Vegetarians please read...

[DeeCee]

Oh fuck not more of this shite.

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

 

[Muslim]

Well done dee Cee. You're too good.

 

[mountainhare]

Oh no, not more bullshit from the resident retard, Deecee:

MH: I'm merely asking you to demonstrate that Homo Erectus could survive on a vegetarian diet.

Deecee: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.

*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

While there is some discrepancy between anthropologists about exactly when andhow the use of tools began and whether the increased brain size initiated tool making andmeat eating or visa versa, it is agreed upon that tool making and meat eating were integral factor in man s evolution and dominance. Man developed a need for protein, which meat provided. This diet allowed man to become more developed.

Tool making allowed moreefficiency in obtaining meat for their diets and once fire was discovered, more advancedtools were made and it was possible to cook meat and vegetables, which allowed for thebody to obtain the nutrients more efficiently from the food.Early transitional humans were primarily wild plant food collectors andoccasional scavengers of meat and eggs. By the time homo erectus appeared, huntingand carcass scavenging were becoming much more common.

It was hard for a primate with a humanlike digestive system to satisfy its protein requirements from available plant resources. The homo habilis had developed a requirement for protein and with theirdigestive system, they were not able to get that from the available plant resources. Whileleaves and legumes are high in protein, they contain substances that cause the proteins topass through the body without being absorbed. Thus, in addition to plant resources available, the major new source was animal protein,

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.

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!!!
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?

"How recent is your second map? Is it a map of savannah's and rainforests TODAY?"

Yup it's a map of current distribution.

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?

MH: 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?

Deecee: 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 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.

How much does the average lettuce weigh?
What about pumpkins? They look kinda heavy.

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?

MH: 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.

Deecee: Why should I take the trouble of finding information your incapable of understanding.

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

Conversational Terrorism

Ad Hominem Variants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OVER YOUR HEAD:
"I'd like to respond to that, but taking into account your background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that you would not be able to understand."

So essentially, your attempt to evade producing any evidence to support your assertion via insulting me is actually an ad hominem, a logic fallacy.

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?

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.

Well you have an entire planet to choose from find some grassland where no plants grow and present your argument again.

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?

You could try the famous sahara or gobi grasslands.
Just go google.

Because the plants present today must have been present millions of years ago, right? There is no such thing as environmental change.

MH: 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.

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.

Brussel sprouts, kohlrabi, Swedish turnip, drumhead cabbage, cauliflower and golden savoy. But hey, I guess in your mind, evolution never occurred.

MH: And just in case you aren't aware, humans can't gain nutrition from grass. So your attempted analogy fails.

Deecee: Gosh! so thats what happened to my appendix.

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.

MH: 1. We were initially talking about COWS. The question of elephants is irrelevant.

Deecee: 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

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.

MH: that isn't 'the country', it's some sort of grassland savana.

Deecee: Indeed. It's the same savanna where there is not enough edible vegetation to support human life.

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.

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?

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!

MH: Wild strands of pseudo-lettuce don't count

Deecee: Who sez? and how do you know their not lying when they say it?

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?

Any more nonsense to post?

Do you?

Just spew it out and I'll reply when I'm ready. (after a stiff drink)

Your alcohol problem might explain your lack of brain cells.

 

[James R]

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.

 

[qwerty mob]

Ditto.

 

[DeeCee]

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

 

[DeeCee]

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

Lowland calcareous grasslands support a very rich flora including many nationally rare and scarce species such as monkey orchid Orchis simia, hoary rockrose Helianthemum canum and pasque flower Pulsatilla vulgaris.

link

From Hong Kong

Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.
Cyrtococcum patens (L.) A. Camus (Panicum patens)
Digitaria sanquinalis (L.) Scop.
Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.
Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.
Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.
Ischaemum aristatum L.
Miscanthus sinensis Anderss.
Neyraudia arundinaceae (L.) Beauv.
Panicum maximum Jacq.
Paspalum conjugatum Berg.
Paspalum scrobiculatum L.
Pennisetum alopecuroides (L.) Spreng.
Rhynchelytrum repens (Willd.) C. E. Hubb. (Tricholaena teneriffae Parlat)
Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) O. Ktze.
Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet
Achyranthes aspera L.
Ageratum conyzoides L.
Amaranthus spinosus R. Br.
Amaranthus viridis L.
Bidens bipinnata L.
Cassia tora L.
Chrysanthemum frutescens L.
Chrysanthemum indicum L.
Conyza bonariensis L. (Erigeron bonariensis L.)
Crotalaria pallida Aiton (C. mucronata Desv.)
Desmodium heterocarpon (L.) DC.
Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. (E. alba Hassk.)
Elephantopus scaber L.
Elephantopus spicatus Aubl.
Elephantopus tomentosa L.
Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC.
Gahnia tristis Nees
Hedyotis acutangula Champ.
Inula cappa (Ham. ex. D. Don) DC.
Polygonum chinense L.
Mimosa pudica L.
Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC.
Millettia nitida Benth.
Paederia scandens (Lour.) Merr.
Phyllodium pulchellum Desv.
Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi (P. thunbergiana Benth.)
Rubus reflexus Ker
Scleria levis Retz. (S. hebecarpa Nees)
Sida rhombifolia L.
Spilanthes acmella Murr.
Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn.
Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less.

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.

Vegetables in B. oleracea include the cabbages, collards, cauliflower, broccoli, brussel sprouts,, the kales, and kohlrabi;

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
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

 

[tree tree trin]

look, let me make something abundantly clear for people who are so bereft of activities they feel like they gotta comment on mine. first of all being a vegetarian should never be associated with being a revolutionary or being open-minded. that's a dietary choice. if someone wants to proliferate the type of ignorance we're supposed to be fighting by thinking that, you're just fucking yourself. i don't go around promoting beef and poetry shoving it in people's faces. i don't castigate people for not eating steak sandwiches; and i would never diss someone for being a fucking broccoli-head, or living off of radishes, or eating grass or tofu. i like a lot of vegan cuisine. but the illogicality of expecting everyone to adopt their particular idea of what being healthy is is just preposterous. I've seen some of you herbivores; and if you want to argue health, y'all need to eat some kind of supplement because some of y'all are so skinny that it's disgusting; looking like the only on schindler's list. being a malnutrition-ass got nothing to do with being revolutionary or being on-point. I'll be damned if i let somebody else push their agenda on me. you know i don't eat pork, not because I'm a Muslim, i just don't really like it, but i really will fuck a bird up. and fish is good when that shit is fresh. it's like my dad said if you don't like the smell of burning meat, well then get the fuck off the planet. you know i don't criticize people for eating moss, then don't open your fucking mouth about my food, man. i like beef and broccoli motherfucker. mind your god-damn business. matter of fact... you know what? I'm out.

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.

 

[Muslim]

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.

Well I wasn't planing on winning the Nobel Peace Prize when I made the post.

 

[mountainhare]

Deecee:

Back to biz.

the AVAILABILITY of fruits and vegetables.

Yeh just was the "AVAILABILITY of fruit and veg" and how do we know?

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...

Err your gonna hate me but how about you prove that.
Oh I forgot you posted that there scientific article.

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.

You should really have given due credit to the author. Sometimes a link alone just isn't enough.

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 lets here it for your primary source.
Stand up Tina Coates of Salt Lake Community College
Well I'm impressed!

So you're attempting to belittle a Community College? Interesting. *sniff sniff* Do I smell elitism?

Just a shame the sources she cited don't seem to support some of her assertions.

Oh really? Which of her assertions aren't supported by her references? Care to support your assertions?

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?

Are you trying to claim that no new genus, species or breeds of plants have evolved in the past million years?! LOL!

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.

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.

How the fuck can you possibly argue that the vast areas of vegetation across the planet did not consititute a viable food source?

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.

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.

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.

What happens to rigid cell walls when you boil them BTW?

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!

Humans can't gain sustenance from grass, or palm tree leave

But they do from bread and palm hearts
Isn't that weird?

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.

MHL 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.

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.

Yup it's a measure of biological material in a given area.

Wow, I'm impressed! Did you google that term, kid?

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.

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.

Great word "may" don't you think?

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!

MH: It's too bad that you've failed to prove that 'the average lettuce' and pumpkins grow in the Botswana mountains.

Deecee: Lettuce don't grow on the Botswana mountain.
WTF are you on about?

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?

"I can't support my wild generalization that grasslands are swarming with plant life

Yes I can.

Apparently you can't, otherwise you wouldn't be posting selective and lame individual examples. Where's your statistical evidence?

In the UK

“ Lowland calcareous grasslands support a very rich flora including many nationally rare and scarce species such as monkey orchid Orchis simia, hoary rockrose Helianthemum canum and pasque flower Pulsatilla vulgaris. ”

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.

From Hong Kong
“ Cynodon dactylon (L.) Pers.
Cyrtococcum patens (L.) A. Camus (Panicum patens)
Digitaria sanquinalis (L.) Scop.
Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.
Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn.
Imperata cylindrica (L.) Beauv.
Ischaemum aristatum L.
Miscanthus sinensis Anderss.
Neyraudia arundinaceae (L.) Beauv.
Panicum maximum Jacq.
Paspalum conjugatum Berg.
Paspalum scrobiculatum L.
Pennisetum alopecuroides (L.) Spreng.
Rhynchelytrum repens (Willd.) C. E. Hubb. (Tricholaena teneriffae Parlat)
Thysanolaena maxima (Roxb.) O. Ktze.
Abutilon indicum (L.) Sweet
Achyranthes aspera L.
Ageratum conyzoides L.
Amaranthus spinosus R. Br.
Amaranthus viridis L.
Bidens bipinnata L.
Cassia tora L.
Chrysanthemum frutescens L.
Chrysanthemum indicum L.
Conyza bonariensis L. (Erigeron bonariensis L.)
Crotalaria pallida Aiton (C. mucronata Desv.)
Desmodium heterocarpon (L.) DC.
Eclipta prostrata (L.) L. (E. alba Hassk.)
Elephantopus scaber L.
Elephantopus spicatus Aubl.
Elephantopus tomentosa L.
Emilia sonchifolia (L.) DC.
Gahnia tristis Nees
Hedyotis acutangula Champ.
Inula cappa (Ham. ex. D. Don) DC.
Polygonum chinense L.
Mimosa pudica L.
Alysicarpus vaginalis (L.) DC.
Millettia nitida Benth.
Paederia scandens (Lour.) Merr.
Phyllodium pulchellum Desv.
Pueraria lobata (Willd.) Ohwi (P. thunbergiana Benth.)
Rubus reflexus Ker
Scleria levis Retz. (S. hebecarpa Nees)
Sida rhombifolia L.
Spilanthes acmella Murr.
Synedrella nodiflora (L.) Gaertn.
Vernonia cinerea (L.) Less.
”

And how many of those plants provide acceptable sustenance? How many of them are a rich source of protein? What are their respective quantities?

Thats enough I'm bored now.

It's a pity that you've achieved nothing. Oh well, better luck next time.

MH: So essentially, your attempt to evade producing any evidence to support your assertion via insulting me is actually an ad hominem, a logic fallacy.

Deecee: Maybe so

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).

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.

http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

Conversational terrorism:

Ad Hominem Variants

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OVER YOUR HEAD:
"I'd like to respond to that, but taking into account your background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that you would not be able to understand."

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.

MH: you need to demonstrate that it is an accurate representation of ALL grasslands, AND at the time of homo erectus.

Deecee: Do I really?
BTW are you suggesting that grasslands are different?

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.

MH: Brussel sprouts, kohlrabi, Swedish turnip, drumhead cabbage, cauliflower and golden savoy.

Deecee: What are you trying to pull?
This is very naughty and must not be allowed to pass.

“ Vegetables in B. oleracea include the cabbages, collards, cauliflower, broccoli, brussel sprouts,, the kales, and kohlrabi; ”

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.

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...

I wonder..
Did you know that all these plants were related before you posted?

Yes, of course. I grabbed them from "Climbing Mount Impossible" by Richard Dawkins, who explains that they all evolved from the wild cabbage.

MH: Because the plants present today must have been present millions of years ago, right?

Deecee: For the most part.

False. I've already demonstrated that Wild Cabbage gave rise to 6 totally new types of plants via selective breeding.

The form may change but the function remains the same.

False again. And the fact still remains that brussel sprouts are radically different from wild cabbage, or even turnips.

Everything not forbidden is compulsory.

A cryptic remark. Clarify.

Homo erectus' appendix was also vestigal,

Yeh sad that. He can't eat the stems
He has to content himself with the roots, nuts, fruit, flowers, leaves and sap.
Shame

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.

it's processed. Something which was unavailable to Homo Erectus millions of years ago

He had fire.
He had water.
He could process food.

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!

 

[spuriousmonkey]

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.

The extant baseline data indicate that higher pit percentages should reflect consumption of hard, brittle items requiring heavy masticatory loads. Larger pits suggest hard, brittle items whereas smaller pits more likely point to tougher foods and adhesion of opposing surfaces during shearing. The hominins are well separated from Papio, Lophocebus, and the Aleut in both striation breadth and pit width. The Aleut, chacma baboons, and mangabeys consume foods that evidently require considerable occlusal force for comminution, such as tough mammalian tissues,2 tough seeds and corms, and, in the case of the mangabeys, at least occasional hard and brittle nuts. This makes sense given inferred relationships between occlusal force and pit size and striation breadth. Compared with the Aleut, Lophocebus, and Papio, the early Homo groups probably did not typically eat foods with considerable fracture strength or puncture resistance. These fossil hominins therefore likely did not specialize on extremely tough foods, such as dried meat, or those with extremely high yield strengths, such as hard USOs.

Higher pit percentages in H. erectus suggest that these hominins may have incorporated increasing amounts of fracture-resistant foods (possibly hard, but more likely very tough) compared with H. habilis.

Likewise, none of the fossil hominin groups have the high pit percentages of L. albigena or C. apella. This result also suggests that early Homo did not often consume hard objects.

These interpretations allow us to comment on popular models for early Homo diets. Researchers have long argued that a new resource base made available by the spread of C4 grasslands and stone tools motivated subsistence changes that led to the origin and early evolution of our genus (for review, see Ungar et al., in press). Workers have suggested a shift from a diet dominated by fruit or other forest resources to savanna animals or xeric plants (especially USOs). In this light, the lack of microwear evidence for dietary specialization is instructive. None of these hominins probably limited their diets to either tough meat or hard USOs. On the other hand, microwear differences between H. habilis and H. erectus may be of some significance, especially if the higher incidences of pitting in the latter reflect consumption of more foods resistant to fracture.

Evolution of human diet:
Proc Nutr Soc. 2002 Nov;61(4):517-26.
Human eating behaviour in an evolutionary ecological context.
Ulijaszek SJ.

There are clear accounts of the possible dietary characteristics of hominids ancestral to H. sapiens. Morphological characteristics of the dentition of fossil hominids have been used to derive a number of hypothetical dietary patterns, the general consensus being of a diverse largely vegetarian diet in the australopithecines. With the emergence of early Homo from about 1·8 ´ 106 years ago, there is conjectured to have been considerable exploitation of meat (Isaac & Crader, 1981), predominantly by scavenging (Blumenschine, 1991) in association with the development of stone tools (Isaac, 1983), and the maintenance of dietary diversity despite the increased body size that characterises the transition from Australopithecus to H. erectus. This feeding adaptation is likely to have arisen in the context of resource seasonality (Foley, 1993).

Meat eating among early Homo is most likely to have come from catchement scavenging (H. rudolfensis, H. habilis and H. erectus) and territory scavenging (H. ergaster). Evidence of group hunting of large game appeared with H. heidelbergensis, and became elaborated with H. neandertalensis, who were social hunter-gatherers, practising cooperative hunting. H. sapiens was also a hunter-gatherer, but able to forage at levels of complexity that far outstripped all other species of Homo.

 

[Muslim]

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!

 

[river-wind]

river-wind:

Because the sensation of 'pain' is generated by nerves, communicated to the brain via the spinal cord, and perceived by the brain as pain. That's how pain is defined. How the hell can a plant have a conscious perception of pain if it doesn't have a brain?

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.

Once again, reacting to negative stimuli != pain. Your attempting comparison is childish. It is equivalent to claiming that plants must be afraid of the dark, because they grow towards the sunlight.

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?

Your ignorance of neuroscience is baffling.

I'm sorry to hear that. I will have to study more.

According to you, computers must also feel pain, since they can react to negative stimuli.

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.

But the fact remains that the entire 'plant question' is a fat red herring. It is merely an attempt of meat eaters to deflect attention of their own immoral actions. Ergo. Put the vegetarians on the defensive, instead of justifying your immoral behaviour.

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.

 

[android]

being a vegetarian should never be associated with being a revolutionary or being open-minded.

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.

 

[river-wind]

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!

 

[Tyler N.]

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.

 

[sniffy]

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

 

[Arete]

I don't eat meat because I have adopted a stance of non-violence towards living beings. It's not a dietary choice.

But I don't promote it, or anything like that. Not all vegans are hostile, only the peta crackheads and extremists.

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

 

[Avatar]

But I don't like meat. Guess it's not my nature.

 

[Tyler N.]

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

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 . 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.