Kirt,

I have been considering if I had to regard your last
post as another "ranting" or not. Difficult decision,
but since you sound slightly more reasonable, I
decided to react. Don't be surprised if I cut you out
at the next post again though. You still sound like a
wining school kid who needs to be told the same thing
over and over again. Let me take a tally of how many
times I need to repeat myself, so I can decide at the
end if it was worthwhile to react at all.

Kirt:
"Humans manipulate nature, as does every species on
this planet. Humans, because of their big brain,
bipedalism, fine-tuned fingers, etc are the most able
to change their environment. Meaning they can live in
most any environment by developing the technology to
thrive. Eskimos and their very advanced technology
exemplify this sort of thing."

Obviously you didn't get my point. Like I said before
(1): Humans are the most able to change the
environment to such an extent that they move out of
their original habitats and have to get used to
totally different habitats and food sources. No other
species is so stupid to do this. Just because our
brain is able to have us deal with new habitats and
food sources, doesn't mean that our bodies
automatically adapt to it.

By the way, you have a very inappropriate way to use
the word "thrive". "Survive" is the proper word to
use: that they survive on certain foods doesn't mean
that it is the best choice for their health. This is
particularly obvious for the Inuit, since their
habitat is far from optimal.

Kirt:
"You say that habitats are not suited to their
biological natures. You better define "biological
nature" for starters--very carefully."

Any decent book about human evolution will tell you
that the original diet is mostly frugivorous,
including greens, roots and possibly some
invertebrates. This is before we started manipulating
nature to a large degree and moved out of our original
habitat.

Kirt:
"The idea that the "normal selection process" is
inhibited also needs to be spelled out--very
carefully."

Like I said before (2): selection pressures are
extremely hard to estimate, even in living
populations, so for the distant past it is virtually
impossible. However, it is obvious that we have
inhibited the normal selection process in some traits
since we are still a naked ape, even with people
living in the polar area.

Kirt:
"The facts are that humans thrive on a wide variety of
diets.....Weston Price found the best health in those
people who ate the most seafood. Initially he set out
to prove vegetarian diets were the best, but he found
just the opposite. If a diet (say raw vegan) is the
most biologically appropriate, wouldn't we find that
most healthy people practiced that diet."

Again inappropriate use of the word "thrive". Like I
said before (3): Moving out of our original habitat
means that we need to start experimenting with new
food sources and people make mistakes in that process.
That they eat certain foods doesn't mean that it is
the best for their health; it means that there is a
lack of more appropriate foods in their new habitat.

By the way: I read Weston Price's book from beginning
to end. Price compares people living of totally
refined crap with people of the same tribe living of a
more natural diet. Of course he will find that the
ones eating a more natural diet are much healthier.
That still doesn't mean that they wouldn't be better
of on their original diets (and preferably in their
original habitats).

Kirt:
"Humans thrive on animal foods, find them delicious,
go to great lengths to obtain them, have health
difficulties without them."

Wow, lets make a list of your totally warped
perception of reality:
1) Wrong use of the word "thrive"; should be
"survive".
2) More than 99.9% of the meat eating humans need to
spice and salt their meat, otherwise they can't
stomach it.
3)Some people go through great effort to obtain
heroin. Does that mean it is good for them?
4)Lets look a bit closer at the distorted view of
reality about people having health difficulties
without animal foods. You conveniently ignore that
most people have health problems with animal foods.
Lets look at the facts here: virtually all
degenerative diseases are linked to the consumption of
animal products. You have the amazing ability to look
only at the diseased vegans and only at the healthy
meat eaters. Everybody with a more realistic view on
life can tell you that there are healthy vegans and
that there are diseased meat eaters (in fact plenty of
the last category).

Kirt:
"Humans have eaten animal foods from the very
beginnings of our homonid ancestry to the present."

Nonsense (see earlier in this post). It only applies
if you refuse to look at the data.

Kirt:
"The idea that humans have disrupted natural selection
because of their technological prowess (and cultural
practices) is hardly novel at all."

It doesn't surprise me that you think that, since you
show an amazing lack of understanding my posts.

Kirt:
"Your theory is speculation and unsupported by any
body of knowledge, making it a weak and unwise
speculation."

Like I said before (4): I always admitted it to being
speculation; the body of knowledge is the theory of
natural selection. I still haven't received any
criticism that makes me need to revise my "weak"
theory.

Kirt:
"I have reread your original post and can only find
the idea that because people eat junk food, which is
detrimental to their health, that this shows that
humans are not adapted to cooked foods."

You have an absolutely amazing ability to turn my
words around. Please reread it again and don't forget
to activate your brain in the process! I only used
junk food as an example to show how natural selection
can work.

Kirt:
"Like NFL you need to dismiss most of human evolution
so that you can arrive at your raw vegan naturalism."

I don't dismiss anything. Obviously, for a change, you
have misunderstood my posts (5).

Kirt:
"What are your "claims" again? That meat eating in
prehistory is irrelevant and humans aren't adapted to
meat eating? That we aren't adapted to cooked food?"

Wow Kirt, you understood something of my posts! How
did you score that one? Of course you are not totally
right, since I described it as a possibility and not a
claim. But since I haven't heard any valid criticism,
I can say that I do believe in my "claims".

Kirt:
"Certainly humanity is not perfectly adapted to raw
vegan since only a handful of folks do it longer and
most of them probably cheat.

Objections:
1)Did those people who failed on raw vegan take B12
supplements (or eat invertebrates)?
2)Only your distorted view on reality makes you see a
handful of folks succeeding on raw vegan.
3)Even only one raw vegan succeeding shows that it is
possible.
4)Occasionally cheating is irrelevant, since 99.9% of
their diet is still raw vegan and they are mostly
healthy on that; not on the 0.1% of other foods.

Kirt:
"You will see how robustly healthy "primitives" were
compared to folks today."

Like I said before (6): It makes it hard to justify
"robustly healthy" when you die so young. Even your
guru Ward writes that they die at 30 (which is too
high according to my information, but we can use that
figure if it suits you).

Kirt:
"Indeed, if you want to use longevity as a yard stick
for human health, that would support the current junk
diets in Western countries since longevity has never
been higher."

Nonsense again! Like I said before (7): Especially
modern society has effectively cancelled out all
possibilities for natural selection with health care,
medicines, high tech, etc etc.

Kirt:
"But you haven't dealt with the biggest prejudice and
attitude: your beforehand premise of raw veganism."

Your remarks become more and more ridiculous. For a
change: nonsense again! I don't have a premise. I only
observe that humans are the only "omnivores" without
extended canines, which makes it extremely likely that
we are not "omnivores".

Kirt:
"You just say "meat-eating doesn't matter" because it
is not biologically appropriate. One could just as
well use your "theory" to claim that "fruit eating
doesn't matter" because it is not biologically
appropriate."

You show an amazing lack of understanding my posts.
Have you ever looked in your own mouth?

Kirt:
"Your theory is throwing out huge chunks of reality
and information to explain the supposed biological
appropriateness of raw veganism."

Who is throwing out huge chunks of reality? What about
the reality that we are the only "omnivores" without
extended canines? And don't come with that myth about
tools: I discarded that argument already in my posts.
Just keep on ignoring the facts Kirt: you are doing a
great job!

Kirt:
"You ask for weakness to be tested and then dodge when
it is pointed out that your speculations are weak
unless supported by references. I don't get it."

I explained this in my previous post (8). It doesn't
surprise me that you don't get it. It is not the first
thing that you don't get.

Kirt:
"In particular, I'd like to see references for the
idea that raw veganism is biologically appropriate for
humans."

Like I said before (9): In any book about human
evolution you can find what the original diet is. The
rest follows logically from the theory.

Kirt:
"Secondly, you need references for the contention that
animal foods were consumed during a "certain time of
our evolution". Define the points with starting dates
and ending dates."

Another point where you show a total lack of
understanding. I can't even imagine what kind of
dysfunctional brain wave made you ask this.

Sorry Kirt, but you are an extremely tiring person to
discuss with: I need to keep on repeating myself (I
numbered 9 for this response). Obviously you can't or
you refuse to understand my posts. Since you act like
a wining school kid, I might as well treat you as one:
you failed! I need to come back on my decision and
ignore you again!

Arjen


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1