What is the REAL paleo diet?
Replies
-
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.
I never once said the author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians. And I quoted from your own words. Really, if you think this discussion is unworthy of anyone's attention because the content is irrelevant, why are you here? And no, I'm not being flippant or 'catty'.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.
Every major study on meat eating since the Framingham study in the 1940's, The China Study, the Nurses Study dozens of studies from England, Germany and other places all disagree with you. Meat in quantities of more than 70 g per week is harmful to you (the amount varies with different studies, but the message is the same. Meat in more than superficial quantities kills. But that is neither here nor there. The subject of this thread is what was the true Paleo diet. I am not going to discuss studies on eating meat here. If you want to start a thread on that subject and invite me over, I will talk about it there.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Well I am at work, waiting on actual "work" to do, so I waste lots of time every day. I can't access Facebook from here, so stuck with MFP forums.0 -
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I would even go so far as to argue why this matters at all TODAY? We can eat meat, it is beneficial to our bodies health, and there are benefits, downfalls, and inherent risks to any food consumed today.
Paleo is a major dietary trend. Why *not* discuss it?
Even if it's a stupid/flawed premise, it's a decent diet.
So the theory behind it, its philosophical grounding, its raison d'etre is wrong, but the diet is good.
Holy miracle, Batman! Can you say wishful thinking?0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
This is all bluster unless you can SHOW us your dazzling knowledge. So do it already!0 -
Gosh.... just eat as clean as ya can, peeps
0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
This is all bluster unless you can SHOW us your dazzling knowledge. So do it already!
I already did. In the end, the answer to every question is "meat" or "fish" or "shellfish." I can't help you if you're unfamiliar with the theories cited. There have been entire books written about these theories.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.
I never once said the author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians. And I quoted from your own words. Really, if you think this discussion is unworthy of anyone's attention because the content is irrelevant, why are you here? And no, I'm not being flippant or 'catty'.
Well, now you have stopped making any sense whatsoever. Where do you get that I said that you said that the "author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians?" And where did you quote from my own words? I think that discussing the digestive system and our ability to eat new foods is relevant. Hence, why I said something. You are the one who told me to stop interrupting your thread about an article, even though I was discussing the article. So, you are either being catty or down right rude.0 -
Okay. As a reminder, this is a discussion of the article I linked to as my first post. Please read it, and discuss.0
-
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,0 -
I've forgotten what the OP was because of the pissing match.0
-
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.
I never once said the author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians. And I quoted from your own words. Really, if you think this discussion is unworthy of anyone's attention because the content is irrelevant, why are you here? And no, I'm not being flippant or 'catty'.
Well, now you have stopped making any sense whatsoever. Where do you get that I said that you said that the "author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians?" And where did you quote from my own words? I think that discussing the digestive system and our ability to eat new foods is relevant. Hence, why I said something. You are the one who told me to stop interrupting your thread about an article, even though I was discussing the article. So, you are either being catty or down right rude.
Okay. You imply I didn't know the author concluded that our ancestors ate insects and the occasional bird. I caught that in my first reading. I also discussed the adaptations in digestion that occurred during or after the time of the agricultural revolution that enabled some populations to eat dairy and grain with greater ease. And I also discussed the author's assertion that we might be wise to look at our relatively recent immediate ancestries for clues on what diet might be best for us as individuals.
I don't think I discussed his mention of the differences in alimentary systems cross-culturally, but I would certainly be open to discussing it with you.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.0 -
I've forgotten what the OP was because of the pissing match.
It's too bad OP's can't moderate their own threads. I am appealing to people to stay on topic, and not argue by virtue of academic credentials. We are anonymous, and there is no way to check into a person's background. We can only base our opinions of posters' credibility on their persuasiveness. We are all equal in the world of Anon.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
Edit: Instead of saying 'I'm a random guy on the internet, but I'm really smart. Really. I have degrees and everything. You should listen to me because I'm an authority. The article you posted is pulp because I say so. If you want the wisdom, I have, track down answers to the various questions I pose. Oh. You're too unsophisticated to do that? Too bad. I can now bask in my realm of vast superiority."0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
I'm thinking of several words.
If I thought I could accomplish anything in 12 hours of posts, I'd gladly stay around, but it's clear as day that it would be a hopeless waste of time.
You only want to read things that confirm your own way of thinking, no matter how backwards or contrarian, and otherwise want to be spoonfed information without engaging in any critical thinking or even having an understanding of basic theories.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
I'm thinking of several words.
If I thought I could accomplish anything in 12 hours of posts, I'd gladly stay around, but it's clear as day that it would be a hopeless waste of time.
You only want to read things that confirm your own way of thinking, no matter how backwards or contrarian, and otherwise want to be spoonfed information without engaging in any critical thinking or even having an understanding of basic theories.
And you don't want to make any effort to make yourself understood. You show contempt for any effort to get you to articulate your point of view by saying I want to be spoonfed. I really am beginning not to care. Good day to you.0 -
I still haven't gotten the answer of why should evolved humans eat like their unevolved ancestors?
And George Washington Carver is one of my heroes. Peanuts everyday, in every way, until the world ends! :laugh:
(Thought this thread could use some humor.)
:bigsmile:
^^ This. I completely agree with you. Whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters is irrelevant. Our digestive systems can handle a great number of things and a healthy diet is balanced with all of those things.
The subject of this thread is whether our ancestors were primarily meat eaters or primarily veggie eaters. If you consider this irrelevant, this is obviously a thread which has little to offer you.
I rarely, if ever, go to threads which hold no interest to me. Why waste my time?
Don't be so catty. Our ancestors ate both. The article was pretty clear about that. Whether our ancestors ate more veggies than meat would depend upon where the ancestor lived.
However, the article that YOU posted isn't only about what YOU think it's about. The author says that he is going to eat like his veggie eating ancestors (apparently he forgot about the insects and occasional bird), except he was also going to eat chocolate and coffee. He also speaks about the evolution of our digestive tracts. As such, since we are discussing why it would be necessary to eat what our ancestors ate since our digestive tracts have evolved, we are discussing the article. So, sorry if it's not the part of the article YOU wanted to concentrate on.
I never once said the author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians. And I quoted from your own words. Really, if you think this discussion is unworthy of anyone's attention because the content is irrelevant, why are you here? And no, I'm not being flippant or 'catty'.
Well, now you have stopped making any sense whatsoever. Where do you get that I said that you said that the "author concluded that our ancestors are vegetarians?" And where did you quote from my own words? I think that discussing the digestive system and our ability to eat new foods is relevant. Hence, why I said something. You are the one who told me to stop interrupting your thread about an article, even though I was discussing the article. So, you are either being catty or down right rude.
Okay. You imply I didn't know the author concluded that our ancestors ate insects and the occasional bird. I caught that in my first reading. I also discussed the adaptations in digestion that occurred during or after the time of the agricultural revolution that enabled some populations to eat dairy and grain with greater ease. And I also discussed the author's assertion that we might be wise to look at our relatively recent immediate ancestries for clues on what diet might be best for us as individuals.
I don't think I discussed his mention of the differences in alimentary systems cross-culturally, but I would certainly be open to discussing it with you.
I didn't imply that at all. What I said was, why should we care what our ancestors ate like? We have evolved. You basically said to stop posting because I'm not talking about whether our ancestors were vegetarians and that's what the article was about. To which I responded with what I read in the article--the part where the author himself says he is going to eat veggies and the part about evolving digestive systems.0 -
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
First of all I did not attend the Wharton School.
Second of all, at that time there was no school in the USA that had a higher rated Anthro Department than Penn. Not Harvard, not Princeton, not Yale. That may stil be true.
Third, one of the best things you learn at a great university is to think beyond point others have gone and cannot get beyond. What is cutting-edge today is old-hat tomorrow. However, in your case, what is a tub of hot air today is probably going to be a tub of hot air tomorrow.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
I'm thinking of several words.
If I thought I could accomplish anything in 12 hours of posts, I'd gladly stay around, but it's clear as day that it would be a hopeless waste of time.
You only want to read things that confirm your own way of thinking, no matter how backwards or contrarian, and otherwise want to be spoonfed information without engaging in any critical thinking or even having an understanding of basic theories.
And you don't want to make any effort to make yourself understood. You show contempt for any effort to get you to articulate your point of view by saying I want to be spoonfed. I really am beginning not to care. Good day to you.
Study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory and the utter absurdity of the article will be clear. If you've never even heard of these things, it's pointless for us to try to intelligently discuss the article. I'm sorry.0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
I'm thinking of several words.
If I thought I could accomplish anything in 12 hours of posts, I'd gladly stay around, but it's clear as day that it would be a hopeless waste of time.
You only want to read things that confirm your own way of thinking, no matter how backwards or contrarian, and otherwise want to be spoonfed information without engaging in any critical thinking or even having an understanding of basic theories.
And you don't want to make any effort to make yourself understood. You show contempt for any effort to get you to articulate your point of view by saying I want to be spoonfed. I really am beginning not to care. Good day to you.
Study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory and the utter absurdity of the article will be clear. If you've never even heard of these things, it's pointless for us to try to intelligently discuss the article. I'm sorry.
Okay. I'll wave 'buh bye' twice.0 -
sneaking in with this - then running for cover
Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil
http://news.yahoo.com/eating-meat-made-us-human-suggests-skull-fossil-211048849.html
Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter0 -
can someone just tie this thread to a tree and shoot it? I can't believe I just wasted my time reading this.0
-
Bump0
-
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
I'm thinking of several words.
If I thought I could accomplish anything in 12 hours of posts, I'd gladly stay around, but it's clear as day that it would be a hopeless waste of time.
You only want to read things that confirm your own way of thinking, no matter how backwards or contrarian, and otherwise want to be spoonfed information without engaging in any critical thinking or even having an understanding of basic theories.
It's really sad when you know a subject so well that you can't deduce it to a small summary!
....
NOT! :laugh:0 -
sneaking in with this - then running for cover
Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil
http://news.yahoo.com/eating-meat-made-us-human-suggests-skull-fossil-211048849.html
Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter
I am familiar with this research, but the latest I read indicated that it was the extra calories that meat represented in the diet, and not anything particular to the fact that the calories came from meat, specifically.0 -
sneaking in with this - then running for cover
Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil
http://news.yahoo.com/eating-meat-made-us-human-suggests-skull-fossil-211048849.html
Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter
I am familiar with this research, but the latest I read indicated that it was the extra calories that meat represented in the diet, and not anything particular to the fact that the calories came from meat, specifically.
Yes but by adding calorie (and fat) dense meat our teeth, mouth and jaws changed and our guts shrank because we didn't need a giant vegetable processor any more. We could focus on building bigger brains which made us smarter so we could build better tools and start to become more human.
I think arguing paleo isn't as much if we should eat veggies or meat, the main thing paleo eliminates is grains (and most legumes). You can follow a paleo diet and be a vegetarian. So I'm not sure about the entire debate. (And yes I did read the article from the very first post)0 -
Let me try to spoonfeed this to you so that your fragile ego doesn't get any more bruised.
********************
My ego is in very good shape,thank you. But I know BS when I see it. And I am seeing a lot of it. You are not answering anything, you are demanding, condescending and obnoxious. In my experience people who act like you do, do so to avoid showing how little they really know.
********************
I didn't imply anything. Context matters, and so does simple reading comprehension. The words "consider" and "or" have very specific meanings.
*******************
Yes reading comprehension is a good thing. When you said "either he is getting funding or he is a member of a group and therefore prejudiced," you failed to explain why a raw foodist, who is, according to you biased, would be eating chocolate and drinking wine. He does not seem like a raw foodist to me, but clearly you are fixated on some list you found on the internet. That certainly doesn't bode well for your ability to understand English, as in "I eat chocolate and drink wine."
*******************
You cited an article that is admittedly a contrarian view -- it goes against prevailing science -- and worse yet, you act like it's dispositive of something. This is the same sort of lazy scholarship shown by the author of the article being discussed in this thread.
*********************
I answered your freaken question! You asked me if there was another view and I said there was one. And there is. And I gave you a cite to it. I don't care if you consider it contrarian or not. Einstein was contrarian at one point as well. You may know how that worked out.
From your logic, I can say this. If you are a scientist, I am the queen of Spain.
**********************
I haven't tried to portray myself in any way, but what I have apparently done, is cause a 69-year-old to throw a tantrum by asking some very simple questions about his cultish beliefs.
********************
You give yourself far too much credit little man. You haven't said one thing that shows you know sheet from Shinola!
My guess is you couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag.
********************
I'll reduce this to the only two points that matter.
I asked you if there has been "any credible challenge to the 'Man the Hunter' theory that didn't involve eating copious meat." You responded by citing, not a study, but an article which begins by noting that the actual study discussed is contrary to prevailing science. What's more, it's one of the first articles that shows up in a Google search of "Man the Hunter" theory. Since your response was so embarrassingly lazy and cited a theory not viewed as credible by the scientific community, it's fairly obvious that your knowledge of the subject runs only as deep as a knee-jerk Google search.
As for our relative skills at making a point, it's pretty clear from the now 15 messages in my inbox what the community-at-large thinks. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional backgrounds either. Know your limits.
You truly make me laugh. If you had anything worth saying you would have said it. All you are doing is posturing and dancing around some imaginary Maypole. Talk about something other than how great you are, how much you supposedly know, and what you want me to answer for you. Say something of substance. But then, I really doubt you can.
Oh, and by the way, you probably wouldn't want to compare academic credentials, not that I would engage in such a superficial and stupid game. But I will tell you this. I have three degrees. My first was from the University of Pennsylvania when Loren Eiseley and Carleton Coon were there. But considering what I have seen so far, you probably do not know who they were,
Like I said, you wouldn't want to compare academic or professional accomplishments. I'm sure I wouldn't know anything about Joseph Wharton either, right? By the way, rather than traipsing through the streets of West Philly, you would have done well to take a logic and rhetoric class when you were at Penn.
You might want to start all over and study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory before you get too defensive about your cultish beliefs. That's the only point I tried to make, but you ran from the challenge.
Again, you are arguing this way: I'm thinking of a word. It's a noun. It begins with the letter 'A'.
Instead of telling us to study various subjects, why not take a stab at telling us why we should care. By that I mean--give us a brief summary of your thinking.
I'm thinking of several words.
If I thought I could accomplish anything in 12 hours of posts, I'd gladly stay around, but it's clear as day that it would be a hopeless waste of time.
You only want to read things that confirm your own way of thinking, no matter how backwards or contrarian, and otherwise want to be spoonfed information without engaging in any critical thinking or even having an understanding of basic theories.
And you don't want to make any effort to make yourself understood. You show contempt for any effort to get you to articulate your point of view by saying I want to be spoonfed. I really am beginning not to care. Good day to you.
Study the "Expensive Tissue Hypothesis" and "Man the Hunter" theory and the utter absurdity of the article will be clear. If you've never even heard of these things, it's pointless for us to try to intelligently discuss the article. I'm sorry.
Talking to you is like talking to a creationist. It's true because your Bible says it's true. Hey, I bet you went to MIT -Mississippi Institute of Technology!0 -
sneaking in with this - then running for cover
Eating Meat Made Us Human, Suggests New Skull Fossil
http://news.yahoo.com/eating-meat-made-us-human-suggests-skull-fossil-211048849.html
Food For Thought: Meat-Based Diet Made Us Smarter
http://www.npr.org/2010/08/02/128849908/food-for-thought-meat-based-diet-made-us-smarter
I am familiar with this research, but the latest I read indicated that it was the extra calories that meat represented in the diet, and not anything particular to the fact that the calories came from meat, specifically.
Yes but by adding calorie (and fat) dense meat our teeth, mouth and jaws changed and our guts shrank because we didn't need a giant vegetable processor any more. We could focus on building bigger brains which made us smarter so we could build better tools and start to become more human.
I think arguing paleo isn't as much if we should eat veggies or meat, the main thing paleo eliminates is grains (and most legumes). You can follow a paleo diet and be a vegetarian. So I'm not sure about the entire debate. (And yes I did read the article from the very first post)
No, this is a Lamarckian evolutionary view point and it is incorrect. Our gut did not shrink; possibly a selective pressure existed that made us more likely to survive with shorten guts as generations evolved and were selected. No shrinking occurred.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions