Jean-Claude,

No confusion, it's just that my mailer doesnt append the name
of the person to the post, like this one also!  I should be
more careful in the future and manually type it in.  Thanks!

  Wade Reeser


At 11:56 AM 12/13/1999 -0800, you wrote:  Jean-Claude!
>?
>>At 03:15 PM 12/13/1999 +0100, you wrote:  Amadeus!
>>>Jean-Claude wrote:
>
>I liked to be challenged but i didn't writen the following to what you are
>responding. Amadeus was .in response to one of my post.
>In fact i aggree with what you say.
>jean-claude
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Humans are able only since the inventions of long range and strong
>>>weapons to kill-and-eat big animals.
>>>How would a gorilla or a australopithecus afarensis catch and kill
>>>a gnu or a gazelle?
>>
>>I challenge this.  First, humans dont need long range or strong weapons
>>to kill big animals.  From the journals of Lewis and Clark, indians of the
>>plains would kill large herds of buffalo by chasing them off cliffs.  Also
>>pits were used.  Also, this doesnt account for carrion.  Some 'experts'
>>believe that humans were largely scavangers.
>>
>>And comparing humans to gorillas or australopithicus makes about as much
>>sense as using them as exaples for why we shouldnt drive cars...
>>
>>
>>>Before 2 mio years ago, primates evolved as fuit eaters (some insects
>>>included) for about 300*hundred-thousand years.
>>>Humans don't have such a strong stomach acidity as  "real"
>>>predators (as big cats for example), which could kill off parasites
>>>and infections (from the food).
>>
>>i challenge this also.  It is my understanding from physiology textbooks
>>that the stomache acidity in humans is about 2 pH.  This is about as
>>acid as any stomache gets.  Less acidity in humans is condsidered diseased.
>>This is the same as carnivores.
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>All this time most probably fire was there to help killing off
>>>parasites in the meat. Fire may be our adaption technique
>>>for eating more probable infected meats. Stomach acidity is not.
>>
>>again, what good references do you have for the stomache acidity?
>>I dont think this is true at all.
>>
>>>I'd expect that small animals in the wild (rabbit, rat) will
>>>have less danger to bear infections than old zebras.
>>>Towards smaller animals also tends the IMO excellent arcicle at
>>>http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_meat.htm
>>
>>Why do you think smaller animals are less of a threat?  They certainly
>>get parisites.  Rather than what you expect or feel is true, is there
>>_any_ evidence for this supposition?
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>regards
>>>Amadeus S.
>>>
>>
>> Wade Reeser  [log in to unmask]