Oh fuck not more of this shite. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm merely asking you to demonstrate that Homo Erectus could survive on a vegetarian diet. Yeah funny that. I asked you in what way Erectus was anotomically different from modern man. All I got was "I never made any claim about the anatomy of Homo Erectus. However, I did make a (correct) statement about the AVAILABILITY of vegetarian food. Homo Erectus didn't grow crops. Vegetarian food wasn't plentiful," Blah blah. Of course they can survive on a veggie diet. Prove different. How the fuck can you possibly argue that the vast areas of vegetation across the planet did not consititute a viable food source? You were pretty much implying that Homo Erectus lived in a rainforest. Nope. That was your imagination. The same imagination incidentally that would fail you so dismally in the rainforest. I have an image of you sitting on a tree trunk looking around at the million plus species of green things poking up out of the ground and thinking "I hate the countryside. There's nothing here for a vegetarian to eat." Check this.. 1. Homo Erectus didn't live in rainforests, idiot. He lived mainly on grasslands. 2. Ironically, both of your maps actually support my assertion that Homo Erectus lived on flatlands. Err metamorphic assertions. Never seen that before. How recent is your second map? Is it a map of savannah's and rainforests TODAY? Yup it's a map of current distribution. How about you find a map from the period then you can jump up and down with excitement while I point out that the populations cluster along coastlines. 1. The number of edible plant species is an indiction of the biomass of edible plants available. You might find 200 plant species on a grassland plane, but perhaps only one gram of each. Not much of a feast, eh? Bollocks! Did you write an entire sentence just to use the word "biomass"? Guess you must have done otherwise the sentence would serve no purpose at all. How much does the average lettuce weigh? What about pumpkins? They look kinda heavy. Botswana Mountain is not an accurate representation of all grasslands. To support your generalization that grasslands provide adequate vegetation for sustenance, you're going to need to provide a larger sample size, and some statistical evidence. Why should I take the trouble of finding information your incapable of understanding. The Savannas of Botswana are home to 200+ species of edible plants. If thats not enough for you then your a very greedy vegetarian. So why don't Botswana count? Wrong type of grassland perhaps? Well you have an entire planet to choose from find some grassland where no plants grow and present your argument again. You could try the famous sahara or gobi grasslands. Just go google. And may I point out that the vegetation which is present TODAY is completely irrelevant to the question of what vegetation existed millions of years ago. Name one edible plant that we have now that early man didn't. If you can't answer just feel free to pretend I never asked. 1. We were initially talking about COWS. The question of elephants is irrelevant. Very true. I should not have drawn a comparison between a herd of large domestic herbivores and a herd of large wild herbivores. My apologies that isn't 'the country', it's some sort of grassland savana. Indeed. It's the same savanna where there is not enough edible vegetation to support human life. Guess those elephant must be starving. Unless, of course they're lucky enough to be Botswanan Grassland elephants. And just in case you aren't aware, humans can't gain nutrition from grass. So your attempted analogy fails. Gosh! so thats what happened to my appendix. It's almost as it humans are in some way adapted towards meat eating. Lest we forget "The Savannas of Botswana are home to 200+ species of edible plants." BTW whats bread made out of if it ain't made out of grass? Wild strands of pseudo-lettuce don't count Who sez? and how do you know their not lying when they say it? We're talking about the domesticated versions of lettuce which is sold in the shop. Thank you for reminding me. New Improved shop lettuce! Buy yours today. The savanna may have 200 species of edible plant but does it have any shops . I think not! Personally I blame the demise of homo erectus on a lack of good local shops. Just couldn't get enough veggies you see. Any more nonsense to post? Just spew it out and I'll reply when I'm ready. (after a stiff drink) Dee Cee
Oh no, not more bullshit from the resident retard, Deecee: *sighs* You still fail to make the distinction between being able to digest fruits and vegetables, and the AVAILABILITY of fruits and vegetables. Homo Erectus was a hunter/gatherer, not a farmer. He needed meat to supplement his diet, because the wide variety of plants required to give him his necessary nutrients and proteins were not available in plants at that time. Today we have a wide selection, including nuts, which makes a vegetarian diet feasible. Here's a little article: http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache... erectus needed meat&hl=en&gl=au&ct=clnk&cd=3 So essentially, homo erectus NEEDED meat for protein. Stop introducing bullshit strawmen arguments. "Prove to me that Homo Erectus had different anatomical bla bla bla...". Pathetic, man. I'm not talking about anatomy, but the availability of all necessary dietetic requirements in the plants and vegetables available to Homo Erectus. Understand the opponent's argument, before attempting to refute it. BECAUSE HUMANS CANNOT DIGEST CELLULOSE, RETARD! THEY DON'T GET ADEQUATE PROTEIN FROM IT!!! Merely because it is vegetation does not make it nutrition. Humans can't gain sustenance from grass, or palm tree leaves. Are you THAT stupid? I see. You're using a current map of distribution to try and prove what the distribution of savannahs and rainforests millions of year ago was? How is it bollocks? Merely because there are numerous edible plant species, is not an indication of how much BIOMASS of plants there are. You do know what biomass is, right? It's incredibility relevant to the argument, because while one may have incredible variety, the quantity of plant mass overall may be very small. It's too bad that you've failed to prove that 'the average lettuce' and pumpkins grow in the Botswana mountains. How much does an edible root weight? What about a celery stick? Translation: "I can't support my wild generalization that grasslands are swarming with plant life, so I'll just give one shit example. And when my opponent asks me for evidence which is specific and selective, I'll just accuse him of being too stupid!" http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html So essentially, your attempt to evade producing any evidence to support your assertion via insulting me is actually an ad hominem, a logic fallacy. Of course Botwswana counts. If a provide an example of a woman stronger than a man, then it counts. However, you need to demonstrate that it is an accurate representation of ALL grasslands, AND at the time of homo erectus. No, I don't have to. You see, YOU made the definitive assertion, hence YOU are required to prove it. I'm merely asking for evidence to support your generalization. Why can't you meet this requirement? Is support your conjecture with evidence too hard? Because the plants present today must have been present millions of years ago, right? There is no such thing as environmental change. Brussel sprouts, kohlrabi, Swedish turnip, drumhead cabbage, cauliflower and golden savoy. But hey, I guess in your mind, evolution never occurred. Gosh, you're being a smartass, but making false statements (again)! Because today the appendix is vestigal, and hence we can't derive nutrients from cellulose (most vegetation. Homo erectus' appendix was also vestigal, which is why it needed protein from meat to remain healthy and alive. Yes, you shouldn't have drawn a comparison, because elephants are wild creatures who obtain their own food, where cows are hand-fed grain, and graze in paddocks grown by humans for that very purpose. But your original claim was that there was plenty of food in the country, not in grassland savannahs. I see that you're engaging in another bait and switch. And do we eat the 'grass' directly? Oh no, sorry, it's processed. Something which was unavailable to Homo Erectus millions of years ago. And most grasses are unedible, even if you do not process them. So essentially, you're engaging in your common fallacy of selectivity. Hey, humans eat one grass (after being processed, something which you neglected to mention), so obviously they can eat every species of grass! I thought that it was quite clear that I meant domestic lettuce. Wild lettuce may be unedible. For example, some strands of wild lettuce eaten by the Romans were actually narcotics. Not something you'd use in your regular diet, eh? Do you? Your alcohol problem might explain your lack of brain cells.
DeeCee: Is any of this relevant to the question of whether modern humans should be vegetarian? I don't see the point of your discussion.
James Qwerty Is any of this relevant to the question of whether modern humans should be vegetarian? Not at all. This whole waste of bandwith kicked off when I suggested that mountains assertion re the immorality of meat eating was a liitle unfair to both early man and his less "advanced" modern counterparts. Instead of suggesting that he was willing to bend the rules for such cases and consequently acknowleging that his morality was essentially subjective in nature mountain decided to argue the distribution and diet of homo erectus. He got his teeth into the argument and dragged it off into the wilderness. So I followed. As long as he keeps the entertainment factor up I'm prepared to stick with it. Dee Cee
Back to biz. the AVAILABILITY of fruits and vegetables. Yeh just was the "AVAILABILITY of fruit and veg" and how do we know? Answers on a postcard please. the wide variety of plants required to give him his necessary nutrients and proteins were not available in plants at that time. Err your gonna hate me but how about you prove that. Oh I forgot you posted that there scientific article. You should really have given due credit to the author. Sometimes a link alone just isn't enough. So lets here it for your primary source. Stand up Tina Coates of Salt Lake Community College Well I'm impressed! Just a shame the sources she cited don't seem to support some of her assertions. He needed meat to supplement his diet, because the wide variety of plants required to give him his necessary nutrients and proteins were not available in plants at that time. What? So just how many edible plant species have evolved in the last 300,000 years? Go tell me if you can. Bet you can't 'cos you just made that up didn't you? Now I don't dispute that early man was a meat eater but I do believe that if you were there to tell them how immoral meat eating is a proportion of them would in fact be able to survive on the vegetable resources available. Now this makes me laugh. How the fuck can you possibly argue that the vast areas of vegetation across the planet did not consititute a viable food source? BECAUSE HUMANS CANNOT DIGEST CELLULOSE, RETARD! THEY DON'T GET ADEQUATE PROTEIN FROM IT!!! Y'see I looked up the definition of vegetation. Here it is... veg·e·ta·tion 1.The act or process of vegetating. 2 The plants of an area or a region; plant life 3 An abnormal growth on the body. That last one BTW started as a sick joke and now it's in the dictionary. Go figure. So why then whenever I mention vegetation you start whining about cellulose? I don't see the connection. What happens to rigid cell walls when you boil them BTW? Humans can't gain sustenance from grass, or palm tree leave But they do from bread and palm hearts Isn't that weird? see. You're using a current map of distribution to try and prove what the distribution of savannahs and rainforests millions of year ago was? Well spotted. Couldn't find an older one. So what was the distribution of grassland back then? You can tell me in hectares, square miles or just express it as a percentage of total land area. That should make it easier for you. Just seems odd that the current distribution seems to be concentrated inland while erectus fossil finds seem to be clustered along coastlines. Perhaps this mystery will be solved when you post a time shfted map. I'm not holding my breath however. Merely because there are numerous edible plant species, is not an indication of how much BIOMASS of plants there are. You mean the word "BIOMASS" has no relevence to the amount and distribution of edible plant species? You do know what biomass is, right? Yup it's a measure of biological material in a given area. You prostitute it by limiting the term to plants only but I'll let that pass. It's incredibility relevant to the argument, Oh How so? because while one may have incredible variety, the quantity of plant mass overall may be very small. Oh I see. So Botswana may have over 200 edible plant species but it may have only one or two of each. Or it may have millions. Great word "may" don't you think? It's too bad that you've failed to prove that 'the average lettuce' and pumpkins grow in the Botswana mountains. Lettuce don't grow on the Botswana mountain. WTF are you on about? "I can't support my wild generalization that grasslands are swarming with plant life Yes I can. 200+ edible plants for Botswana. In the UK link From Hong Kong link Thats enough I'm bored now. So essentially, your attempt to evade producing any evidence to support your assertion via insulting me is actually an ad hominem, a logic fallacy. Maybe so but did it ever occur to you that your not worth the effort that producing evidence requires and I insulted you because your a dick? You got to admit it's a possibility. you need to demonstrate that it is an accurate representation of ALL grasslands, AND at the time of homo erectus. Do I really? BTW are you suggesting that grasslands are different? I hope not for your sake otherwise the generalisations you've made re the biodiversity of grassland become kinda pointless. I'm running of of motivation so I'll pick up the pace. You can pretend I'm running scared if you want. Elephants are wild creatures who obtain their own food, where cows are hand-fed grain, and graze in paddocks grown by humans for that very purpose. LoL. Can you not see? Brussel sprouts, kohlrabi, Swedish turnip, drumhead cabbage, cauliflower and golden savoy. What are you trying to pull? This is very naughty and must not be allowed to pass. http://www.uga.edu/vegetable/brusselsprouts.html So five of the six plants you mentioned all belong to the same species. Brassica oleracea var. gemmifera, D.C.; Brussel Sprouts Brassica oleracea var. gongylodes L.; Kohlrabi Brassica oleracea var. capitata L.; Cabbage and Savoy Cabbage Brassica oleracea var . botrytis L .; Cauliflower But what about the Turnip? Brassica campestris L. (Rapifera group); Turnip Oh only the same Genus. All these edible plants Have been enginered by way of selective breeding over the last few thousand years. To use them in order to suggest that prehistory had fewer edible plants is rather pointless. I know homo-erectus never saw a poodle or scoffed at a yorkshire terrier but I bet he knew all about wolves. I guess in your mind, evolution never occurred. I wonder.. Did you know that all these plants were related before you posted? Because the plants present today must have been present millions of years ago, right? For the most part. The form may change but the function remains the same. Everything not forbidden is compulsory. It's called evolution. Homo erectus' appendix was also vestigal, Yeh sad that. He can't eat the stems Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! He has to content himself with the roots, nuts, fruit, flowers, leaves and sap. Shame it's processed. Something which was unavailable to Homo Erectus millions of years ago He had fire. He had water. He could process food. Finally Your alcohol problem might explain your lack of brain cells. I didn't have an alcohol problem till I met you. Dee Cee
youre totally contradicted yourself. ok, so you would never attack someone for being vegetarian and yet they do it to you all the time? strange, i think you just attacked all vegetarians, getting angrier and angrier as you rambled on.
Deecee: How is that relevant to the point I was rebutting? You were asking for anatomical evidence that Homo Erectus wasn't physically able to digest meat, when I never made such a claim. I hence attempted to clarify, by explaining that Homo Erectus COULD eat meat, and was indeed required to do so, due to the unavailability of protein in fruit and vegetables. Essentially, I was refuting a straw man argument. We'll get to evidence for the necessity of meat-eating by Homo Erectus later on. However... That's right. How very convenient that you choose to ignore and belittle it. I guess you have a tendency to do that when the evidence presented doesn't support your particular ideology. Accusing me of plagarism now, eh? That's odd, but I DID give the author credit, by the very virtue of providing a link (reference). So you're attempting to belittle a Community College? Interesting. *sniff sniff* Do I smell elitism? Oh really? Which of her assertions aren't supported by her references? Care to support your assertions? Are you trying to claim that no new genus, species or breeds of plants have evolved in the past million years?! LOL! Your assertion is in fact contradicted by the evidence and scientific essays which I have posted. While you are free to cling to your outdated opinion, please realize that it essentially is that... an opinion. And one which is heavily contradicted by scientific consensus, and all available evidence. Once again, plants aren't a good source of protein, and Homo Erectus couldn't digest cellulose. Oh, by the way, I notice that you've conveniently dropped your laughable statement that Homo Erectus could digest cellulose due to his appendix. I guess even someone as ignorant as you can grasp the notion of a vestigal organ. That's because you're a retard. Cellulose is a major component of many leafy plants. We can't digest celluose, hence we can't obtain energy from a large percentage of non-starchy plants. How is this relevant to your argument? You can't digest boiled cellulose. Separating cellulose into strands doesn't help... you need enzymes from particular bacteria, which are generally found in a functioning appendix. You did know this, right? You aren't so fucking ignorant, that you think that boiling cellulose somehow breaks it down into something digestable? ROFLMAO! Not really. If you thought about it a little, you would realize that they eat the seeds and grains, which aren't composed primarily of cellulose. The last time I checked, humans don't eat the blades or stems of grasses, only the grains and seeds. Nice try, though. I fail to see why I should be forced to support your argument. You're operating under the assumption that the grasslands today are the same as the grasslands millions of years ago. I'd love to see something to back up that assumption. Wow, I'm impressed! Did you google that term, kid? Exactly. Now you're starting to understand. You make numerous assumptions, without providing any evidence or scientific articles to support them whatsoever. Quite frankly, you can't make the offhand claim that edible vegetation was plentiful millions of years ago, if you don't have any evidence to back up your statement. Definitely. It's fun to watch you flap your arms about as you try to support your conjecture by engaging in yet more conjecture. "Edible vegetation was plentiful millions of years ago. My evidence of this is the current distribution of grasslands today, which if we ASSUME were the same as millions of years ago..." ROFL. Fucking hilarious! Precisely, the average lettuce and pumpkin don't grow in the Botswana mountain. So why the hell did you mention them as 'high biomass plants' while using the Botswana mountains as evidence of grasslands which a high biomass of plants? Apparently you can't, otherwise you wouldn't be posting selective and lame individual examples. Where's your statistical evidence? How much of this 'flora' is edible? How much biomass of edible vegetation is there? Oh, and I notice that your source mentions that there are many 'rare and scarce' species. Boy, 'rare and scare' is just strong evidence that these plants exist in high quantities, right? LOL! This is like shooting a slow stupid fish in a barrel. And how many of those plants provide acceptable sustenance? How many of them are a rich source of protein? What are their respective quantities? It's a pity that you've achieved nothing. Oh well, better luck next time. Thanks. You've just admitted to engaging in an ad hominem logic fallacy. You've further hurt your credibility (that's assuming that you had any to begin with). http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html So, you're essentially engaging in yet another ad hominem logic fallacy. "You're too much of a jerk, so I'm not going to support my arguments with evidence." Fantastic! Not only have you lowered your credibility by engaging in yet another ad hominem, you've also lowered it by admitting that you haven't presented any evidence. Yes. In fact, you supported my point above by posting what species of plants existed on different grasslands. The plant species found in grasslands around Hong Kong are radically different from plant species found in grasslands around the UK. Oops, you just shot yourself in the foot, AGAIN. Bait and switch logic fallacy, as well as a shifting the goal posts fallacy. Your original question was this: "Deecee: Name one edible plant that we have now that early man didn't. If you can't answer just feel free to pretend I never asked." You never specified that they couldn't be of the same species, or the same genus. You merely asked for an edible plant which wasn't available to Homo Erectus, and I named six. The fact that they are the members of the same species/genus doesn't change the fact that they are different breeds of plant. Are you attempting to claim that brussels sprouts and cabbage are the same plant, merely because they are of the same species? My my, that's funny stuff. Next you'll be saying that a Great Dane and a chihuahua are the same dog, because they are member of the same species. I can just see it now. If I were to provide plants from different Phyla, you would parrot "Now now, that's naughty and not allowed to pass. All of those examples are members of the Plantae Kingdom!" Moving along, and ignoring some of your incomprehensible babble... Yes, of course. I grabbed them from "Climbing Mount Impossible" by Richard Dawkins, who explains that they all evolved from the wild cabbage. False. I've already demonstrated that Wild Cabbage gave rise to 6 totally new types of plants via selective breeding. False again. And the fact still remains that brussel sprouts are radically different from wild cabbage, or even turnips. A cryptic remark. Clarify. Bait and switch, AGAIN. You implied that Homo Erectus had a functioning appendix, and hence was able to digest grass. I demonstrated this to be patently false. He had fire? Debatable. He had water? So what? Are you trying to claim that homo erectus had the means to process grains into bread? Give me a break!
J Hum Evol. 2006 Jan;50(1):78-95. Epub 2005 Oct 14. Dental microwear and diets of African early Homo. Ungar PS, Grine FE, Teaford MF, El Zaatari S. Evolution of human diet: Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Nov;61(4):517-26. Human eating behaviour in an evolutionary ecological context. Ulijaszek SJ.
Is this who can make the longest post? some of you are posting totally irrelevant shit, and I had to read through all that crap!
That is a very good question. Why do we define pain as requiring a nervous system? If conscious awareness requires an electrically-based nervous system, then plants cannot have consciousness, thus they cannot perceive pain. Is consciousness required for pain to exist? Why is reacting to negatively stimuli different then "pain"? I look at how humans react to negative stimuli, and don't see much of a difference. I think you are assuming that people are different, and then looking at the world. That how most people are, and that's how many names for things were defined. Thus, humans experience pain, and everything else reacts to negative stimuli. I don't see the connection between the analogies, but ok, lets run with it. Fear is a reaction to negative stimuli, but in this case, perceived negative stimuli, rather then physical negative stimuli. Would you disagree? I'm sorry to hear that. I will have to study more. They do? Actively? I would disagree. If I kick a computer, it reacts only so much as inertia, gravity, and the break points of it's componants allow. That's not the same thing as "reacting", IMO. No, It's just a question I have been unable to answer. I am more a vegetarian than not, and every time I eat a plant, I think the same thing as when I eat an animal. Why should I assume that I know everything about pain, consciousness, and neurobiology? My studies of biology, psychology and behavior showed me just how heavily reliant our mind is on the biochemistry of the body/brain. Much of that is not electrically based.
I am returning to vegetarianism because I do not like the meat industry and I enjoy vegetarian food prepared properly. I would have no problem raising cows and killing them, or hunting for food, but animals stacked in pens and fed hormones is disgusting behavior and I wash my hands of it.
An interesting bit on the ability of fungi to communicate internally via chemical processes. http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/5/12/3943 it asks more questions than it answers RE: this topic, but it's certainly worthwhile!
Well, this argument is too involved for me to join in full-force, plus I don't post frequently enough to hold up an argument, so I'm just throwing in my 2c and leaving. First off, evolution happens whether or not god is real. Just look at some fossil records. For my argument, I am assuming humans came about from an evolutionary process, guided or not. Assuming that, I feel I can assume that the animals we are closly related to definitively feel pain, and it gets less and less likely the farther we go down the line of evolution, since we don't know when pain develops as we know it evolutionarilly. So, it is more likely for a cow to feel pain then a banana, and more likely for a banana to feel pain then a bacteria. I am with most humans when I think it is wrong to hurt or eat a fellow man. That actually seems to be the sketchiest part in my argument. I extend it a little ways down the evolution line, because they are equivelent in their ability to feel pain. The farther down I go, the less qualms I have about eating it. I draw the line somewhere around where the animal kingdom ends. I know the above argument is full of holes, but it seems far more secure then the argument that it is okay to eat animals because they aren't human. I have a bunch of other arguments too, like even if plants feel pain, by not breeding the animals but just eating the plants directly, you kill less and inflict less pain, therefors lesser of two evils. But then I drink milk, so I obviously am a hippocrite. THe truth is I really don't know for sure, no one does, so I play it safe by not eating meat. Sorry this post was so lame and indefinate.
holy mother of non god human animals are omnivores they can survive by eating meat carbohydrates or vegetables or all depending on prevailing conditions and availability humans can think as well as eat these days so what those in the over indulged G800 shove down their gullets can be a reasoned choice but is often dependent on what the admen diet industries or control freaks are trying to sell in any given week eat whatever you want it I suspect it won't get you brownie points in heaven or hell or here on earth however millions of people on this earth can't even get enough food to live on so maybe think about that next time you debate the ETHICS of different diets whatever we choose to eat in the west we eat too damn much of it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Vegetarians kill living things to. Such as insects with the pestecides used to protect the vegetables. And besides why deny human nature to eat meat. we are supposed to. Look at the development of our teeth. We have evolved in such a way that certain teeth are made specifically for tearing meat. And you aren't killing anything if you eat meat, the ranchers do that for you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
2 more cents Cows eat veggies too, a lot more then us. So, we kill less by not eating the cows, I suppose. I can't deny the nature to eat meat, because I freaking love meat. Soo delicious Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! . Being vegetarian is incredibly hard for me. I suspect that I will break down someday, but never to factory farms. The thing is, with world overcrowding, nature takes a backseat. I can imagine a bleak future where the entire world is one big farm, of whatever crop is the most efficient. The only solution I can see is birth control, but that doesn't work very well.
