Ward,

>My apologies to you David, Stephen, and R.C. for the "nature's second
>opinion" crack about NFL above. I immediately regretted sending it when
>apart from the self-deprecating joking context like my earlier post of it.
>It was uncalled for and I won't do it again. Stating the facts in
>responding to your posts should be enough to make the point.

Jeez, if no one made an NFL crack, it just wouldn't feel right.

To respond to some of your anthropological theories:

Ward wrote:
>Yep, and it's also awesome how ignorant you fellows appear to be about a
>few basic facts of evolutionary history known to modern paleontological
>science.

Insults, insults, insults.

>The definition of human beings in evolutionary terms is that they are, in
>part, bipedal (walking upright), large-brained, tool-using hominids.
>Paleontology has shown that our hominid ancestors were using stone tools by
>at least 1.8 million years ago to utilize animals for food, and perhaps as
>early as 2.5 million. This amounts to two full species transitions before
>modern human beings (homo sapiens) appeared around 100,000 to 200,000 years
>ago.

This is all conjecture.  You are taking perhaps 6,000 pieces of a
one-million-piece puzzle and saying that you know what the whole puzzle
looks like.  Homo sapien has been around a lot longer than 100,000 to
200,000 years.

>The first known tool-using hominid was homo habilis at approximately 2
>million to 1.5 million years ago. The evolutionary successor to homo
>habilis--and also a tool-user--was the much larger-brained homo erectus at
>approximately 1.5 million years ago, the first hominid to reach 5-6 feet in
>height as well.

Your whole argument is based on anthropological science that is totally
hypothetical and cooked.  It is based on carbon dating which may or may not
be accurate.  All the pieces haven't been found, you are jumping to
conclusions.

You have to remember that anthropologists (whose minds and theories are
severely clouded by cooked-food addiction) have only found tools and other
remnants of prehistoric human life in certain areas of the world.  What
about the rest of the old world?

For an example of how skewed anthropoligical research has become, ponder
this:  Anthropologists search caves for human remains and historical puzzle
pieces.  How many humans in prehistory actually inhabited caves?  How many
inhabited caves before the discovery of cooking?  Zero.  Cave-dwelling
coincided exactly with the first cooking of food.

We have a biological design that is obvious.  Look at the structure of your
intestines, look at the structure of your hands, look at the structure of
your teeth, look at the acid/alkaline make-up of your
blood/stomach-acid/urine, etc.

>If one wants to establish what behavior is "natural" on a scientific basis
>rather than on an unsupportable subjective basis, you look at what behavior
>has been engaged in long enough in evolutionary terms so that a species can
>be said to have adapted to it genetically.

You are forwarding a subjective concept of what evolution is all about.
Organisms do not evolve in a bid for increased utilitarian fitness.
Organisms suddenly change, very quickly, and then remain stable and in
their definite form for long eons of time.   All that is observable around
us compels us to the conclusion that, repeatedly, over the vast expanses of
time, profound and extremely sudden changes have occurred in the structure
of plants and animals.  No transition types ever show up in the fossil
record.  An organism is suddenly there inexplicably.  Homo sapien, like
every other life-form, originated in a sudden mutation of which the
essential "when," "how," and "why" remains an impenetrable secret.  One
thing is known, after the discovery of fire, the fate of the human animal
and the entire planet was altered forever.

It seems that you have prostrated yourself on the altar of science.
Science is nothing but a product of the modern mind.  It is political and
the scientific method is seldomly ever objectively applied.

>... not to mention the fact that these creatures still are known to have
>eaten at least some animal flesh based on scanning electron microscope
>studies of fossil teeth microwear patterns and other evidence.

That is just not true.  Nearly all electron microscope studies of fossil
teeth (of pre-fire samples) microwear show patterns of frugivorous eating.

Humans are an imitative animal.  Just because some humans and other genetic
forebears may have eaten animals does not mean it is part of our biological
design.  Your train of thought is akin to: 500,000 years from now, aliens
land on the planet and find cheeseburger microwear on the teeth of a human
fossil and their conclusion is that every human is biologically designed to
eat cheeseburgers.

Take care,

Stephen, David, & Raw Courage
Nature's First Law
http://www.io-online.com/~nature