On 9 Jul, 12:29, Laurie <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[snip incoherent ranting]
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You imply that humans have "adapted" to cooked food and
a=
nimal
> -eating, but there is not one scrap of information in contem****ary
> evolution literature that suggests that ANY animal can "adapt" to a
> diet chemically different than that species' natural one.
The above claim simply shows a) you do not keep up with research b)
have no clue about adaptation.
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Here is one explanation of why the meatarians here can't
=
function,
> intellectually.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You maintain the false 'omnivore' dogma, but you can NOT
=
present any
> rational, scientifically-credible argument that even suggests that
> humans are "omnivores"; you can not even present a definition based
> on physiology, anatomy, and
biochemistry.http://ecologos.org/omni.htmhttp=
://ecologos.org/anatomy.htm
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You claim that humans "adapted" to the current, cooked
cu=
ltural diets
> around the planet; however, there is NO attempt in current evolutionary
> theory that presents a credible mechanism for such false "adaptation".
Free clue: natural selection. Capisce?
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 You can't even try to engage with me in polite academic
d=
iscussion,
> because you are afraid =A0of me, just like Jon-a-thug noBalls, Dutch,
> dh, and the rest of the pathological, intentionally-disruptive trolling
> buffoons, here.
You have no science to argue, as evidenced by your belief that the
China Study is scientific. I habitually refuse to debate faith-based
crackpots, since there is no way I can ever convince a crackpot - and
you're on the level of me trying to debate cosmology with a
H=F6rbigerite or a Velikovskian.
> Scientifically-credible info on plant-based human
diets:http://ecologos.o=
rg/ttdd.html
> news:alt.food.vegan.science
Get rid of that .sig before I re****t you to Trading Standards for
false advertisment claims.
Dragonblaze
|
