phagocytosis?

Umm.. sorry to pull a 'duh' here, but what does that have to do with organisms being designed or not?

My wife is allergic to milk. She's not lactose intolerant, she has an allergy to something in milk and cannot consume any. A few bites of something with milk in it is enough to set her up in cramps and less pleasant problems for a day or so, so she consumes no milk, cheese, cream, or anything prepared with those things.
It's a real pain in the ass.

Aside from being a real pain in the ass, I haven't noticed that it's made her particularly healthy. It certainly hasn't healed her other allergy (artificial sweeteners) or any of her other health problems, and we're talking about someone who's been off milk strictly for almost 20 years now.

I drink a lot less milk now that I'm losing weight, but I used to be of the B.A. Barrachus school of thought regarding milk. And squats.

Here are some more info that you guys might want to check out (or not, I get the feeling that my credibility has been compromised on this matter):
This is an Open Access Study:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1367832

This study mainly deals with breast milk, which arguably most doctors indicate is the best nutritional source for developing babies, this isn't dealing with the benefits of soy milk over animal milk.

Aside from being a real pain in the ass, I haven't noticed that it's made her particularly healthy.

Yeah, vegetarians / vegans love to promote that their diet will make you healthy. It CAN, but you really have to work at it. You can't just cut a major source of fat and protein out of your diet and expect to get healthier. Yeah, you'll lose weight, and probably be tired and crabby all the time like I was the first time I went veg. The second time I made sure to take loads of vitamins and supplement with soy proteins and nutritional yeast and fattier vegetables, It worked better, but it was a major pain in the ass, so I went back to eating meat. And cheese. I love cheese.

it was stated by you that:

On an off topic matter, no organism is "designed" to be eaten by another. In fact, organisms aren't designed. In any given ecosystem, lifeforms adapt to the conditions / food sources present.
I cited an example on the cellular level of one organism being created to eat another.

it was stated by you that:

I cited an example on the cellular level of one organism being created to eat another.

Ah, I see what you're saying. However, I said no organism is designed TO BE EATEN by another, not to eat another. The former doesn't sound like it would be a particularly useful evolutionary strategy.

Ah, I see what you're saying. However, I said no organism is designed TO BE EATEN by another, not to eat another. The former doesn't sound like it would be a particularly useful evolutionary strategy.

yes, that is quite a bit different then and no that wouldn't be a particularly useful evolutionary strategy.

can we start thinking cloned sheep and cows to be designed to be eaten by others yet?

yes, that is quite a bit different then and no that wouldn't be a particularly useful evolutionary strategy.

can we start thinking cloned sheep and cows to be designed to be eaten by others yet?

We don't need cloning. Most of our grains (and our food animals for that matter) have been bred for adaptations that make them tasty to us and inhibit or even prevent their ability to survive without us. Look at corn or domestic turkeys for 2.

Yep. Corn cannot survive or grow without manual intervention. Don't know about turkeys, but that's certainly the case with corn.

Google gobble (http://encarta.msn.com/column_storyoftheturkey_tamimhome/Meat_on_Legs_The_Story_of_the_Turkey.html)

Just some random reading for thanksgiving time.

This study mainly deals with breast milk, which arguably most doctors indicate is the best nutritional source for developing babies, this isn't dealing with the benefits of soy milk over animal milk.

The comparison of soy milk to cow's milk was made in a different thread. It was grouped here by the Powers That Be.

This study mainly deals with breast milk, which arguably most doctors indicate is the best nutritional source for developing babies, this isn't dealing with the benefits of soy milk over animal milk.

He isn't going to give an straight answer. He goes off google and cherry picks what he finds when he search for dioxin and milk. Proof of this is that he hasn't shown you guys this article which comes at the top of the google search when searching for dioxin and milk

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n9_v23/ai_8267885


Dioxin and milk safety

FDA Consumer, Nov, 1989

FDA studies have shown that dioxin levels in milk from bleached paper cartons are extremely low and do not present a health hazard. The agency has confirmed reports that dioxin, which contains a compound known to cause cancer in animals, migrates from bleached paper cartons into the milk they contain. However, studies show that levels in these products measure well below I part per trillion.
Though the article is almost 8 years old, it bears witness to handoverfist' cherry picking of facts to support his point of view.

This is why I have no regrets throwing this thread to trollshido.

This is why I didn't say anything when this thread was moved to the skepticism forums. I grinded my teeth and keep quiet. Moving this thread off trollshido, although well intentioned, it only adds a sense of legitimacy to an skewed discussion created by someone who does not deserve such opportunity.

This is the 6th attempt that I'm asking this person to comment or answer the questions I've already presented on human evolution and nutrition.

He has yet to answer. But instead of doing so, he keeps cherry picking finds and amateur web pages that pose as "alternative" medical finds, or authoritative finds applicable to a particular region or economy in the world and passes them as if they were some sort of knowledge.

You want to spread some knowledge, handoverfist? Go back and answer the questions I've presented (this is the seventh attempt to get you to answer by now.) Provide us with your opinion in an objective, logical manner. That's a much better way to spread knowledge than to passing cherry-picked google finds.

A person that is honest in discovering the truth and expand knowledge does 5 things:

1. postulates a point of view
2. elaborates on it by presenting evicende in a coherent manner
3. presents potential counter-arguments
4. deals which each counter-argument
5. based on succesful handling of counter-arguments, present a summary.

You haven't even done #1, and your selective posting of google finds do not even reach to qualify for #2. Since you willingly or unwillingly decided to skip #3, I've presented you with counter arguments.

I'm waiting for #4.

ATT handoverfist:

So, just so that you don't miss it, let me reiterate what I previously posted, which you haven't addressed yet (and I've removed the cursing to provide a quasi-decent statement, whatever):


I mean, I really hate this:


Compassion to animals ultimately results in
compassion to one's own body, for their flesh and milk are
filthy, inefficient fuels that were not designed for human
consumption.

How are animal flesh and milk filthy, inefficient fuels that were not designed for human consumption? If this is about dioxin in milk, why doesn't it said so? This is clearly an statement on the value of foods of animal origins. Plain and simple.

We evolved into scavengers when we split off the austrolopitecines over 2 million years ago. This is not counting on the fact that austrolopitecines were already omnivores (based on their dentition), meaning they evolved to eat anything, including animals (lizards, grubs) or flesh out of carcasses whenever they got the chance.

At this time, the austrolopitecine cranial capacity was about 27% the cranial capacity of modern humans. That's just below the average Chimpanzee cranial capacity (29% of modern humans). It bears to note that austrolopitecines were opportunistic, casual scavengers (grab a lizard and chew on it) whereas chimps are active hunters, meat eaters.

Advance the clock a bit - Homo Abilis was already an scavenger when it came into the scene 2.4 million years ago. The tools they left behind and their dentition indicate so. It is at this time, with an increase in animal flesh in their diets, that you see a remarkable increase in cranial capacity (36% of modern humans.)

Enter Homo Ergaster about 1.9 million years ago. He's no longer an scavenger but an active hunter (again, this is proved by their tools and dentition.) By this time, their cranial capacity is 50% that of modern humans.

Half a million years ago we get Homo heidelbergensis, a full blown hunter with a cranial capacity bordering over 80% the cranial capacity of modern humans.

Neanderthals, our closests cousins, had a cranial capacity equal, and cases, superior to ours. They had evolved similar, if not larger structures in their craneum to support the nerves which control tongue movement, as well as vocal tracks sufficient for speech.

And guess what???? Analysis of carbon and other components in their bones suggest their diet was 90% meat.

And here we are, humans, evolved from cursorial predators, and at each step of human evolution, the increase of our cranial capacity goes in tandem with an increase of animal flesh in our diets.


WE EVOLVED TO EAT ANIMAL FLESH.




THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN WAS PROPELLED BY CONSUMPTION OF ANIMAL FLESH AND FAT.



EVOLUTION DICTATED THAT ANIMAL FLESH WAS THE MOST EFFICIENT, CLEANEST FUEL FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPLEX BRAIN.


IN FACT, ALL ACTIVE OR OPPORTUNISTIC CARNIVOROURS MAMMALS AND MOST OMNIVOROUS ONES (SUCH AS PIGS) AND ALL ANIMALS DESCENDENT FROM THEM WHO HAVE REVERTED BACK TO OMNIVORY OR HERBIVORY HAVE SUPERIOR BRAINS TO THOSE WHICH ARE (OR HAVE DESCENDED FROM) STRICT HERBIVORES.


SO HOW CAN ANYONE CLAIM, THEN, THAT ANIMAL FLESH AND FLUIDS ARE FILTHY, INEFFICIENT FOOD SOURCES FOR HUMANS, WHEN IN FACT, NATURE AND HUMAN EVOLUTION PROVES OTHERWISE?







SO ALL OF THE SUDDEN, 3 MILLION YEARS OF HUMAN EVOLUTION ARE BASED ON AN EVOLUTIONARY MISTAKE, THAT FLESH WAS AN USUITABLE FUEL FOR OUR EVOLUTION, JUST BECASE YOU WANT TO EMBELLISH YOUR BELIEFS WITH PSEUDO-SCIENCE AND SNAKE OIL????



CREATIONIST COUSIN, PLEASE.





If you choose to stay away from foods of animal origins based on moral or religious grounds, that's fine and more power to you.




Thank you for removing the insults, Macho. That was a classy move. +Rep.


Now upon reading your argument, I find that it really doesn't have any relevance to the point I'm trying to make. I love meat. In fact I think I said that a few pages ago. I'm not saying that you shouldn't eat meat, I'm just saying that cow's milk can have some very adverse affects on the human body.


I think what happened was that you read this one idiotic statement:




Compassion to animals ultimately results in

compassion to one's own body, for their flesh and milk are
filthy, inefficient fuels that were not designed for human
consumption.

And immediately stopped reading. I know I would have done the same if I were in your shoes. But trust me, before you pass judgement, you should just skim the articles, pick one at random, and read it.

All of the articles that I have read site their references.

Thanks for replying back. However, I refuse to read anything that's presented as emotional pseudo-science, and that website qualifies as such.

If a good point is valid and passes a scientific test, it does not need any "appeals to emotion" attached to it. If I were to read or navigate such a website, I will be giving tacit support for such snake oil, "appeal to emotion" cheap tactics.

I hope you also understand why I will not tolerate any post passing such links in the PT forums.

Thanks.

-- EDIT --

I will welcome in the PT forums, however, any post or article presenting findings on dioxin and milk, and makes a compeling case for stopping the consumption of milk if it follows the steps 1-5 mentioned above.

-- EDIT --

And by the way, I found that article on compassion for animals by skimming and picking up articles at random. The placement of such diatribes was done with full premeditation, to disguise such tomfoolery among articles of perhaps greater scientific value.

That is dishonest no matter how we cut it.

Macho, I can't find these rules:


1. postulates a point of view
2. elaborates on it by presenting evicende in a coherent manner
3. presents potential counter-arguments
4. deals which each counter-argument
5. based on succesful handling of counter-arguments, present a summary.


Anywhere else on the forums. Maybe I didn't look hard enough. Does that mean that they only apply to threads that I make?

P.S. I DID however find the disclaimer for the PT forum:



The opinions expressed in this forum reflect those of individual members and do not constitute advice or recommendations from this website or its staff on diet or training.

This forum is to discuss your personal experiences and ideas on physical training, diet, and health in general. Follow any advice given here at your own risk and always consult your physician before starting any new diet or exercise program.

I mean, was I really that out of line?

yes, that is quite a bit different then and no that wouldn't be a particularly useful evolutionary strategy.

can we start thinking cloned sheep and cows to be designed to be eaten by others yet?

You know, I was kind of waiting for that one. Yes, things like cloned sheep and cattle, and vat grown meat would certainly count as being designed to be eaten by other organisms. But that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms, because GM animals actually have a designer - humans. A pedantic distinction, but one that brings up the whole ID vs. evolution argument. And if we start that one I doubt I'll get any work done ever again.

Then again, it's pretty funny to watch how pissed off people get about that one. :deadhorse