Any carnivores here?

[PazVerdeRadical]

biological evolution is mutation and adaptation, no other definition is there.

see, once some of you claim that 'some scientists profess that meat etc...' had an effect upon the brain that made it more complex and hence allowed for higher cognitive abilities, anyone who claims that, has gone outside the realm of science. period. this is what i have been telling all the einstens here.

in biology, quantifiable phenomena are never ever given intelligent attributes such as 'complex, higher' or any other word that implies a teleology (do not confuse with theology), because once you do try to add more meaning to the word 'evolution' as used by science, you ignore the basic scientific axioms which sets the rules apriori in the ways one is to use the language and logic of scientific theories, mainly, that the universe and our planet are nothing but the result of blind chaotic mutations and adaptations that are possible thanks to a lot of factors like cosmic radiation and the ability elements have to interact with each other; however, as to why this is so, there's no answer. remember kids, science only deals with hows and whats, not whys.
empirical sciences are descriptive of quantifiable phenomena, not seekers of ontological answers.

another ignored fact in these thread that has been claimed by evolution theorists, is that inevitably, at some point, the supposed changed in brain sized that the hominids supposedly had, was extremely abrupt, rendering useless the 'slow process of evolution' concept once you try to make it logically accord to the abrupt change. how is this explained? the only official explanation is that sometimes that kind of stuff happens hehehe...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

biological evolution is mutation and adaptation, no other definition is there.

Bullshit. If you believe this then YOU ARE IGNORANT! Period.

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and
political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes,
and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

see, once some of you claim that 'some scientists profess that meat etc...' had an effect upon the brain that made it more complex and hence allowed for higher cognitive abilities, anyone who claims that, has gone outside the realm of science. period. this is what i have been telling all the einstens here.

in biology, quantifiable phenomena are never ever given intelligent attributes such as 'complex, higher' or any other word that implies a teleology (do not confuse with theology), because once you do try to add more meaning to the word 'evolution' as used by science, you ignore the basic scientific axioms which sets the rules apriori in the ways one is to use the language and logic of scientific theories, mainly, that the universe and our planet are nothing but the result of blind chaotic mutations and adaptations that are possible thanks to a lot of factors like cosmic radiation and the ability elements have to interact with each other; however, as to why this is so, there's no answer. remember kids, science only deals with hows and whats, not whys.
empirical sciences are descriptive of quantifiable phenomena, not seekers of ontological answers.

another ignored fact in these thread that has been claimed by evolution theorists, is that inevitably, at some point, the supposed changed in brain sized that the hominids supposedly had, was extremely abrupt, rendering useless the 'slow process of evolution' concept once you try to make it logically accord to the abrupt change. how is this explained? the only official explanation is that sometimes that kind of stuff happens hehehe...

Who said it was extremely abrupt? You are wrong, and the more you try to twist the way reality works to fit it to youe world view, the more ignorant you appear. You lack both the Knowledge and the understanding to put together a coherent argument that makes sense.

You my friend are Ignorant... And I give up on trying to Educate the Unwilling...

Definitions of ignorant on the Web:

uneducated in general; lacking knowledge or sophistication; "an ignorant man"; "nescient of contemporary literature"; "an unlearned group incapable of understanding complex issues"; "exhibiting contempt for his unlettered companions"
uneducated in the fundamentals of a given art or branch of learning; lacking knowledge of a specific field; "she is ignorant of quantum mechanics"; "he is musically illiterate"
unaware because of a lack of relevant information or knowledge; "he was completely ignorant of the circumstances"; "an unknowledgeable assistant"; "his rudeness was unwitting"

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Bullshit. If you believe this then YOU ARE IGNORANT! Period.

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and
political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes,
and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

thanks for the definition, you should then learn how to understand it though, since it explains the same i have been trying to explain to you all the thread: evolution in biology does not relate to evolution in the broad sense of the word, but is strictly limited to the organism's changes, whether they are small or large, whether they are fast or slow.

the individual changes in aspects that are not of the organisms and hence not of biological interests, only evolve outside empirically quantifiable realms, like the evolution of cognition for example.

biologically speaking, evolution is a very specific term that describes a very specific process that relates to a very specific and specialized area of knowledge. in the broad sense of the word, evolution means any change that can then be judged to be either good or bad or any other sort of contextualization.

so in biology, only mutations and adaptations (changes in the biological realm) are considered evolution. and from these processes, no conclusion can be made regarding evolution of things outside this specific biological realm.

and since no conclusion can be made about ontological things (such as cognition, awareness) using empirical data (biological), the ideas you have been proposing are badly concluded, as they are based upon a categorical error, mainly, that you have confused biological evolution with evolution as understood in the vox populis.



peace.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

thanks for the definition, you should then learn how to understand it though, since it explains the same i have been trying to explain to you all the thread: evolution in biology does not relate to evolution in the broad sense of the word, but is strictly limited to the organism's changes, whether they are small or large, whether they are fast or slow.

the individual changes in aspects that are not of the organisms and hence not of biological interests, only evolve outside empirically quantifiable realms, like the evolution of cognition for example.

biologically speaking, evolution is a very specific term that describes a very specific process that relates to a very specific and specialized area of knowledge. in the broad sense of the word, evolution means any change that can then be judged to be either good or bad or any other sort of contextualization.

peace.

Wrong again...
Originally Posted by Grat3fulh3ad
Bullshit. If you believe this then YOU ARE IGNORANT! Period.

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and
political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes,
and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


Where does it say Fast or Slow?
You need to learn how to understand it, not misinterpret it...

 

[Nikijad4210]

First off, Nevermind, you're a fucking moron. Milk is by far & wide good for you, but like all GOOD things, it's never ment to be taken in excess, especially in adulthood. The golden rule applying to all things in life there.

Second, I have 2 brothers I grew up with. My parents were organic farmers. We ate organic fruits, veggies and meats, as well as drank organic cow & goat milk. For the first 5 years of my life, I was raised on that farm, and I was never sick. My younger brother was never sick. My older brother stopped getting sick (he's my half brother)
For 10 years, my older brother was never sick. For 5 years, I was never sick. For 3 years, my younger brother was never sick. We each drank an average of 1 gallon of milk a day. 5 gallons a day x 7 days = 35 gallons of cow milk a week.

We moved to Florida, and although we still ate organic foods from local organic farmers here, my parents stopped buying milk entirely because it was very expensive to actually PAY for the amount of milk we normally consumed.

Guess what? We began getting sick frequently---flu, colds, ear infections, sore throats, etc. We bit the bullet, and started buying cow milk again, and stopped getting sick. We never changed our organic diet, we still ate organic fruits, veggies & meats. Our physical activity level didn't change, either, we were just as active down here as we were up north. When we omitted the milk, we were sick frequently. It never seemed to matter if the milk was organic or not, either. The lack of milk appeared to weaken our immune systems significantly. Vitamin suppliments never helped, be it extracted vites & minerals, or synthetic ones.
I am a firm believer via personal experiance that milk has significant immune-boosting properties that cannot be replaced or synthesized.


None of us have diabetes, nor were we ever at risk for it. None of us were ever overweight, but when the milk was cut out, the pounds piled on quickly. None of us ever had digestive problems from dairy, and none of us do now.

Most dont understand lactose intolerance and why people have it.

Apparently you don't, either. True lactose intolerance is entirely different from what OTC products treat. True L.I involves the lack of lactase production entirely from birth, not from production levels declining throughout life. And true L.I people avoid as much dairy as possible for a very important reason---lactose poisoning. In it's natural form, lactose not broken down is toxic, and if not rid from the body, can result in uncontrollable fever, uncontrollable sweating, muscle spasms, uncontrollable vomiting, and in the most severe cases, intestinal bleeding.
An effective test to see if you're truely lactose intolerant, or merely lactose sensitive is to drink a glass of milk. If you have a tolerable upset stomach, feel bloated, develope gas, and loose stools (not the liquid shits) and develope a mild headache (if at all) you're lactose sensitive
If you vomit immediately, develope a near-instantanious migraine, begin sweating, have abdominal spasms, develope the liquid shits, run a high fever, you're genuinely lactose intolerant. The best thing you can do for yourself at that point is to go to a hospital and get immediate medical treatment.
Also, it is infrequent outside of outright lactose poisoning, but hallucinations are also indicitive of genuine lactose intolerance.

Another dead give-away to true lactose intolerance is not being able to digest anything without becoming ill that uses lactose as a binding agent, i.e certain medications, suppliments, heartburn products, etc, etc.

Any digestive specialist will tell you that.

Which is what countless digestive specialists country-wide have told Wolf throughout his life after continually diagnosing him as truely lactose intolerant. There is no "cure" or "quick fix" or "temporary fix" for people lacking lactase entirely, and NO OTC product is effective what-so-ever for people like him, there's no where near enough synthetic lactase in OTC products to aid in lactose digestion for those lacking the protein. OTC products only work for those with low levels of lactase, i.e lactose sensitive people.

Milk is for infants to drink and get their vitamins since they dont eat solid foods yet to get protein.

With a slow introduction after the first week or so of life, newborns can digest pureed solids normally within 2-4 weeks of their birth.

Between my mom's first marriage, & second marriage to my dad, that being my older brother, then my younger brother & myself, and my dad's first marriage (my oldest brother, & sister) his second marriage to my mom, and his current marriage (my 11 year old brother) ALL of us except my youngest brother, who has severe Downs, were eating & digesting pureed solids by the time we were 2 weeks old. We ALL ate pureed meats by the time we were a month old, and ALL of us drank cow milk, and ate eggs & organic peanut butter by the time we were 3 months old. And EVERYONE was extraordinarily healthy and we were never sick as babies, toddlers or young kids.

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

All I have ever tried to impress upon you is that people have different health histories and different nutrition plans that work for each INDIVIDUAL.... we can't all be the same... shit we'd be boring as hell.

I do not eat red meat and I don't eat meat on a day to day basis...for reasons I stated... health history in my family... Fact: out of a large family... I am the only one with low blood pressure...low cholesterol...no heart trouble...no diabetes .. guess it's working for me

The remark about silly and lazy.. I do not take offense to that as I know how I was as a mother... but seriously... if you are debating with facts.. umm that wasn't a fact that was your opinion... I disagreed with it... to me a lazy parent is someone that gets their kids McD's, Burger King... lets them sit in front of a tv all day...... but you draw the conclusion of being lazy for giving a child a glass of milk? c'mon

I said "I see nothing wrong with a child having a glass of milk with their meal" You turned it on me dear, implying that I should give them water over milk so they could have a balanced meal... I never said it was me... You assumed... For the record... my kids drank more water over milk as they got older...I just think with all things moderation... and face it... corn flakes do not taste good with water on them.

For the record... I gave birth to babies well over 8 & 9lbs... all in perfect health... as a pregnant woman... I was in perfect health... Actually weighed less after giving birth than before I got pregnant... nursed all of them.... I must be doing something right...

See I can agree to disagree... you need to be right.

Looking back over this thread and comments to people who disagree with you... well .... it's in black n white... part of debating is also opening your mind to what the other person is saying...

Honestly if I wanted to argue with someone who can't open their mind a bit..... I'd have stay married to that asshole...

No need to go over my thread .... break it down... give your facts ... I won't acknowledge it...this lifestyle has worked for me and a few close friends..... Fact is in our good health...

Peace~

Hippie Chic

Added note: Not intended to offend anyone but I do find it fascinating that as a community here... coming together because of the intolerance for those that enjoy smoking/growing herb... and the lack of tolerance in other areas of people's lives... just my opinion...

I didnt imply shit. You twisted it once again . I never said you should give them water over milk here are my exact words.

Huge assumption? Not really. All one needs to do is look at how much milk is produced and consumed by adults. There is no need for adults to drink milk, cows milk at that. All the vitamins that milk contains are also found in most foods. So one could just eat a balanced diet and not drink milk and get more than enough vitamins and minerals from their food . But instead people drink milk, cuz it " helps you grow and think like a champ" but so does food. Milk is for babies , thats it. If it werent then women would lactate most of their lives. Since women lactate ti give milk to babaies. If we needed milk thru our adult lives women would lactate and we would drink that , but we dont.

You could replace that glass of milk with water and give your kid a balanced diet and they wouldnt miss milk a bit.


I wasnt implying a damn thing. I was stating a fact and you took at as a jab to your parenting. I am very open minded, just not to people when they are wrong or make assumptions. You take things out of context and personal and have done so this whole thread. Perhaps your skin is to thin for debate since you get pissed off so quick, which is your fault since you twist words and take shit out of context.






Nevermind

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Wrong again...
Originally Posted by Grat3fulh3ad
Bullshit. If you believe this then YOU ARE IGNORANT! Period.

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
" In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and
political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes,
and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986


Where does it say Fast or Slow?
You need to learn how to understand it, not misinterpret it...

----------

fast or slow, slight or substantial, semantics. come on man, be serious

lets break it down and see what's happening:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and
political systems all evolve."[/B]

here the definition begins by defining evolution in the broadest sense, which includes many things, it is all pervasive, you can apply the term to anything you like. for example, the evolution of cognition, or the evolution of emotions, of mind, of the psyche, of the spirit, soul, the evolution of art, of philosophy, of history, etc... we can discuss evolution related to all these fine and good things any way we please.

then it goes on to say:

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. "

now the definition describes the term evolution in relation to the specific science of biology, and it sets it apart from the first definition in that in biological evolution exclusively relates to the changes in the populations of organisms, it goes even as far saying that individual organisms do not evolve biologically speaking. it is only considered biological evolution if the changes happen in the genetic material and that these are inheritable from one generation to the next in the whole population of whatever is it that is evolving, be it plants, animals, humans, bipeds, etc...

"Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes,
and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"

slight or substantial changes, fast or slow are even also implied in the meaning, for example, changes in the alleles determing blood type are evolutionary changes within a biological context happened a lot faster than the theoried brain size change, as change in the blood is pre-requisite to have the brain need bigger mass to hold more connections to process more complex chemicals introduced into the diet of men, right?

the man who wrote the definition went through the trouble of first defining what biological evolution is not, in order to clearly set it apart from vox populis evolution. linking biological evolution then to vox populi changes is not possible, because you make what is called 'categorical error' which basically means you have placed the meat in the drawer for the vegetables in the refrigerator at home. it is like trying to play nfl football using older football's rule just because the names are similar. darn, that was a kick ass way to explain it

so when you posted in this thread that meat was good for you because if it weren't for meat we wouldn't have evolved into what we are today, you should by now understand why i said such a thing was unscientific to say.

be well.

peace.

 

[Babbabud]

I drink milk but to be truthful i dont believe dairy products are very good for you. If you look at the curdle of cows milk it is huge. If you look at the curdle of mothers milk it is tiny. As soon as milk hits are stomachs it curdles. Pretty hard to digest. Mothers milk is for humans cows milk is for calfs. I drink milk but try to keep all dairy products from being a mainstay in my diet. I just think it clogs up the intestinal track...... a great place for illness to begin.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

----------

fast or slow, slight or substantial, semantics. come on man, be serious

lets break it down and see what's happening:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and
political systems all evolve."[/B]

here the definition begins by defining evolution in the broadest sense, which includes many things, it is all pervasive, you can apply the term to anything you like. for example, the evolution of cognition, or the evolution of emotions, of mind, of the psyche, of the spirit, soul, the evolution of art, of philosophy, of history, etc... we can discuss evolution related to all these fine and good things any way we please.

then it goes on to say:

"Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of
organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual.The ontogeny of an individual is not
considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are
considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to
the next. "

now the definition describes the term evolution in relation to the specific science of biology, and it sets it apart from the first definition in that in biological evolution exclusively relates to the changes in the populations of organisms, it goes even as far saying that individual organisms do not evolve biologically speaking.


"Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight
changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood
types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes,
and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986"

slight or substantial changes, fast or slow are even also implied in the meaning, for example, changes in the alleles determing blood type are evolutionary changes within a biological context happened a lot faster than the theoried brain size change, as change in the blood is pre-requisite to have the brain need bigger mass to hold more connections to process more complex chemicals introduced into the diet of men, right?

the man who wrote the definition went through the trouble of first defining what biological evolution is not, in order to clearly set it apart from vox populis evolution. linking biological evolution then to vox populi changes is not possible, because you make what is called 'categorical error' which basically means you have placed the meat in the drawer for the vegetables in the refrigerator at home. it is like trying to play nfl football using older football's rule just because the names are similar. darn, that was a kick ass way to explain it

so when you posted in this thread that meat was good for you because if it weren't for meat we wouldn't have evolved into what we are today, you should by now understand why i said such a thing was unscientific to say.

be well.

peace.

Dude, You just don't understand, and don't want to learn...

'Slight or substantial' and 'Fast or Slow' don't mean anywhere near the same thing.

Your entire post is based on trying to 'lawyer' your way around established sciences.

I'm done with arguing with you. Anyone who takes the time to read our entire argument will find your shifting position and lack of understanding laughable.

Also you never said that 'such a thing was unscientific to say'... You said that you were 100% sure no serious scientist held that position.

You seem to be quick to be 100% sure, for such an unlearned person.

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

Apparently you don't, either. True lactose intolerance is entirely different from what OTC products treat. True L.I involves the lack of lactase production entirely from birth, not from production levels declining throughout life. And true L.I people avoid as much dairy as possible for a very important reason---lactose poisoning. In it's natural form, lactose not broken down is toxic, and if not rid from the body, can result in uncontrollable fever, uncontrollable sweating, muscle spasms, uncontrollable vomiting, and in the most severe cases, intestinal bleeding.
An effective test to see if you're truely lactose intolerant, or merely lactose sensitive is to drink a glass of milk. If you have a tolerable upset stomach, feel bloated, develope gas, and loose stools (not the liquid shits) and develope a mild headache (if at all) you're lactose sensitive
If you vomit immediately, develope a near-instantanious migraine, begin sweating, have abdominal spasms, develope the liquid shits, run a high fever, you're genuinely lactose intolerant. The best thing you can do for yourself at that point is to go to a hospital and get immediate medical treatment.
Also, it is infrequent outside of outright lactose poisoning, but hallucinations are also indicitive of genuine lactose intolerance.

Another dead give-away to true lactose intolerance is not being able to digest anything without becoming ill that uses lactose as a binding agent, i.e certain medications, suppliments, heartburn products, etc, etc.


You are wrong my dear, there are 3 types of Lactose intolerence. You are lumping them all together

* Primary lactose intolerance. Normally, your body produces large amounts of lactase at birth and in early childhood, when milk is the primary source of nutrition. Usually your lactase production decreases as your diet becomes more varied and less reliant on milk. This gradual decline may cause symptoms of lactose intolerance.

* Secondary lactose intolerance. This form of lactose intolerance occurs when your small intestine decreases lactase production after an illness, surgery or injury to your small intestine. It can occur as a result of intestinal diseases such as celiac disease, gastroenteritis or an inflammatory bowel disease, especially Crohn's disease. This type of lactose intolerance may last only a few weeks and be completely reversible. However, if it's caused by a long-term illness, it may be permanent.

* Congenital lactose intolerance. It's possible for babies to be born with lactose intolerance. This rare disorder is passed from generation to generation in a pattern of inheritance called autosomal recessive. This means that both the mother and the father must pass on the defective form of the gene for a child to be affected. Infants with congenital lactose intolerance are intolerant of the lactose in their mothers' breast milk and have diarrhea from birth. These babies require lactose-free infant formulas.



So what you are talking about is a rare disorder where babies cant digest lactose from birth. But the majority of people from birth have the ability passed thru our genes to be abel to digest milk up until usually 2-5 years of age. So while you say true LI involves the lack of lactase production from birth what you are talking about is a rare form of LI, not the common lactose intolerence that our genes cause.

You can call me a fuckin moron all you like, but when you confuse a rare condition from birth your husband has over general LI you are the one making yourself look silly. Read up a bit before you call names.



Nevermind

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Dude, You just don't understand, and don't want to learn...

'Slight or substantial' and 'Fast or Slow' don't mean anywhere near the same thing.

Your entire post is based on trying to 'lawyer' your way around established sciences.

I'm done with arguing with you. Anyone who takes the time to read our entire argument will find your shifting position and lack of understanding laughable.

Also you never said that 'such a thing was unscientific to say'... You said that you were 100% sure no serious scientist held that position.

You seem to be quick to be 100% sure, for such an unlearned person.

well, i am not 100% sure that your counter-arguments of "you are ignorant, you don't understand, you don't want to learn, etc... etc... etc..." are all very well thought-out nor am i sure that they have much to do with the point of the discussion, but as i already had admitted, i don't know what i am talking about

paz

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

well, i am not 100% sure that your counter-arguments of "you are ignorant, you don't understand, you don't want to learn, etc... etc... etc..." are all very well thought-out nor am i sure that they have much to do with the point of the discussion, but as i already had admitted, i don't know what i am talking about

paz

Those were never my counter arguments, Just facts that need to be pointed out...

All of my counter arguments were actual fact, data to support fact, or citations of expert opinions... From my very first post, where I stated what I thought some experts had said... Your very first post in response to me was to suggest that I was either a fool or a liar... Every post you have made is response to me have been a vain attempt to make look like a fool or a liar...

The funny thing is that all of your arguments to refute the actual research by experts in the science community are based on how you feel things should work, or should have worked.

You have admitted repeatedly that you don't know what you're talking about, and demonstrated it as well... Why do you insist on trying so desperately to make me seem wrong from some perspective?

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

grat3, you accuse me of things i haven't done. i haven't been trying to make you seemy wrong, i was giving you the chance as politely as i could to re-examine your understanding of scientific theories. as i already said also, for all you know, i may be an authority on the issue, or not. anyone can google up 'evolutionary biology', or go toa good university library and inform themselves, do you think anyone will be learning from either of us two here? at best this can inspire others to go study on their own and understand with their own intelligence these theories that you champion so well. but what is certain, is that the ones who do benefit (or not) from this discussion directly is you and i.

you think scientists actually have proof that meat eating led to the changes you have described, that's cool, but not everyone agrees with how the proof has been gathered and interpreted, that's whole different ball game, but what do i know... last time i checked no one has ever been able to properly sequence proteins or nuclei acids even. much less have any evidence regarding 'cognitive abilities' in the proto homo sapiens to compare them to those of homo sapiens, how can you compare two things scientifically when you have only guesses about one of the two things?

but don't take me seriously man, i am not copying and pasting from google

peace.

 

[genkisan]

Perhaps your skin is to thin for debate since you get pissed off so quick, which is your fault since you twist words and take shit out of context.






Nevermind

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!


YOU of all people are saying this to someone else??

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!


Now that's a laff......

If you stopped trying to be so tough and so right with every post Mr N, mebbe you'd see how silly you sound much of the time...try not taking yourself so damn seriously for once......it is quite healthy.

 

[Babbabud]

Ok well Im just home for lunch and it looks like some people are having a hard time showing respect to others. Ill leave this open but if the tone remains the same it will prolly be binned when i get home fromm work later. Sorry to the rest of you that wish to have conversations that so many threads here seem to turn into arguments.

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!


YOU of all people are saying this to someone else??

BWAHAHAHAHAH!!!


Now that's a laff......

If you stopped trying to be so tough and so right with every post Mr N, mebbe you'd see how silly you sound much of the time...try not taking yourself so damn seriously for once......it is quite healthy.

I have never acted tough on here so i dont know where you are getting that from. I havent once gotten pissed off in this thread. I have however pointed out your hypocrisy when it comes to pollution since you have this whole " meat eaters pollute the world " thing meanwhile you drive a protege emitting pollution. Didnt make me mad one bit pointing that out, was actually funny.

As far as hippie chic and others. They were debating opinion against fact and seemed to take offense to the facts that were presented. Again , laughable.

I sound silly? Your the one screaming about pollution making excuses why you drive a protege instead of a hybrid. Wanting others to do their part while you make excuses for not doing yours make you sound silly.




Nevermind

 

[Guest]

Ok well Im just home for lunch and it looks like some people are having a hard time showing respect to others. Ill leave this open but if the tone remains the same it will prolly be binned when i get home fromm work later. Sorry to the rest of you that wish to have conversations that so many threads here seem to turn into arguments.

Amen.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

grat3, you accuse me of things i haven't done. i haven't been trying to make you seemy wrong, i was giving you the chance as politely as i could to re-examine your understanding of scientific theories. as i already said also, for all you know, i may be an authority on the issue, or not. anyone can google up 'evolutionary biology', or go toa good university library and inform themselves, do you think anyone will be learning from either of us two here? at best this can inspire others to go study on their own and understand with their own intelligence these theories that you champion so well. but what is certain, is that the ones who do benefit (or not) from this discussion directly is you and i.

you think scientists actually have proof that meat eating led to the changes you have described, that's cool, but not everyone agrees with how the proof has been gathered and interpreted, that's whole different ball game, but what do i know... last time i checked no one has ever been able to properly sequence proteins or nuclei acids even. much less have any evidence regarding 'cognitive abilities' in the proto homo sapiens to compare them to those of homo sapiens, how can you compare two things scientifically when you have only guesses about one of the two things?

but don't take me seriously man, i am not copying and pasting from google

peace.

You're right I shouldn't accuse you. I should preface all those statements with 'It seems like'... In reality you may not be trying to find some way to prove me wrong, you may really think that your imaginings of how things work supercede actual fact or expert consensus...
I don't need to re-examine my understanding of any of these theories, I understand them perfectly well. Your statements demonstrate (true or not) that you do not understand the concepts you are trying to talk about.
I am 100% sure that you are not an authority on anything!
I hope others are inspired by our discussion to study this farther.
I am 'championing' no theories, merely pointing out that they are there. That's what my first post and every post responding to you since has been for. You were the one who denied the existence of those theories, I showed that they are certainly there. If anything I was championing the existence of the theories that I claimed existed, and you claimd didn't.
I know that they have actual Evidence. I never said actual proof, that's just another case of you changing my words. Whether or not you agree with the evidence or the methods is irrelevant. You don't even have evidence for your position, merely your own convoluted and misinformed thought processes.


And no I don't take you seriously. You offer no evidence, no facts, no expert opinions. When I made my initial post, Google wasn't involved. I know what the scientific community thinks. The google'd stuff was just supporting evidence.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

By the way the Cognitive abilities are easily quantified by examining evidence about the tool making abilities of different primate species. Is that science?

Also I have modified my position upon further study.... If you read back through my post I quit saying meat protein quite a while back and went with the much more proveable term animal source foods...

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

An interesting quote and link...

Welcome to the AURA Homepage of COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY

Cognitive archaeology is the branch of archaeology that investigates the development of human cognition. It therefore deals with a great variety of evidence, ranging from early rock art to other forms of palaeoart, from animal cognition to palaeoanthropology to psychology and ontogenic cognitive development, and it also needs to concern itself with evidence of early human technology and the ability of domesticating natural systems of energy. In short, this endeavour needs to draw its information from many disciplines. Its ultimate purpose is to consider how early humans managed to formulate their various constructs of reality, and how these may have led to the worldviews held by the human species today. Therefore human cognitive evolution is intimately connected to fundamental questions of epistemology: what were the processes that led to the way we experience the world today, that created the frameworks of reference humans use to map the physical reality they perceive to exist.

http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/cognit/web/index.html

Courtesy of Google

much less have any evidence regarding 'cognitive abilities' in the proto homo sapiens to compare them to those of homo sapiens, how can you compare two things scientifically when you have only guesses about one of the two things?

Only guesses and no evidence, eh?