?


>At 03:15 PM 12/13/1999 +0100, you wrote:
>>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]