Any carnivores here?

[Guest]

venison>all other meats

 

[Guest]

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?

Because that's his M.O. - PVR loves to throw out cheap shots/generalizations then gets whiny when people call him on his own ignorance on the subject. Been there done that...

This thread is getting way off topic.
There is no arguing how bad cow milk is for humans, read any holistic health book and it is broken down simply and yes, it curdles terribly in the digestive system and does not digest, it is compared to sugar in how bad it is for our bodies...

Someone also mentioned different body types in relation to eating meat.That is also very true. A person with A+ type blood can typically digest carbs better than a person with an O- type blood who typically digests meats better. I think moderation and frequency here are key.

PVR -

SOME OF YOU

referring to me and my comment on hormones. If you think hormones don't change the human body, even in short amounts of time, you my friend are as Greatful said, IGNORANT.
Have you ever heard of what people do to their bodies with hormones? I guess not..

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I was going to say something about how hormones govern nearly every process that occurs in our bodies, but I googled this instead...

The Role of Hormones

The hormonal system is also referred to as the endocrine system, and is responsible for regulating most biochemical processes which take place within the body. These biochemical processes can all be switched on, turned up or down, or switched off, directly as a result of the particular hormone that is responsible for the regulation of its specific chemical function.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Also, I guess I should once again apologise for my part in how far off topic the thread has gone...
When my statements are directly challenged, I lack the self dicipline to abstain from response...

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

and now cognitive archeology is somehow related to biological evolution. archeological evidence is hardly biological; just because you can analyse chemical properties of old tools and fossils, it does not mean that these explain why and how biological evolution works and much less how they relate to the theory of animal food sources as being cause for the formations of homo sapiens.

it is hopeless to get a straight answer from you, grat3, you cop-out and say i haven't presented "expert opinions".

how about mckenna? sheldrake? do they count?

i still haven't seen anyone human sequencing proper proteins and nuclei acids btw, where was that piece of evidence again?

flamengo, character assasination isn't proper debating. i know you dislike me because i like argentinian football but one day you'll understand others are free to like other teams besides brasil

peace out.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

and now cognitive archeology is somehow related to biological evolution. archeological evidence is hardly biological; just because you can analyse chemical properties of old tools and fossils, it does not mean that these explain why and how biological evolution works and much less how they relate to the theory of animal food sources as being cause for the formations of homo sapiens.

it is hopeless to get a straight answer from you, grat3, you cop-out and say i haven't presented "expert opinions".

I've given you nothing but straight answers. Are not all of the Sciences intertwined? Is it not really one science with multiple diciplines? Also I never once said that all the evidence was biological.

You fail to get that I'm not trying to prove any of these theories. I don't have to. All I have to do is show that they are out there. You say they aren't, or at least that was your initial position.

Funny thing is every time you state that there is no evidence for something I show you some.

My answer is not that you haven't presented expert opinions. That is a fact unrelated to my answers, and only a small part of why nothing you have said can be taken seriously.

As far as your statement about archeaologic evidence not aplying to evolutionary biology, It is a foolish statement. How could the development of our minds and bodies be unrelated to the evidence we left behind? You have got to be kidding me.

how about mckenna? sheldrake? do they count?

i still haven't seen anyone human sequencing proper proteins and nuclei acids btw, where was that piece of evidence again?

flamengo, character assasination isn't proper debating. i know you dislike me because i like argentinian football but one day you'll understand others are free to like other teams besides brasil

peace out.

Sure they count... two points for you...

As far as the protein sequencing issue... I have to provide this why?

Making 100% incorrect statements that you are 100% sure about isn't proper debating either. Neither is ridiculing evidence you don't understand, without providing any counter-evidence.

 

[Pops]

Paz, I think what we are doing here is trying to debate the MOST CURRENTLY accepted theories about human evolution and brain developement. Granted there are numbers of theories that abound, about one for every scientist. These folks have to compete for grants and they sometimes get a little carried away with their theories, as sometimes the proof is a litle hard to determine from fossilized remains that are not complete.

I could post a fairly long piece of info about human evolution and brain size, but if babba is going to shitcan this thread, I don't really want to take the time to put it all down here. Current thought is that both bipedal locomotion and use of tool led to higher amounts of protein in the diet, which led to larger brain size. This did not happen overnight, but took approximately 5.5 million years to go from ardipithicus to Homo. From Australopithicus afarensis(4 million years ago) with a brain size of 438 cc to modern Homo sapiens(250,00 or so years ago) with a brain size of 1200-1700 cc.

Interestingly enough neanderthal(who had a diet higher in meat) had a slightly larger cranial capacity(1200-1700) than todays man. So did cro magnon(early modern man) whose cranial capacity averaged 1600 cc.

Here is how cranial capacity stacks up by race:
Austalian Aborigines 1225
Bushmen 1270
caucasions 1369
Sub-saharan africans 1282
N.E. Asians 1416

The neanderthal as I said had 1200-1700 and the Cromagnon were 1600 ave.

Cranial capacity is not a true indicator on intelligence. Depends on the grey matter in the brain and the convolutions.

If anyone would like a timeline of the last 5.5 million years, with cranial capacities, i would be glad to provide it if this thread survives.

As far as the milk and lactose intolerant issues go, I am ignorant. That one seems to have become a pissing match, and since I have the smallest pecker here(except,maybe, for Hippie Chic), i am going to stay out of that fight.

 

[Guest]

As far as the milk and lactose intolerant issues go, I am ignorant. That one seems to have become a pissing match, and since I have the smallest pecker here(except,maybe, for Hippie Chic), i am going to stay out of that fight.

hahahaha I like you Pops

Peace~

Hippie Chic

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

initially, grat3 had said:

I believe that the introduction of meat protein into our ancestor's diets is what allowed our species to evolve our large brain structure and cognitive ability, according to evolutionary biologists and anthropologists...

to which i answered:

which evolutionary biologists and anthropologists are saying these wild things anyways?

heck, if that were true, animals who eat meat daily and can metabolize it a lot better than humans do should be the ones who evolved into the intelligent dominant species that our human brain is supposed to make us into.

but i am 100% no serious academia is proposing the more meat equals more brain theory, thank goodness.

peace

i never said such theories did not exist, clearly, i said no serious academia are proposing such a thing, and no serious academia is right now investing any resources into studying the supposed links between animal food sources and brain size and cognition theories.

as already mentioned by pops (good seeing you mr. pops) a few times already, brain size does not determine cognitive abilities much less intelligence.

and again, cognitive archeology cannot be linked to biological evolution, since these operate using two different theories of knowledge, a different axiom.

and no, not all sciences work together under one big unit, there is no such thing as a theory of all so far, well, there's string theory and what-not...

the point still is, that your claim that animal food source is what allowed homo sapiens take its actual form, is only supported by a couple guys whose papers got no laboratory back-up, whose own words which you quoted constantly use: "it may seem that" "this may correlate to" "we are not sure yet but it certainly is possible that".
all of it is written in that fashion because they have no evidence, just conjecture.

however, in biological evolution, there are some interesting and useful bits of information, for sure. but going as far as using these little pieces of info in order to somehow establish animal food sources eating as a good thing because it has caused man to gain great complexity in cognition is just going way way too far.

seriously...

peace.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

i never said such theories did not exist, clearly, i said no serious academia are proposing such a thing, and no serious academia is right now investing any resources into studying the supposed links between animal food sources and brain size and cognition theories.

as already mentioned by pops (good seeing you mr. pops) a few times already, brain size does not determine cognitive abilities much less intelligence.

and again, cognitive archeology cannot be linked to biological evolution, since these operate using two different theories of knowledge, a different axiom.

and no, not all sciences work together under one big unit, there is no such thing as a theory of all so far, well, there's string theory and what-not...

the point still is, that your claim that animal food source is what allowed homo sapiens take its actual form, is only supported by a couple guys whose papers got no laboratory back-up, whose own words which you quoted constantly use: "it may seem that" "this may correlate to" "we are not sure yet but it certainly is possible that".
all of it is written in that fashion because they have no evidence, just conjecture.

however, in biological evolution, there are some interesting and useful bits of information, for sure. but going as far as using these little pieces of info in order to somehow establish animal food sources eating as a good thing because it has caused man to gain great complexity in cognition is just going way way too far.

seriously...

peace.

LMAO... My claim? No I was not claiming that, I was claiming that others claim that. How many times do we have to go over the same thing? and it's more than a couple of guys... according to the resident expert...

Paz, I think what we are doing here is trying to debate the MOST CURRENTLY accepted theories about human evolution and brain developement. ... ... Current thought is that both bipedal locomotion and use of tool led to higher amounts of protein in the diet, which led to larger brain size. This did not happen overnight, but took approximately 5.5 million years to go from ardipithicus to Homo.
Cranial capacity is not a true indicator on intelligence. Depends on the grey matter in the brain and the convolutions.

Great paz... Me and pops and the science channel and the couple of guys I quoted are all wrong, and your theories are the only valid ones.


also...
There is only one science. Limited understanding of how everything goes together does not change that.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Hey Pops... Though cranial size is not an accurate apraisal of cognitive ability, what other possible physical evidence could there be? I mean, other than the obvious things like tool development, and artistic expression.

 

[Pedro_De_Pacas]

Man I love eating meat and all that...but that video still makes me feel pretty bad...
All my life i have grown up around that type of stuff....

My uncles think they are farmers..lol....They are always raiseing pigs and beef to butcher down the road..I have even experianced slaughtering first hand......My uncles dont hang the animals upside down though...They usaully pop them in the head with a 22 mag..wait till their dead and then...Here comes this sick part..butt......They slit there throat to let them bleed out...It is a little inhumane...but I gotta eat meat...I dont really see myself not eating it...I guess thats the way it goes though...But as god says it is okay to eat meat as long as they dont part at the hoof or chew the cud...I bilieve thats how it went..But im not sure....PEACE

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Interestingly enough neanderthal(who had a diet higher in meat) had a slightly larger cranial capacity(1200-1700) than todays man. So did cro magnon(early modern man) whose cranial capacity averaged 1600 cc.

Here is how cranial capacity stacks up by race:
Austalian Aborigines 1225
Bushmen 1270
caucasions 1369
Sub-saharan africans 1282
N.E. Asians 1416

The neanderthal as I said had 1200-1700 and the Cromagnon were 1600 ave.

Cranial capacity is not a true indicator on intelligence. Depends on the grey matter in the brain and the convolutions.

If anyone would like a timeline of the last 5.5 million years, with cranial capacities, i would be glad to provide it if this thread survives.

Check this out pops...

Did Modern Humans Get a Brain Gene from Neandertals?
By Michael Balter For decades, human evolution researchers have debated whether Neandertals and modern humans interbred. Most scientists have come down on the side that any romances between these hominid cousins must have been fleeting at best. But a new study suggests that a few of these passing dalliances might have had a major impact on the evolution of the Homo sapiens brain. If so, Neandertals, although long extinct, may have left humanity a lasting genetic gift. Some anthropologists have argued that a handful of hominid skeletons show features of both Neandertals and modern humans (Science, 11 February 2005, p. 841). But so far sequencing of Neandertal ancient DNA has turned up no signs of such interbreeding (Science, 11 July 1997, p. 176). As a result, most researchers have considered the two species genetically separate. Now, University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn and his colleagues report evidence that at least one gene might have bridged the evolutionary divide. Lahn's team analyzed the origins of the gene microcephalin, thought to be involved in regulating brain growth. Last year, the team reported in Science that a particular variant of the gene, now present in 70% of the world's population, arose about 37,000 years ago and quickly spread around the globe. Apparently the variant, known as haplogroup D, was favored by natural selection, although no one is sure of its function (Science, 9 September 2005, p. 1662). © 2006 American Association for the Advancement of Science

More human-Neandertal mixing evidence uncovered
A reexamination of ancient human bones from Romania reveals more evidence that humans and Neandertals interbred. Erik Trinkaus, Ph.D., Washington University Mary Tileston Hemenway Professor in Arts & Sciences, and colleagues radiocarbon-dated and analyzed the shapes of human bones from Romania's Pe?tera Muierii (Cave of the Old Woman). The fossils, discovered in 1952, add to the small number of early modern human remains from Europe known to be more than 28,000 years old. Results were published in the current issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. The team found that the fossils were 30,000 years old and principally have the diagnostic skeletal features of modern humans. They also found that the remains had other features known, among potential ancestors, primarily among the preceding Neandertals, providing more evidence there was mixing of humans and Neandertals as modern humans dispersed across Europe about 35,000 years ago. Their analysis of one skeleton's shoulder blade also shows that these humans did not have the full set of anatomical adaptations for throwing projectiles, like spears, during hunting.
Keyword: Evolution
Posted: 11.03.2006

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

LMAO... My claim? No I was not claiming that, I was claiming that others claim that. How many times do we have to go over the same thing? and it's more than a couple of guys... according to the resident expert...

Great paz... Me and pops and the science channel and the couple of guys I quoted are all wrong, and your theories are the only valid ones.


also...
There is only one science. Limited understanding of how everything goes together does not change that.

i am not proposing any theories, just pointing out that the theories of others you have presented here are nothing more but theories. specially the claim that preaches that animal food sources are responsible for larger brain size
and hence more complex cognition. a claim that still remains without any evidence, whoever made it has no proof to back it up

paz

 

[Pops]

H3ad, that is really hard to determine. The greatest advance in tool use and varied design in tools has come in just the last 50,00 years. What scientists have theorized ( and I stress theorized) is that the amount of grey matter and the amount of convolutions(wrinkles/folding etc. that increases surface area of grey matter) have a determination on intelligence. Scientist use brain casts from the fossil skulls to determine capacity and convolution, due to the ridges inside the skull.

It is probable that speech or the ability to communicate was important as a learning tool. Some creatures have genetic knowledge(like ants) and are preprogrammed to do tasks. Homo had to learn these tasks and language was important for this. It is argued that neanderthal did not have the same capacity for speech as did Cromagnon, due to the structure of the hyoid bone in the throat.

Tool use has been evident since Homo habilis from 1.9 million years ago. Habilis had smaller molars and a larger brain than Australopithicus and made tools from stone and bone. All hominids from that time foreward used tool, but there was no real variation in then until about 200,000 years ago, and they started to get fancy about 50,000 years ago. Habilis was the first hominid to walk fully erect(due to the development of locking kneecaps and a different location for the foramen magnum{place where the spine joins the skull}) and may have developed fire and was using it to cook meat.

Artistic expression did not really occur(to our knowledge) until neanderthan, about 200,000 years ago.

Be careful now, you are starting to stress my brain and my cognitive functions may fail at any time. I may have to go eat some meat!

 

[Ganico]

fishing on the other hand...damn I like to fish but I've never caught more that a dinners worth of fish, I want to go salmon fishing, get some spring chinook or maybe some kings, that'd be a blast.

Where do you live and what do you fish for?


I fish for breams (bluegills, redears, longears,etc), and can always catch a ton of them. Plus there's no catch limit so you can take as many as you want. Around here it's usually no problem to fill a 5 gallon bucket with breams if you're fishing for a few hours. And this is just on shore with worms and bobbers.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

i am not proposing any theories, just pointing out that the theories of others you have presented here are nothing more but theories. specially the claim that preaches that animal food sources are responsible for larger brain size
and hence more complex cognition. a claim that still remains without any evidence, whoever made it has no proof to back it up

paz

Excellent... Finally we come to agreement... There is no proof but quite alot of evidence (when one is willing to accept a variety of sciences) for this quite rational theory. There is also No proof that any other scenerio is more likely.

I've never once wavered from that viewpoint.

 

[Pops]

Paz, the use of tools was not only a sign of intelligence, but may have acted as a stimulus to humam evolution. Over the past 3 million years, human brain size has tripled. Brains use a lot of energy, a modern brain uses about 20 watts or 400 calories per day. This is 1/5 of our total energy needs. Early hominids were gatherers and scavengers, getting most of their calories from fruits, leaves and roots which are low energy. They only occasionally got meat scavenged from another animals kill. Since plant foods produce less energy that animal protiens or seafoods, being able to walk upright and use tools for hunting or fishing brought higher amounts of high protein foods able to support a larger brain, which in turn allowed him to develop better tools to get even more proteins

I guess that it is a chicken or egg thing to determine if walking upright, tool use, more meat or bigger brains came first. We simply don't have all the evidence and as old as I am, i was not there so i can't tell you for sure. But they all are definately tied in together.

 

[Pops]

Paz, it is only on the last few years that a multi-disiplinary approach has been taken to paleo-archaelogy. I went to college 35 years ago. We didn't have personal computors or the internet. Scientists often had to wait months or even years for archaeological finds to be analyzed and published. We may find, now that the information age is here, that discoveries come faster and faster and that much of what we believed in the past is no longer true.

There will always be honest disagreement between scientists as the fossil record is sketchy. There are some who believe that Paranthropus is merely Australopithecus Robustus. It has been classified both ways and has gone back and forth as new evidence comes in. Neanderthal was first called Homo neanderthalensis(a new species), then Home Sapiens archaic(old form of man) then Home sapiens neanderthalensis(just another variety of modern man). It is now back to Home Neanderthalensis, as new evedence from mitochondrial dna and y-chromosome dna have proved that Neanderthal did not contribute any genes to homo sapiens.

Fucked up, right?

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

Paz, the use of tools was not only a sign of intelligence, but may have acted as a stimulus to humam evolution. Over the past 3 million years, human brain size has tripled. Brains use a lot of energy, a modern brain uses about 20 watts or 400 calories per day. This is 1/5 of our total energy needs. Early hominids were gatherers and scavengers, getting most of their calories from fruits, leaves and roots which are low energy. They only occasionally got meat scavenged from another animals kill. Since plant foods produce less energy that animal protiens or seafoods, being able to walk upright and use tools for hunting or fishing brought higher amounts of high protein foods able to support a larger brain, which in turn allowed him to develop better tools to get even more proteins

I guess that it is a chicken or egg thing to determine if walking upright, tool use, more meat or bigger brains came first. We simply don't have all the evidence and as old as I am, i was not there so i can't tell you for sure. But they all are definately tied in together.

pops, it is interesting to note that many human cultures with greatly advanced technical skills, usually had low calories diets and had great physical and mental capabilities. this becomes certainly true when the populations of the andes mountain ranges are considered.
when we factor in plants that were essential parts of human's diets such as the coca plant, and how many minerals and vitamins it provides yet with very low caloric benefits.

also, brain energy consumption tests were put to the challenge when people on very basic diets (tea and acidified yak butter) were able to keep all bodily functions normally active and properly healthy, even brain waves have been measured to normal in people with abnormal diets.

the exceptions to the rules usually demostrate the rules were arbitrary and false to begin with.

we are still in diapers when it comes to knowledge of our origins and nature, and science always becomes a lighter and nicer thing once it is able to acknowledge its obvious current limitations and how its current theories fail miserably as proper models of reality, whatever the heck that is.

peace!