> 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.

Sorry, arjen, it is not nonsense. I know how hard that must be for you to
hear, because, essentially, your whole house of cards rests on this not
being true. I suggest you read up on the suject on beyondveg and then do
your own research and see what you come up with before you call it nonsense.

> 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.

Help me understand.

> 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.

I'll try to be clearer.

> 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.

Perhaps you meant something other than what I understood. Please help me
activate my brain so that I can benefit from your thoughts.

> 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).

You dismiss the role of animal foods in human evolution.

> 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".

I'm getting confused. You have speculations, possibilities, a big theory,
and claims. I admit that I am hopelessly lost trying to keep them all
straight. It would help if you could organize these things into some
coherent list in order that I can understand better.

> 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)?

I don't know. Many do. The statement still stands that only a handful of
people eat raw vegan.

> 2)Only your distorted view on reality makes you see a
> handful of folks succeeding on raw vegan.

I thought I was being generous actually. Perhaps you have some other numbers
you could share with us. And of course, you'll need to specify those health
benchmarks so we see the degree of success attained.

> 3)Even only one raw vegan succeeding shows that it is
> possible.

I question that there is a single raw vegan from birth who has never eaten
an exception, but who knows, anything is _possible_. You are claiming it as
the original diet of humankind so I think it should be more than maybe
perhaps possible for one in 6 billion human beings.

The statement still stands that only a handful of people eat raw vegan.

> 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.

Actually, for the purposes of your argument, it is very important. In two
ways:

1] If raw vegan is so biologically appropriate for humans there should be
lessor tendancy to need to cheat.

2] nutrients can be very important in small amounts (B12 for instance), so
unless we eliminate the possibility that something in the cheat foods was
actually nourishing a missing component of the raw vegan diet, we need 100%.

But, hey, I'm a good sport. If you want to one non raw vegan meal per every
thousand meals as the acceptable standard, I'm all for it.

> 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).

You reminded me what average meant and it is pretty important in this
context. It appears that if a child survives infancy/toddlerhood (higher
risks for primitives, few have anything to do with diet) there is a good
chance they will live long lives.

(Personally, I question most of the longevity information because it is
based on guesstimation from skeletal remains. Perhaps and 80 year old died
and left the fossil of a 40 year old because he was so properly nourished
and healthy that our modern standard doesn't really translate. But that's
off topic speculation.)

You keep using lifespan to dismiss my points. It doesn't really do so,
however.

> 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.

And the reverse is true, yet you use it to dismiss paleolithic health.

> 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".

That's it? Re-read the section on beyondveg on comparative anatomy and see
that it is not that simple.

I am confused though. You _don't_ feel raw vegan the humanity's proper diet?
This is puzzling to me, so I hope you can clear it up.

> 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?

Oh, gosh, we are miscommunicating again. You didn't understand what I wrote
above either!

> 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?

We are also the only omnivore with a three pound brain who walks on two feet
and ovulates monthly, etc etc etc. And gorillas have canines as someone
already mentioned. It's looking like you are putting a whole lot of stock in
the canine argument. I thought there was something more to it than that. I'm
sorry.

> 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!

You didn't discard it in any rigorous way. But discard is probably the right
word.

> 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.

I can see you are getting frustrated with me, but I guess I just don't
understand yet. Help me to see it clearly.

> 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.

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

> 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.

Hmmm. This one is pretty important, so I'll have to ask again too:

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."

> 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).

I am sorry. Please try to respect my interest even though I am so
slow-witted.

> 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!

Gosh, do I feel powerless or what? Well, if I am again on your list, it was
nice trying to get to know each other. If you have anything worthwhile to
say in response to this post I am sure you will.

Cheers.
Kirt