RAW-FOOD Archives

Raw Food Diet Support List

RAW-FOOD@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Stefanie Kantor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Raw Food Diet Support List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 14 Jan 2002 22:28:14 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (96 lines)
Since some people are obviously reacting aggressively, I will
adhere to what I said in my first post (that it is not extremely
likely that I will react). This will be my last reaction to
the posts. I might sound a bit harsh here and there and I apologize
for that, but I am tired of dealing with people with attitude
problems.

Tom:
"It seems some people just can't take "no" for an answer."

You can say "no" as much as you like about discussing evolution,
but that doesn't mean that I can't discuss it with other people.
I just want to show people that you don't understand evolution,
so they know not to take you too seriously.

Tom:
"I will respond to valid questions by eventually updating
website material."

I hope you read some good stuff on evolution, since you obviously
don't understand it.

Carol:
"Why does a spine make such a difference to you? Is vertebrate
flesh so very biochemically different from invertebrate flesh?
I read your answer above, but it doesn't make sense to me. If
a cow checks for a spine before it takes a bite of something, OK;
but I doubt it happens very often."

I hope that last remark wasn't serious: cows will know instinctively
what to eat and that won't include vertebrate meat (and invertebrates
only unconsciously). Point is that nature shows us that animals
that eat vertebrate meat show very distinct adaptations. Is that
really so difficult to see? I gave a few examples in my original
post, which have conveniently been ignored in this whole thread.
There are many other examples to give as well, but I refuse to
play the role of a high school biology teacher.

Carol:
"What about scavenging? Who knows what a deer may come across
there in the grass?"

A deer biologist will know. Ask him/ her. I know the answer
he/ she will give.

Jean-Claude:
"In that dance of exchanging energy between species thru eating,
to distinguish between eating vertebrate and invertebrate is
pure misunderstanding of the allconnectiveness of life forms."

Nice New Age babble. You ignore the fact that certain foods
require certain adaptations.

Francois:
"You are now just demonstrating the fine point that any new
factor in the environment will affect LRS. So any new food
should affect LRS and in the long-term lead to adaptation."

You show a deep misunderstanding of evolution here. All I am
saying is that experienced elders might be expected to contribute
to the success of the tribe, leading to an increase in individual
LRS. New factors only lead to genetic adaptation when they
influence LRS. If a new food source is included in the diet
it will only lead to an increased LRS if there is a lack of
alternative food sources. Otherwise it has to be considered a
habit or convenience that doesn't lead to genetic adaptation.
There is only one occasion in our evolutionary history during
which we could have become adapted to vertebrate meat eating
and that is during the ice ages, because in extreme cases like
that other food sources might not be available. However, evolutionary
spoken those periods are extremely short, so adaptation is
unlikely. Another very important point to consider is that the
amount of humans living under those severe climate conditions
is extremely small compared to the world population of humans
in those times, so only a small fraction of humans could be
adapted to vertebrate meat (if any). Point remains though that
several characteristics show that we are not adapted to eating
vertebrate meat (see original post) and that to my knowledge
there isn't such a large variation in humans in morphological
and physiological characteristics that some can be considered
adapted and others not.

Francois:
"What I wrote was about your LRS based theory."

It is not my theory!!! Gain some more knowledge about evolution
and then maybe we can talk some more. If you read "Reproductive
Success" (see my original post) or any of the references in there
or any good professional science magazine with aricles on
evolution, you will find out that the things I am writing on LRS
are well accepted. If you choose to remain blissfully ignorant
is another matter.

_____________________________________________________________
Learn about the power of raw foods at ---> http://www.rawfoods.com

ATOM RSS1 RSS2