Lucky...

You eat meat and love pets, there is s difference. Would that be to say that Dahmer, Gacey and many others alos loved people and murdered them? You would say that's proposterous and I would agree, so you love pets.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Yeah, I saw that.... why don't you stop taking your B12 supplements and eat a handful of dirt everyday and tell us how it goes. TRy not to lose focus here, Neal. The primary argument here is that of what we were designed to be, omnivoire or herbivoire. We were origianally designed to be herbivoires by every account I see and no one has yet to introduce anything to the contrary but the B-12 argument which Bill I have refuted via the Wilkipedia article and Bill will support in the next page by informing that B-12 is produced on the roots of plants and primal man who was a herbivoire originally ate these roots to obtain the B-12 until he deviated and copied carnivorous animals and started eating meat. He probably did this not to avoid eating roots, as he knew not of B-12, but to expand his choices for food. CONCLUSION: the primal origin of man did eat roots and probably some dirt in order to survive. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOve to explain that. Gender is the answer. They were provided to many herbivoires, squirrels, deer, etc for fighting and females didn't have them or they were smaller or rudiment, whereas males had them. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Descent_of_Man/Chapter_XVII With many animals the canine teeth in the upper or lower jaw, or in both, are much larger in the males than in the females, or are absent in the latter, with the exception sometimes of a hidden rudiment. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>You can do that AFTER you show the *proof* that our ancestors were vegetarians for "millions of years". Neal wouldn't be Neal without sitting on his hands, demanding his rivals *proove* his points for him. I won't *proove* anything, as proove/proof is a fool's word. No, I'm not calling you a fool, as I use the word sometimes as I'm loosely talking to people, but those who know science know true scientists don't use the word. There is ni such thing as consistent proof and if you use it very long, you will eat it. When you proove things, and eventually either it will be either disporoven later or the thing prooven will change, hen every other prooven otem you've asserted is now in play as BS. Scientists will use laws, as the law of gravity, but it falls short of proof....... wanna find proof? Go to church or any courtroom, they use the word and make it cheap, and we know of all the falsehoods and lies that are spewed there. So, will I do what to can to evidence them? Sure, I'm not an anthropologist, but I will now research it and see what I can come up with, but I think Bill has already established that the earliest man had all the physical attributes of herbivoires.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Care to explain just HOW our ancestors lived w/out vitamin B12 for those millions of years, if they were only vegetarian? I did,perhaps you posted this before I posted the Wilk article about the formation of B-12 on bacteria.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Educate yourself just a little bit and I think you'll understand more about vitamin B12. Meat, milk, eggs, supplements. You don't HAVE to eat the animal. Oh, I think I just did and I just educated you too. You claim we need to eat animals or animal products to get B-12, I just refuted that, we can get it w/o animals or their products. More importantly, we, as primal beings, could have gotten it from bacterias on plants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Either way...you HAVE to have it. Period. You cannot live without it. That we have never disagreed upon, but I have just established that it can easily and directly come from bacterias on plants. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Design does equal function. I agree. We're not designed to eat ONLY meat or even PREDOMINATELY meat (for the kajillionth time). No, we are designed to eat exclusively vegetation. Show 1 attribute where we are designed to digest animal products. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>We are designed to eat some meat. We function with it. We don't function without it. Kid, I think you have structure = function and design a little convoluted. The structure or design of organs relates directly to it's function. As for function with it/without it, not the context of structure/design = function. We cannot live w/o B-12, but our structure/design to digest animals is not there, please illustrate 1 attribute that differs from that. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We are designed to eat some meat. We function with it. We don't function without it. We don't function w/o meat? Hmmmm, I guess I haven't functioned for the last 20+ years. .... and you're a doctor

Ummm, how do I say this, Linz..... oops up side ya head http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_B12 1) B-12 is made by bacteria, not by animals. 2) Vitamin B-12 is naturally found in foods of animal origin including meat (especially liver and shellfish) and milk products. Animals, in turn, must obtain it directly or indirectly from bacteria, and these bacteria may inhabit a section of the gut which is posterior to the section where B-12 is absorbed. Thus, Herbivorous animals must either obtain B-12 from bacteria in their rumens, or (if fermenting plant material in the hindgut) by reingestion of cecotrope feces. Eggs are often mentioned as a good B-12 source, but they also contain a factor that blocks absorption.[20] Certain insects such as termites contain B-12 produced by their gut bacteria, in a manner analogous to ruminant animals. [21] An NIH Fact Sheet lists a variety of food sources of vitamin B-12. 3) B-12 is found in inaimals, but not exclusively as you alluded 4) Plants only supply B-12 to humans when the soil containing B-12-producing microorganisms has not been washed from them.

Well fuck, I'll just believe you, as you are a doctor and all. Hey kid, I know the politics of academia and just because someone is a doctor, lawyer, etc doesn't mean we can just drop our arms and beleiev them, I want evidence of the former things I've written. It is your assertion, support it. Bill's elemental explanation is FAR the best I've read and way beyond your base knowledge level IMO, support your assertion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think what he wrote is correct...but it doesn't argue against us being "designed" to eat meat. I mean this with no vex, but do you have a f'n clue as to what you're talking about? Design = function. Remember that day in A&P where you discussed structure and function? Should have been constantly discussd thru your entire education as a doctor, but perhaps Arkansas abbreviates that. The form is the design and it has to do with the function. If the jaw is compound, it is designed to chew, as opposed to a simple hinge. Can you refute that? Refute any/all points you can. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We're just not designed to eat ONLY meat or to tolerate a diet of predominately meat (I've said that three times now. Don't know how else to say it). Just the contrary, we are designed to REQUIRE vegetation and can lve w/o meat. Explain how our predecessors lived w/o it for 1,000,000's of years. It's YOUR assertion that we need meat, you establish how we need it, not just assert it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that little B-12 issue is enough right there to argue the point that we ARE designed to NEED animal products Animal products are not just meats. Furthermore, since I find your credibility as a doctor, suspect, I would like to read how we now need B-12, that it can't come from other sources and how our predecoessors lived w/o it.

And yet with that great explanation as to why......

And something said about women who are women, as with mothering/nurturing attributes, etc. But then there are always the Aileen Wuornos types. So instead of actually addressing Bill's substantive assertions, you resort to your weak attempt at emasculation. Hmmm, what was that I said about fakers? Yes, whiney men make me puke. My stature is probably greater than most, as well, you look at my hands and they are not well manicured and soft; but very calloused and scarred. I'm not the anemic type veg,not that I have a issue with that.

This is not an issue of fine or not fine, it's an issue of physiology.....perhaps missed that semester or 4? Address his points on human physiology. I'm older than many and realize that lawyers, doctors and others are people who test well and are really not that well versed on complex issues....IOW's, there are a lot of fakers at premier jobs - are you one? His point was that we were not originally designed to eat meat based on our physiology, remember that thing about structure versus function? Let me read you pick that apart (if you can).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I think there's validity to the arguments against raising animals for food....especially on a larger scale. But to argue against people HUNTING for food, because it's mean to the animals is just laughable, imho. Hey kids, if you're reading, not all doctors are this compassionate, don't be fooled by one doctor's rendering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Talk about bringing an argument to pathetic proportions...."driving a bullet thru the most defenseless creature..." (lol) [shakes her head and walks away] Subtracting your rhetoric, the points made were: - defenseless creature - driving a bullet thru Since your post was rhetoric, which did you disagree with?

Wait, how bout we open a park, use the corn to feed little defenseless deer and charge an admission for nuts hell-bent on killing the most defenseless, harmless animals. Corn-fed deer just aren't as tasty, imho. linz Well, it's all abiut taste and not humaity. Let's see, the good doctor doesn't want poor people to be provided healthcare and thinks it's cute to shoot Bambi.... HMO born-n-bred, huh?

Really, then how is it our ancestors didn't eat meat for 1000's of years? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Our digestive systems handle meat just fine.... And you're a doctor? Tell me about the colon and the impact red eat has on it. It appears to me that Bill's post was FAR more scientific than is yours, why not counter it?

ah so we can assume you are a Fruitarian? everything you eat (unless you are one of these fringe zealots) takes life in order to continue your own... life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on life feeds on..... Spare me your abstract argument. So it is murder to pick a head of lettuce, same as shooting a deer, same as hanging a sheep by its foot for an hour so the blood drains out, then cutting its throat.

So you're gonna ride her coattail.....not surprised. Let me spin it on you. So, the truck that brings your clothes got in an auto accident and killed afamily of 4.....and you have the nerve to continue to wear clothes? To bring an argument to pathetic proportions reveals a true desperate measure. To watch people plannign vacations,spending 1000's of bucks to have the chance at driving a bullet thru the most defenseless creature doesn't take any abstract logic; it's prima facie planned and intentional cruelty.

Ahhh, what took so long. As well, animals are hit by cars, so I guess animal lovers should not drive either. We are humans, we have a right to live and incidentally other humans and other species are going to die as an indirect act of daily living; these are a cost of living. To go the extra several miles and build farms, harvets millions of animals and have aushwitz type processing is pathetic.

Beans are also a complete food source, w/o the "poisons" to boot. That is a horrible argument, meat is incredibly bad for humans.

Please increase you meat consumption

That's the best compilation of evidence I've seen, that one's going to docs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>Herbivores have small throats since they chew everything a lot. Carnivores have wide throats since they don't chew very much (meat is easy to digest.) We have small throats. Indeed, "choking on a piece of meat" is still the biggest cause of choking deaths. So there is a benefit to meat eaters: less traffic for vegetarians

Wait, how bout we open a park, use the corn to feed little defenseless deer and charge an admission for nuts hell-bent on killing the most defenseless, harmless animals.

God, now Amazon has relegated herself to the argument of, "OK, I'm a killer, but so are you guys." And she does so by trying to personify plans. Hey Amazon, get this, some plant food is taken from fruit, a part of the plant designed to fall off anyway. You should recognize how hard up that argument is; plants have electrical stimuli too. I don't have a problem with cats, dogs, born carnovires eating meat, but when the supposed most intelligent species selectively eats meat at the cost of suffering, well, I do have an issue. And to claim I am from another planet and then issue your, plants have feelings too based upon some lie detector nutjob. LIe detector administrators have the reputation of somewhere below lawyers and car salesmen as well. In fact it is so unreliable that they are not admitted in court, and pretty much everything goes into court. What's next, your Ouiji board? ......And I'm from another planet?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Our digestive tract is also that of an omnivore, but the human physiology is definitely FURTHER into the carnivorous end of the spectrum than our primate relatives. ie, our digestive tract is much shorter, indicating we are designed to eat more of a more efficient food source, (ie, meat). OK, than our relatives, who were strict herbovoires. Hmm, I'm trying to find the carnivoire side of us....let's see, pathetic, so-called fangs, exclusively incisors up front to chop food and mollers to grind it. I can look at my dog or cat and find little simularities with my teeth and theirs. The enzymatic action is far different, and the need to cook meat is present only with me. If we lack fiber, only found in vegetation, some functions suffer, whereas dogs/cats can go forever w/o it. Yea.....I'm tinking you're wrong >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.Also if you look at the way we evolved from Australopithecines: The human brain evolved rapidly among our more carnivorous ancestors compared to the more herbivorous hominids that were around at the same time. After all, we were going after a food source that moves. So you're attributing eating meat to rapid evolution of brains. A far stretch considering we know very little about our ancsestors and have no way of drawing that lind of conclusion other than a guess of convenience. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It's ironic that our hunting, meat-eating habits is so responsible for the development of the human intellect, and, hence, the level of comfort, such that we now have the luxury to rest on our laurels & say how "wrong" it is to eat meat. First, you're drawing some conclusion that intelect is somehow connected to meat eating - a pure guess substantiated by nothing. I would also guess that we ate meat in the primal development of modern man as an alternate food source. It's "wrong" to eat meat for many reasons: 1) The food used to raise meat could feed many more people 2) The lands used to raise cattle get trampled 3) Methane polution 4) Of course people w/o a conscence don't care, but the suffering to animals, esp veal 5) Many more Actually, as part of your evolution of man's brain, perhaps part of that evolution is developing a higher conscience. So even if you're somehow right about your theory of the development of man's brain, that same theory might bite you in the ass. Maybe the most developed learn not to eat meat due to health concerns and this plays into natural selection. Maybe your guess of a theory is right. You're right, that is ironic.

We are designed to eat meat. But we are omnivores, so eating meat is a choice. In today's world, most people who eat meat do so because they are ignorant (or don't care) about the negative environmental and health issues in doing so. OTOH, people who aren't ignorant and who do care choose not to eat meat, or at least refine their meat-source choices. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>We are designed to eat meat. But we are omnivores, so eating meat is a choice. What? Anthropologically we are herbivoires. Going back to our furthest ancestors we don't find meat eaters. If you think we are meat eaters, even after 1000's and 1000's of years of evolution, 10,000 if a person is a Jesus nut, then explain the need to cook meat. Hell, vultures can eat meat that has been dead for some time, modern day canine domesticus can even eat raw meat, but we will soon get ill or die if we eat much of it raw. I believe human acestors have been around long before the discovery of fire and the preperation of food, hence we didn't originally eat meat. Even by today's standards, our digestive enzymes have a hard time converting mets, esp red meats. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In today's world, most people who eat meat do so because they are ignorant (or don't care) about the negative environmental and health issues in doing so. That's two possibilities. You stated ignorant and don't care. Ignorant is not knowing, not caring is knowing and be too big a fuck to do the right thing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>OTOH, people who aren't ignorant and who do care choose not to eat meat, or at least refine their meat-source choices. Or decide that a living creature's life is not worth a meal.

And so tasty and well-served with potatoes? Followed by hardened arteries and colon cancer. And, if unfortunately found soon enough, a colostomy bag. Hmmm, I guess there is something in it for everyone, unfortunately I have to wait until the 50-60's to feel satisfed.

Pssssst, Bill, she eats it and provides milk until they are old enough, then leads then to show them how to survive all the ahole predators.