Racism on live chess

Stay away from the mushrooms. 

Why did human brains grow to be larger than other types of omnivores and carnivores? Is it possible that we started using our brains more to compensate for our lack of physical ability contributed to having a larger brain?

All that means is a better way to farm grains is needed.

The moral argument is not mutually exclusive from a scientific one.

If you didn't believe it was sentimental nonsense, then you'd probably be at least a vegetarian too.

No, our brains get bigger when we invented the fire and we were able to grill the meat above our fire. Grilled meat is easier to chew and swallow thereafter. The proteins we could eat more in this way made our brains start growing bigger.

It's that easy....

How did a thread on racism turn into a debate between meat eaters and vegetarians?

Btw not all people are vegetarian because of the idea killing animals for food is morally wrong (though i would counter your statement of sentimental nonsense by pointing out that is your opinion - everyone should be entitled though to their own and some may vary from yours)

i am just not that keen on the taste of most meats i've tried - although i will eat fish

Interesting take on it. Though the problem with that idea is that grilling meat did not produce more meat than was hunted. Everybody had the same amount of meat whether they grilled it or not.

Whenever I hear the claim that people have these " huge " brains I ask myself if we are so very very smart then why do we do so many very stupid things ??? My proof of this stupidity is quite simple, watch any newscast. Need even more proof ? Read some of the history of the last 10,000 years of the very smart human beings here on this planet. 

I'd say it's relative. We are probably the smartest creatures on this planet. As for the latter, we live more complex lives than animals, giving us more opportunity to do dumb things.

So, with no evidence of having read Steckel, et al., you dismiss the health choices of prehistoric peoples because they failed to understand twenty-first century nutriotional science.

Chances are good that they knew more than you do. 

I'm not dismissing their choices as much as pointing out the conclusion might not be accurate. They are likely right that protein was a factor for the difference in health, but if that was true, then it should also be true that knowledge of needing and acquiring protein from other sources was lacking.

The science on this is actually fairly extensive:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=human+brain+evolution+meat&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

The evidence demonstrates that you are wrong. They secured protein from many sources.

Your failure to distinguish between the definite and indefinite articles also produces in your comments a gross distortion of my comment (which may or may not be a summary of Steckel and co's argument--I read their study in conjunction with several others and may be intruding my own conclusions).

You can look at http://historynotebook.blogspot.com/2008/01/footnote-to-larry-schweikarts-claim.html for part of the context in which I read their work. 

Did a little research and came across this:

"...found evidence that, as compared to individuals dependent on agriculture, the diet of hunter-gatherers seems to have been more varied and nutritionally sound. Clearly, a diet based on one or only a few crops should have been deleterious to health in the pre-Columbian era ..."

-Tábita Hünemeier, et al. Evolutionary Responses to a Constructed Niche: Ancient Mesoamericans as a Model of Gene Culture Coevolution

So the comparison was between hunter-gatherers and groups that had a diet based on one or a few crops. That doesn't sound like they knew about nutritional values of food.

The largest epidemiological study I was referring to is also known as the China Study. Look it up.

Of course if you eat primarily one type of food you will be nutritionally lacking. This applies to meat and vegetables alike. Hunter-gatherer implies variety. And they really didn't eat a lot of meat.

The individuals who ate a lot of meat include, for example, the Egyptian pharoahs, whose remains show very poor health.

I'm not arguing that any vegan diet is necessarily healthier than one that includes any amount of meat (although a similar conclusion is supported by The China Study) but that consuming excessive amounts of animal protein (i.e. more than 30g per meal) is deleterious to your health. This has been shown in a large variety of studies. The World Health Organization (I think) did a study and concluded that we need about 2.5% of our total calories to come from protein, then doubled that number to 5% to be safe. I don't support this claim - I think the number is closer to 7-9% - but certainly the amounts of protein in typical Western diets is bad for your health.

For those of you who don't have an education in biochemistry or nutrition, the process by which protein is broken down for energy releases harmful substances into the body and is shown as a direct causative agent for kidney failure. Type 2 diabetes mellitus is shown to be caused by fat lining the blood vessels which makes it difficult for insulin to transport glucose into the cells.

I'm just saying that the typical Western diet is causing the epidemic of obesity that is seen not only in America but in other countries as well. Hundredfold differences in rates of cancer and traceable differences in diet tell a story, and I would advise you to pay at least some attention.

As an aspiring doctor, I will be studying a lot more nutrition and health science in the upcoming years, but this(and much more) is what I have already researched. I don't buy into 'vegan propaganda' - I buy into sound science. There's a lot of BS science by vegans and meat eaters alike (especially PETA and meat&dairy industry funded stuff - suggesting cow's milk is 'the perfect food,' etc. when studies show that it is actually terrible for you)

There are some interesting peer reviews about that book, some raising good arguments for both sides.

Any ways, you scoughed at people mention facts from 4000 BC and then bring up the Pharaohs as a counter argument later on.  Not a good debating technique.

As my doctor, and most nutritionalists point out (and as is supported by the research of archaeologists in the study I cited), carbs are the dominant element in the western diet that promotes type 2 diabetes and other common health problems.

It may be worth noting that a porterhouse steak from a feedlot raised domestic cow is also vastly different than a diet rich in venison or bison that is characterized by portion control (and immense physical activity). Most anti-meat propaganda from religious vegans and vegetarians fails to observe this distinction (which is why I brought the archaeologists into the discussion).

Save your complaint. Soon, it will be stills from forgotten television and B movies.

Or, we could start a new thread.

Sunshiny, I respect your feelings on this topic, however, I must point out that pre-Columbians were in the Americas. So they weren't very old from an evolutionary standpoint.

Oh no he didn't...