relative to theological systems, am I an A-ControledFireBeliever?

How is this an intrinsic property?

Non are, however under biologocal scientific assumptions, the gentic code is valid, NOT culture, just as it is NOT having the anatomy to fly, it a cultural construct, why do you not distinguish these concepts, this deviates from the truth relaibility of genetics.

Simply, antecedent =/= consequent.

You continue to argue normatives, OR you may refute this assertion by operationalising "plausibly posited", natural scientific methodology defines terms, or specifically, to empiricalism suggestion, meaning while it may be possible that Paleoanthropologists have satisfied such conditions, it is INDEPENDENT of your normative assertions.

Secondary solution: state the required conditions and elaborate your interpretation of "control", furthermore verify these conditions.

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


Abductions, again.

However, what are you suggesting, how does this satisfy "dodge the burden of what you've written"?

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


Quote:
We still eat both cooked and raw meat.


Therefore, fire is NOT necessary?

Is culture necessary?

Quote:
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.


Are you suggestion that cultural nutrition has no entailment/correlation to degenerative diseases?

Quote:
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 are appeaing to ridicule.

I did aniticipate this, being why I attempted to defend veganism.

I do not interpret such fallacies to be valid, though the questions were open to all nutritional intrpretation, being why I negated a fallacy of many questions.

It is a discussion, not indoctrination.

Quote:
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?


Being that you appear to value sources:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MgeMZ19K1bEC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=gastrointestinal+75+percent+of+the+immune+system&source=bl&ots=gb2-kTWRxU&sig=jdowAHKLPS5SSUmmdOtfFbgSKNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6eNMT6DEDemf0QWsqYGeBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gastrointestinal%2075%20percent%20of%20the%20immune%20system&f=false

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


Why would you deny this, do you not acknowledge the SURFACE AREA of the gastro-instinal tract, furthermore the PATHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of this?

Quote:
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.


This is a hydrophilic molecule, such vitamins do NOT diffuse by the phospholipid bilayer, the molecule are partially permeable to the non polar viatamins.

This is the derrivation of my suggestion, what was the hunting frequency of game?

Is the frequency of hydration higher than that of hunting?

I am assuming that cobalamin must be biosynthesised frequently, furthermore vegatation may provide the other water soluble micronutrients.

Quote:
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.


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


Do you not believe that veganism is not satisfied by the genetic code?

Quote:
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.

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


You do not apear to acknowledge the functionality of beliefs, such as Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence.

You stated that I am subjected to the "burden of proof", however this is a misconception, scientific methodology acknowledges this, and to CLARIFY, scientific methodology is cognitively synonymous to the burden of evidence.

Hence, it satisfies conditional proofs (formal) of probability, the absence of evidence IS the evience of absence.

You are conforming to legislative normatives, I already defined normatives, simply being an ANTIPOSITIVE construct.

Quote:
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.


These practices deviate from NATURAL scientific methodology, how many samples are there, are you CERTAIN that these are not generalisation fallacies?

This arguement may be relative to theological systems, am I an A-ControledFireBeliever?

How is this an intrinsic property?

Non are, however under biologocal scientific assumptions, the gentic code is valid, NOT culture, just as it is NOT having the anatomy to fly, it a cultural construct, why do you not distinguish these concepts, this deviates from the truth relaibility of genetics.

Simply, antecedent =/= consequent.

You continue to argue normatives, OR you may refute this assertion by operationalising "plausibly posited", natural scientific methodology defines terms, or specifically, to empiricalism suggestion, meaning while it may be possible that Paleoanthropologists have satisfied such conditions, it is INDEPENDENT of your normative assertions.

Secondary solution: state the required conditions and elaborate your interpretation of "control", furthermore verify these conditions.

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


Abductions, again.

However, what are you suggesting, how does this satisfy "dodge the burden of what you've written"?

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


Quote:
We still eat both cooked and raw meat.


Therefore, fire is NOT necessary?

Is culture necessary?

Quote:
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.


Are you suggestion that cultural nutrition has no entailment/correlation to diseases?

Processed lipids, proteins and carbohydrates, all correlate to a significant increase to a diverse spectrum of diseases.

Significant sodium increase, significant decrease in electrolytes, therefore high blood pressure, again diseases.

Irregular essential fatty acid ratio, grains and instant glucose, increased mammal protein, again diseases.

As an example, increased insulin resistence,, or the decrease micronutritional density, being examples of decreased immune efficiency, and perhaps, culturally NOT consuming raw animal protein.
Quote:
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 are appeaing to ridicule.

I did aniticipate this, being why I attempted to defend veganism.

I do not interpret such fallacies to be valid, though the questions were open to all nutritional intrpretation, being why I negated a fallacy of many questions.

It is a discussion, not indoctrination.

Quote:
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?


Being that you appear to value sources:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MgeMZ19K1bEC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=gastrointestinal+75+percent+of+the+immune+system&source=bl&ots=gb2-kTWRxU&sig=jdowAHKLPS5SSUmmdOtfFbgSKNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6eNMT6DEDemf0QWsqYGeBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gastrointestinal%2075%20percent%20of%20the%20immune%20system&f=false

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


Why would you deny this, do you not acknowledge the SURFACE AREA of the gastro-instinal tract, furthermore the PATHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of this?

Quote:
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.


This is a hydrophilic molecule, such vitamins do NOT diffuse by the phospholipid bilayer, the molecule are partially permeable to the non polar viatamins.

This is the derrivation of my suggestion, what was the hunting frequency of game?

Is the frequency of hydration higher than that of hunting?

I am assuming that cobalamin must be biosynthesised frequently, furthermore vegatation may provide the other water soluble micronutrients.

Quote:
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.


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


Do you not believe that veganism is not satisfied by the homo sapien sapiens dietry genetic code?

Quote:
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.


Paleolithic homo sapien sapiens had a suggested average of 13/20 diet of vegatation, which may have been 100-200 grams of fiber daily, hominids are generally herbivorous.

Essential amino acids may be COMBINED, there was accesss to over 100 plant species.

Social stimuli and animal nutrition may have constructed the neurological nexus for the evolved brain, however why is this assumed to be NECESSARY, there is nothing to suggest malnutrition of paleolthic vaganism.

I am arguing that animal protein is contingent, and if it does in fact require genotoxic properties for consumption, such as cooking, this may not be of an intrinsic diet, such as a RAW source of vegatation.
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 01:51 pm
Vaganism =/= herbivore must be clarified.

This my error for defending vegan practice.

Herbivores may in fact have faunivorous traits, the conditions of this continuum are not formal.

This also applies to hypercarnivores consuming vegatation.

These are conditional properties, just as conditionally essential amino acids, being unnecessary.

I believe this may result in a dermacation problem between omnivore and herbivore.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 02:39 pm
@Anomie,
Reply has been repaired.

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


You do not apear to acknowledge the functionality of beliefs, such as Dempster–Shafer theory of evidence.

You stated that I am subjected to the "burden of proof", however this is a misconception, scientific methodology acknowledges this, and to CLARIFY, scientific methodology is cognitively synonymous to the burden of evidence.

Hence, it satisfies conditional proofs (formal) of probability, the absence of evidence IS the evience of absence.

You are conforming to legislative normatives, I already defined normatives, simply being an ANTIPOSITIVE construct.

Quote:
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.


These practices deviate from NATURAL scientific methodology, how many samples are there, are you CERTAIN that these are not generalisation fallacies?

This arguement may be relative to theological systems, am I an A-ControledFireBeliever?

How is this an intrinsic property?

Non are, however under biologocal scientific assumptions, the gentic code is valid, NOT culture, just as it is NOT having the anatomy to fly, it a cultural construct, why do you not distinguish these concepts, this deviates from the truth relaibility of genetics.

Simply, antecedent =/= consequent.

You continue to argue normatives, OR you may refute this assertion by operationalising "plausibly posited", natural scientific methodology defines terms, or specifically, to empiricalism suggestion, meaning while it may be possible that Paleoanthropologists have satisfied such conditions, it is INDEPENDENT of your normative assertions.

Secondary solution: state the required conditions and elaborate your interpretation of "control", furthermore verify these conditions.

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

Abductions, again.

However, what are you suggesting, how does this satisfy "dodge the burden of what you've written"?

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

Quote:
We still eat both cooked and raw meat.

Therefore, fire is NOT necessary?

Is culture necessary?

Quote:
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.


Are you suggestion that cultural nutrition has no entailment/correlation to diseases?

Processed lipids, proteins and carbohydrates, all correlate to a significant increase to a diverse spectrum of diseases.

Significant sodium increase, significant decrease in electrolytes, therefore high blood pressure, again diseases.

Irregular essential fatty acid ratio, grains and instant glucose, increased mammal protein, again diseases.

As an example, increased insulin resistence,, or the decrease micronutritional density, being examples of decreased immune efficiency, and perhaps, culturally NOT consuming raw animal protein.
Quote:

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 are appeaing to ridicule.

I did aniticipate this, being why I attempted to defend veganism.

I do not interpret such fallacies to be valid, though the questions were open to all nutritional intrpretation, being why I negated a fallacy of many questions.

It is a discussion, not indoctrination.

Quote:
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?


Being that you appear to value sources:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MgeMZ19K1bEC&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=gastrointestinal+75+percent+of+the+immune+system&source=bl&ots=gb2-kTWRxU&sig=jdowAHKLPS5SSUmmdOtfFbgSKNI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6eNMT6DEDemf0QWsqYGeBQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=gastrointestinal%2075%20percent%20of%20the%20immune%20system&f=false
Quote:
The immune system, of which approximately 75 percent is located in the gastrointestinal tract


Why would you deny this, do you not acknowledge the SURFACE AREA of the gastro-instinal tract, furthermore the PATHOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS of this?

Quote:
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.



This is a hydrophilic molecule, such vitamins do NOT diffuse by the phospholipid bilayer, the molecule are partially permeable to the non polar viatamins.

This is the derrivation of my suggestion, what was the hunting frequency of game?

Is the frequency of hydration higher than that of hunting?

I am assuming that cobalamin must be biosynthesised frequently, furthermore vegatation may provide the other water soluble micronutrients.
Quote:

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.

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

Do you not believe that veganism is not satisfied by the homo sapien sapiens dietry genetic code?
Quote:
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.


Paleolithic homo sapien sapiens had a suggested average of 13/20 diet of vegatation, which may have been 100-200 grams of fiber daily, hominids are generally herbivorous.

Essential amino acids may be COMBINED, there was accesss to over 100 plant species.

Social stimuli and animal nutrition may have constructed the neurological nexus for the evolved brain, however why is this assumed to be NECESSARY, there is nothing to suggest malnutrition of paleolthic vaganism.

I am arguing that animal protein is contingent, and if it does in fact require genotoxic properties for consumption, such as cooking, this may not be of an intrinsic diet, such as a RAW source of vegatation.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 03:31 pm
@farmerman,
Aspergers was interpreted to be a seperate category of autism, however it is contemporarily acknowledged to be of autistic spectrum disorders.

Though, your cousin appears to be of a savant, not aspergers, or perhaps moderately within the spectrum.

My psychiatrist suggests that it is more typical than it appears to be, most do not acknowledge this, perhaps being that there is no obligation to appeal to this social scientific concept, perhaps it may even be neuroplastic pehenomena.

Furthermore, there is in fact no social scientific consensus for my neurotype, it is simply an attempt to categorise human neurology into neurotypes, whilst greedy reductionalism to mirror neurones, I would argu that it is a false dichotomy, or trichotomy in the case of ecto, meso and endo morphology of humans, does natural science acknowledge normative assumptions of social science?

Perhaps being why I do use this 'normative' term, it is a consensus of neurological typicality, if neurodevelopmental nerology deviates from this concept, it is atypical.

I am certain that if the reverse applied, being a world of autism, it would simply be the reverse, contemporary typicality would be in fact atypical, perhaps evolution will demonstrate this.
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 28 Feb, 2012 03:33 pm
@izzythepush,
Yet, the context is in fact consistent with this universe?

I would argue that context is relative.

Have you attempted to distinguish the face of other hominids?

This is a compatability error, for example prosopagnosia.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 07:31 am
@Anomie,
Since you have provided nothing but ipse dixit claims, and not a shred of scientific evidence for your claims, your bullshit here adequately meets the requirement for the burden of proof. You haven't met the burden. There is not reason to take you seriously.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 08:46 am
@izzythepush,
Quote:
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.
Thats often the point. Its somewhat sad because what sounds like really profound stuff, has to be filtered through some "Contextometer".
My cousin is kinda like that and he is very sensitive to noises and changes in speech patterns by others..
0 Replies
 
Anomie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 08:50 am
@Setanta,
Your reasoning is no different than that of many theists.

You deny logical truths, you deny natural science (the facts I suggested), yet you have faith in archaeology, and faith in the "burden of prrof" that is practiced in law, these are not positive systems, furthermore I already requested to know why material/culture is the intrinsic basis for your arguement, can the NEED for fire be reductionalised to the genetic code?

I am intrigued, can you elaborate?

Also, evidence for high fiber nutrition:
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/126/6/1732.pdf - view table 1 for fiber.

http://cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/sboydeaton/eaton.htm
Quote:
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)

While it probable that this is not the case, it does demonstrate that close relatives are herbivorous.

Furthermore, this in fact consistent with my suggestions of diet:
Quote:
Dietary fiber would have exceeded current levels by an order of magnitude: 200 grams vs. 20 grams a day (Milton, 1993)

Quote:
Paleolithic humans commonly obtained 65% of their food energy from fruits and vegetables
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 09:37 am
@Anomie,
Quote:
Paleolithic humans commonly obtained 65% of their food energy from fruits and vegetables
Im not sure from whom this is attributed but Eaton (2003) says just the opposite. That was based upon evidences of coprolites in middens (volumetric I suppose).
Somebody had to do it I suppose. But the 63 to 69% from animal sources was what the Eaton studies had concluded. Has that been changed by 180?
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 09:48 am
@Anomie,
Anomie wrote:
Have you attempted to distinguish the face of other hominids?


As homo sapiens are the only hominids in my neck of the woods, I've not really had the opportunity.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 09:48 am
@Anomie,
Theists ? ! ? ! ? You're crackin' me up now. I don't have "faith" in archaeology, i simply put more credence in the findings of specialists in a field than i do in some joker like you who makes ex cathedra statements on no authority at all, and expects to be taken as a disseminator of gospel truth. The theist here is you.

Your remarks about chimpanzees and bonobos are not only not conclusive evidence of the diet of early modern humans, they are contradicted by the findings of archeaologists and paleoanthropologists. You're a bigger fool than i tought if you believe that i'll take your random musings as more conclusive than the findings of specialists who devote their lives to studying these subjects.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/26/2020 at 10:02:20