Thank you for your response Anwar, David and Stefan. I
would like to reply to your posts and I will do that
in chronological order.

Anwar:
"But there is no evidence that changes in one species
leads to evolution into a different species."

I guess you are right that there is no "evidence", but
it makes total sense to me. I find it very likely that
this has happened for certain species, for example
with the North-American elk and the European red deer.
These 2 species are very similar. They both developed
in their own way after geographical isolation,
depending on the selection pressures created by the
environment. If you put a red deer and elk
together,they might produce fertile offspring, because
they are so similar, but they might as well not
produce fertile offspring. Even if they do produce
fertile offspring, it just means that evolution didn't
occur because of a very stable environment in both
geographically separated habitats, or that the
selection pressures on both geographically separated
groups has been very similar. This still doesn't mean
that evolution wouldn't be able to form new species:
given enough time elk and red deer will eventually
develop into two distinct species.

Anwar:
"Maybe the extended canines (of Chimps and Gorillas)
are not for what we think they are (eating meat)."

The only other possibilities are that the extended
canines have a function for defense or for
reproduction in the form of sexual attraction (like
the huge tail feathers of some tropical birds like the
peacock). Defense is not extremely likely for the
reason I stated in my original post. Another factor is
that you expect canines to be portruding out of the
mouth if their main function would be defense, since
scaring competitors or predators away with an
attribute that is always visible is much more
efficient than scaring them away when you have to bare
your teeth. If you have to bear your teeth, it
basically means that you have to become involved in
the conflict before you can solve it, while portruding
canines have the ability to scare before becoming
involved, which is a much more evolutionary stable
strategy. The reproduction function doesn't make much
sense either for the same reason: it is evolutionary a
better strategy to attract the other sex with an
attribute that is always visible, than with one that
is only visible when you bare your teeth. Another
factor here is that you would expect sexual dimorphism
if the canines would have a reproductive function and
that is definitely not the case.

Anwar:
"If we take it that humans use tools, this use indeed
saves us from having to use extended canines to rip
open the skin of a carcass."

In my original post I thought I made clear that there
is a gap of two and a half million years between the
disappearance of extended canines in humans and the
use of tools, which invalidates your remark.

Anwar:
"It is obvious that we have canines."

It is also obvious that they are not suitable for meat
eating. According to Glenn C. Conroy in "Primate
evolution" (p.380/1), ape and human teeth and mouths
are distinctly different. Humans have "incisiform"
canines, whereas ape canines are described as "stout,
large, projecting". Indeed, incisiform canine teeth
like the humans, are totally unique amongst higher
primates. Enlarged spatulate incisors are recognised
as an adaptation for though foods and to fruit eating.
Human canines have basically developed into another
pair of incisors.

Anwar:
"I wonder what pigs teeth look like, since they are
also omnivores".

I would leave that "also" out, because that means that
humans should be considered omnivores as well. I
advise you to read
www.newveg.av.org/vegstuff/anatomy.htm, which
discusses characteristics of carnivores, omnivores and
herbivores and compares it with human characteristics.
Useful information, although I am not pleased with the
three categories. In my opinion omnivore is just an
intermediate form between carnivores and herbivores
and I think it would have been better to include a
category frugivores.

Wild pigs have portruding canines and I know from
intensive farming practices from the Netherlands that
pig farmers saw off the canines of the pigs, otherwise
they eat eachothers tails. So again an omnivore with
extended canines, like all omnivores.

Anwar:
"All races of creatures just about appear at once and
there are no transitional forms known of any creature
involving into another."

This is simply not true, especially considering the
transition between reptiles and birds. Archaeopteryx
is a pretty good example. There are a couple of good
reasons why there are not many transition forms in the
fossil record. The fossil record is not necessarily a
good representation of what has been living during the
history of the earth, because not every species has
the same chance to become fossilized. Evolution is
nowadays considered a process which might not occur
for very long periods of time, after which there might
be a relatively short period in which evolution occurs
due to changes in the environment, creating
opportunities for natural selection. So natural
selection is much stronger in times of "upheaval" and
"instability". The circumstances which make a dead
animal fossilize are very peculiar: it needs a very
stable environment depleted of oxygen. So there are
two reasons why there are hardly any fossilized
transition forms:
1) transition forms occur for much shorter periods of
time;
2) the circumstances for transition forms to fossilize
are unfavorable because of a more instable
environment.

Anwar:
"As for cows; cows are fed on other animal parts to
imitate the fact that they eat many insects while
grazing on pastures."

You got to be kidding! The only reason that rendered
animal parts are being fed to cows is that it is
cheap, like every motivation in the commercial animal
husbandry.
The point of my original post was as well to make
clear that there is a big difference between eating
invertebrates and eating vertebrates, simply because
vertebrates need "special equipment" to be caught.
That is one of the reasons I don't like the
traditional distinction between omnivores, carnivores
and herbivores, because an animal that eats only
invertebrates for meat is considered just as much
omnivore as an animal that eats other mammals, while
this requires completely different adaptations.

Anwar:
"There are some of us out there that do not believe
that bacteria or viruses cause disease but are more
like scavangers feeding off the dead of diseased
bodies."

Yes, I have heard this before. Maybe it is true, but
it leads to the unsubstantial claim I have heard for
years now in the raw food vegan world, that we are
supposed to be immune to them. Viruses have the
ability to code DNA and have it transcribed into the
DNA of the host. If this happens, the DNA will be
doing its work and the virus shows its effect, healthy
diet or not.
I can tell you as a wildlife biologist, that the
effects of germs and parasites as a population
regulating mechanism in wild animal populations is
highly underestimated. Especially in social living
animals it is actually one of the main population
regulating mechanisms. Now you can argue that this is
because of overpopulation, malnutrition and stress in
a lot of cases, but overpopulation and stress
definitely apply to modern humans as well (and in a
lot of situations malnutrition too). Fact remains that
germs and parasites work in natural populations and it
will work with humans as well.

Anwar:
"As for mad-cow disease it can be traced to the
application of organophosphates along cow spines to
get rid of the warble fly."

I am curious to know where you got this information,
but it sounds highly unlikely to me, because mad cow
disease has been found in many other species (they
give it a different name, but it is the same disease):
sheep (scrapie), mink (transmissible mink
encephalopathy), humans (Creutzfeld Jacobs Disease),
deer (Chronic Wasting Disease) and further a bunch of
other species, for example ostriches. Unnatural
situations in animal husbandry create an excellent
opportunity to develop wicked diseases, like mad cow
disease. All the information I have read about mad cow
disease attribute it to prions, which are virtually
indistructable proteins. According to some experts on
the disease, you are at risk when you eat any kind of
animal foods and they even warn against the use of
animal manure on the garden, because the disease could
even be transmitted that way. Again: just assuming
that you are immune because you eat raw foods is
playing an extremely dangerous game.

Anwar:
"I believe in the principle that nature (that is God)
does it best and that life begets life."

With all due respect, but for eating meat you have to
kill!

David:
"You seem to be trying to intellectualize something
that can really only be felt."

I am totally aware of this, but Beyond Veg is
intellectualizing the whole subject as well. Since
Beyond Veg has changed the opinion of a lot of people,
I am just trying to make people see a different point
of view.

David:
"Only you can tell if your diet is working for you.
How is your energy, hunger, sleep patterns,
eliminations? Do you get sick frequently? How does it
compare to other ways of eating?"

I grew up in the Netherlands in a family where we just
ate because we had to live. Food was never something
festive. I was brought up on whole wheat bread, little
meat, potatoes and cooked vegetables and we virtually
never ate junk food. Twelve years ago I became
vegetarian and started buying organic; six years ago I
became vegan and for the last 3 years I have been 100%
raw food vegan. Since my change was rather gradual
(for the last 12 years only organic whole foods) I
have never experienced severe detoxification like you
describe it. Actually, I don't feel any different at
all: I still have plenty of energy and I never have
had any health problems. I think most people who are
unsatisfied on raw vegan have abused their body for a
long time in the past and haven't given it enough
time. Another possibility is that they have always had
food issues and that that causes binge eating and
other unhealthy symptoms during their raw vegan stage
(I never have problems with binge eating). We never
should underestimate the power of the mind!

David:
"Our society has a phobia about germs and other nasty
things. All species seem to coexist with them."

This is simply not true, unless you regard a main
population regulating factor as coexisting (see my
reaction to Anwar).

Stefan:
"Extension is always good, me thinks. Narrowing is
bad"

Not when your dietary regime doesn't support your
biological make-up!

Stefan:
"You forget one point here: grandparents do have a
function! If they are sick and mentally weak this is a
disadvantage for the tribe as a whole"

Interesting point! Let me give you a little statistic
anthropologists have come up with. The average age at
which humans die worldwide is now 65 years. One
hundred years ago this was 27 years younger. Four and
a half thousand years ago this was another 27 years
younger. This means that the average age at 2500 year
BC was eleven year! Of course this is partly due to
child deaths, but I'll bet you that it was very rare
for prehistoric humans to have living grandparents.
Anyway, I'm sure that prehistoric humans didn't
develop degenerative diseases because they were dead
long before those even could develop.

Stefan:
"Also you forget, that fertility is influenced by the
type of your nutrition".

If I look at the SAD-eaters, the only thing I can
conclude is that they are more fertile, since they
breed more and that is the only thing that counts in
evolutionary terms.

Stefan:
"What are 12000 years for eradicating an error in
human diet? Virtually nothing."

Like I explained in my original post, this is
completely dependent on selection pressures.
Especially in modern life we have effectively stopped
natural selection from happening, cancelling out most
selection pressures. Just look at all the sick people
in hospitals, people living on medical drugs and only
being able to live and breed because of our high tech
society. I don't see another solution, except for
trying to convince people to eat better, but it is
definitely an effective way to pollute our gene pool!

Arjen:
"Tools came into use with Homo habilis about two and a
half million years ago, while our extended canines
disappeared already five million years ago."

Stefan:
"Are you sure? If some of the dating methods of
paleologists are slightly changing in the light of new
findings, then these numbers are rendered completely
invalid as well as your conclusions."

Slightly?! There is a difference of two and a half
million years; that must be an extremely drastic
change in timing. With due respect, I think this can
be considered wishful thinking from your part.

Stefan:
"The face of humans has changed. Maybe it's the
frequency of tool usage that counts. Maybe its the
unique bipedal moving. Who knows."

The human face was already changed before we started
using tools, so this is even more reason why we
shouldn't eat meat. And I don't see any possible
relationship between bipedal movement and shape of the
face (but that doesn't mean that there isn't one).

Stefan:
"The size of the human brain went up in times when our
ancestors consumed more and more meat and organs. This
is a good sign that they thrived on this diet."

No it isn't. Who says that there is a causal
relationship?! This is another assumption by Beyond
Veg that is being brought under the idea of Scientific
Integrity. It is nothing more than pure speculation!
Even when there is a causal relationship, who says it
is a good development? Large brains enabled us to
manipulate the environment, eventually leading to huge
ecological disasters in modern times.

Stefan:
"Especially fish are present during the whole
evolution of land animals."

Catching fish without tools is extremely hard (except
possibly during salmon runs). We only have been able
to catch fish since we use tools, so for two and a
half million years, which is at approximately the same
time we started eating mammals.

Stefan:
"Although fish are the oldest species on this planet
the genetic differences between them and land animals
are quite small."

Where does this come from???!

Stefan:
"Cooking appeared at a late point of time in
evolution, much later than the appearance of land
animals. So the genetical adaptation to cooked foods
must be weaker than to raw which was the standard for
all beings on the planet until man invented fire."

As I tried to explain in my original post, adaptation
has little to do with time and a lot to do with how
strong the selection pressures are. So that "must" in
your statement is definitely not true!

Stefan:
"If you use meat of good sources you should have no
problem with these issues."

I really hope it for you. But risks for mad cow
disease exist even when you consume any animal
products (see my reaction to Anwar). But it definitely
helps that you are living in Germany and not in the
United States!

Thank you for your responses.

Best regards, Arjen



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com