Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Eating Meat is what made us Humans

jh1

New member
Caught some show on Discovery and it had a bunch of scientists and anthropologists on there...

I only caught 10 minutes of it, but they were all in agreement - our brains grew to the size they are today because of the protein our ancestors integrated into our diet.

Every predecesor / branch off that had small brains all had vegan diets. Those, like the neanderthol and the humans, that had large brains came from lines that incorporated meat into their diets.

Not really a suprise.
 
Catching 10 min of a show on the Discovery channel pretty much makes you an expert on the subject.

Maybe you should write a book.
 
sixxtoes said:
i watched most of it, and they had some cool things they have found out about our evolution

Holy shit! You watch most of it!!

Maybe you and JH should tour the country giving presentations on the subject.
 
all the whey said:
Catching 10 min of a show on the Discovery channel pretty much makes you an expert on the subject.

Maybe you should write a book.



No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 
jh1 said:
Caught some show on Discovery and it had a bunch of scientists and anthropologists on there...

I only caught 10 minutes of it, but they were all in agreement - our brains grew to the size they are today because of the protein our ancestors integrated into our diet.

Every predecesor / branch off that had small brains all had vegan diets. Those, like the neanderthol and the humans, that had large brains came from lines that incorporated meat into their diets.

Not really a suprise.


This could well have been where Hitler failed, adopting a vegan diet.


Also, the key to disease research and cures lie in proteins; hence the Folding @ Home project.
 
It wasn't just eating meat but after humans figured out how to make fire to cook the meat it made it much more digestable.....They got several times the nutrition from it.
 
jh1 said:
Fish is meat, douche bag ass fuck.
So you watched, "Human Development for Dummies?" :) There is a strong theory about fish and human brain development independent of other meat.
 
javaguru said:
So you watched, "Human Development for Dummies?" :) There is a strong theory about fish and human brain development independent of other meat.

I've heard that as well.

This wasn't specific to FISH.. it was about 'meat' in general and the levels of protein only found in the diets of non vegans.
 
jh1 said:
I've heard that as well.

This wasn't specific to FISH.. it was about 'meat' in general and the levels of protein only found in the diets of non vegans.
The fish theory deals with DHA/EPA...essential fatty acids and their prevalence in the human brain. Infant formula companies have been trying to stabilize them in infant formula, it's their "holy grail" to mimic breast milk. Their research considers it that important...it's the DHA/EPA studies that flax proponents cite when proclaiming the benefits of their product, which requires conversion in the body.
 
javaguru said:
So you watched, "Human Development for Dummies?" :) There is a strong theory about fish and human brain development independent of other meat.

There wasn't much fish in the jungles of East Africa where MOST of the cranial capacity increased and verified through fossil documentation, attributed to, eating meat. This is like anthropology 101 stuff. Hold up brain, discuss teeth of fossils, hold up petrified poop showing increased meat consumption, pass out test. Believe!!
Fish, well that's made wolves adapt into whales, to go eat fish. They got fat but lived longer. Don't know which was a smarter evolutionary tract. But, definitely, we equate intelligence in a conventional sense with abstract reasoning and overcoming extinction and the ability to adapt. Protein fueled that evolutionary change of cranial size. Most of the fish eaters still have 400cc brains. Which STRONG theory are you referring to anyways? Most all of the experts agree on where and how and why cranial size increased.
What fossil records exist or genetic retracement tests or studies, beyond thoery provide evidence to back up the fish argument?
 
  • Like
Reactions: jh1
Richard_D_Feynman said:
There wasn't much fish in the jungles of East Africa where MOST of the cranial capacity increased and verified through fossil documentation, attributed to, eating meat. This is like anthropology 101 stuff. Hold up brain, discuss teeth of fossils, hold up petrified poop showing increased meat consumption, pass out test. Believe!!
Fish, well that's made wolves adapt into whales, to go eat fish. They got fat but lived longer. Don't know which was a smarter evolutionary tract. But, definitely, we equate intelligence in a conventional sense with abstract reasoning and overcoming extinction and the ability to adapt. Protein fueled that evolutionary change of cranial size. Most of the fish eaters still have 400cc brains. Which STRONG theory are you referring to anyways? Most all of the experts agree on where and how and why cranial size increased.
What fossil records exist or genetic retracement tests or studies, beyond thoery provide evidence to back up the fish argument?
Here ya go....

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/nsae-tsf021706.php

Contact: Stephen Cunnane
[email protected]
819-821-1170
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

There's something fishy about human brain evolution
Forget the textbook story about tool use and language sparking the dramatic evolutionary growth of the human brain. Instead, imagine ancient hominid children chasing frogs. Not for fun, but for food.
According to Dr. Stephen Cunnane it was a rich and secure shore-based diet that fuelled and provided the essential nutrients to make our brains what they are today. Controversially, according to Dr. Cunnane our initial brain boost didn't happen by adaptation, but by exaptation, or chance.

"Anthropologists and evolutionary biologists usually point to things like the rise of language and tool making to explain the massive expansion of early hominid brains. But this is a Catch-22. Something had to start the process of brain expansion and I think it was early humans eating clams, frogs, bird eggs and fish from shoreline environments. This is what created the necessary physiological conditions for explosive brain growth," says Dr. Cunnane, a metabolic physiologist at the University of Sherbrooke in Sherbrooke, Quebec.

The evolutionary growth in hominid brain size remains a mystery and a major point of contention among anthropologists. Our brains weigh roughly twice as much as our similarly sized earliest human relative, Homo habilis two million years ago. The big question is which came first – the bigger brain or the social, linguistic and tool-making skills we associate with it?

But, Dr. Cunnane argues that most anthropologists are ignorant or dismissive of the key missing link to help answer this question: the metabolic constraints that are critical for healthy human brain development today, and for its evolution.

Human brains aren't just comparatively big, they're hungry. The average newborn's brain consumes an amazing 75-per cent of an infant's daily energy needs. According to Dr. Cunnane, to fuel this neural demand, human babies are born with a built-in energy reservoir – that cute baby fat. Human infants are the only primate babies born with excess fat. It accounts for about 14 per cent of their birth weight, similar to that of their brains.

It's this baby fat, says Dr. Cunnane, that provided the physiological winning conditions for hominids' evolutionary brain expansion. And how were hominid babies able to pack on the extra pounds? According to Cunnane their moms were dining on shoreline delicacies like clams and catfish.

"The shores gave us food security and higher nutrient density. My hypothesis is that to permit the brain to start to increase in size, the fittest early humans were those with the fattest infants," says Dr. Cunnane, author of the book Survival of the Fattest, published in 2005.

Unlike the prehistoric savannahs or forests, argues Dr. Cunnane, ancient shoreline environments provided a year-round, accessible and rich food supply. Such an environment was found in the wetlands and river and lake shorelines that dominated east Africa's prehistoric Rift Valley in which early humans evolved.

Dr. Cunnane points to the table scrap fossil evidence collected by his symposium co-organizer Dr. Kathy Stewart from the Canadian Museum of Nature, in Ottawa. Her study of fossil material excavated from numerous Homo habilis sites in eastern Africa revealed a bevy of chewed fish bones, particularly catfish.

More than just filling the larder, shorelines provided essential brain boosting nutrients and minerals that launched Homo sapiens brains past their primate peers, says Dr. Cunnane, the Canada Research Chair in Brain Metabolism and Aging.

Brain development and function requires ample supplies of a particular polyunsaturated fatty acid: docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). DHA is critical to proper neuron function. Human baby fat provides both an energy source for the rapidly growing infant grey matter, and also, says Dr. Cunnane, a greater concentration of DHA per pound than at any other time in life.

Aquatic foods are also rich in iodine, a key brain nutrient. Iodine is present in much lower amounts from terrestrial food sources such as mammals and plants.

It was this combination of abundant shoreline food and the "brain selective nutrients" that sparked the growth of the human brain, he says.

"Initially there wasn't selection for a larger brain," argues Dr. Cunnane. "The genetic possibility was there, but it remained silent until it was catalyzed by this shore-based diet."

Dr. Cunnane acknowledges that for the past 20 years he's been swimming upstream when it comes to convincing anthropologists of his position, especially that initial hominid brain expansion happened by chance rather than adaptation.

But, he says, the evidence of the importance of key shoreline nutrients to brain development is still with us – painfully so. Iodine deficiency is the world's leading nutrient deficiency. It affects more than a 1.5 billion people, mostly in inland areas, and causes sub-optimal brain function. Iodine is legally required to be added to salt in more than 100 countries.

Says Dr. Cunnane: "We've created an artificial shore-based food supply in our salt."


###
Contact:
Dr. Stephen Cunnane
(819) 821-1170, ext. 2670 (office)
[email protected]

Arnet Sheppard
NSERC Public Affairs
(613) 859-1269

Dr. Cunnane's AAAS Presentation
Expatiation, Metabolic constraints and Human Brain Evolution,
Saturday, February 18, 2006
8:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. Central Time
 
For the record, he's a respected scientist.....
Dr Tom Cunnane

http://www.pharm.ox.ac.uk/academics/cunnane

University Lecturer
Fellow and Tutor in Physiological Sciences, Hertford College
Dr Cunnane graduated in Pharmacology at Bath University, and obtained a PhD in the Department of Pharmacology, Glasgow University. He continued his research in the Department of Physiology, Leicester University where he worked for two years with Professor Asa Blakeley funded by the MRC. He then set up an electrophysiological laboratory at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm working with Professor Lennart Stjärne as an MRC and Royal Society Overseas Fellow. Dr Cunnane returned to the UK to set up his own independent research group as an MRC Senior Fellow in the Department of Pharmacology, Glasgow University, before being appointed to his College Fellowship and University Lectureship in Oxford in 1984. Dr Cunnane has developed techniques to study the relationship between action potential propagation and neurotransmitter release at the level of the individual varicosity in sympathetic nerve terminals. More recently, Dr Cunnane's group have been studying calcium dynamics in mature nerve terminals using confocal microscopy, and have discovered an unexpected and novel action of nicotine. Briefly, nicotine induces spontaneous asynchronous calcium transients in individual varicosities.

Dr Cunnane has been an Editor of the British Journal of Pharmacology and Chairman of the International Union of Physiological Sciences Commission on the Physiology of Neurotransmitters and Modulation.

Key Research Areas
Electrophysiological characterisation of neurotransmitter release mechanisms in single living varicosities in postganglionic sympathetic neurones

Presynaptic receptor activation and the role of potassium and multiple forms of calcium channels in varicose nerve terminals

Investigation of the nature of the calcium channels controlling ACh release from preganglionic sympathetic nerves

Molecular machinery controlling neurotransmitter release
 
javaguru said:
For the record, he's a respected scientist.....
Dr Tom Cunnane

University Lecturer
Fellow and Tutor in Physiological Sciences, Hertford College
Dr Cunnane graduated in Pharmacology at Bath University, and obtained a PhD in the Department of Pharmacology, Glasgow University. He continued his research in the Department of Physiology, Leicester University where he worked for two years with Professor Asa Blakeley funded by the MRC. He then set up an electrophysiological laboratory at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm working with Professor Lennart Stjärne as an MRC and Royal Society Overseas Fellow. Dr Cunnane returned to the UK to set up his own independent research group as an MRC Senior Fellow in the Department of Pharmacology, Glasgow University, before being appointed to his College Fellowship and University Lectureship in Oxford in 1984. Dr Cunnane has developed techniques to study the relationship between action potential propagation and neurotransmitter release at the level of the individual varicosity in sympathetic nerve terminals. More recently, Dr Cunnane's group have been studying calcium dynamics in mature nerve terminals using confocal microscopy, and have discovered an unexpected and novel action of nicotine. Briefly, nicotine induces spontaneous asynchronous calcium transients in individual varicosities.

Dr Cunnane has been an Editor of the British Journal of Pharmacology and Chairman of the International Union of Physiological Sciences Commission on the Physiology of Neurotransmitters and Modulation.

Key Research Areas
Electrophysiological characterisation of neurotransmitter release mechanisms in single living varicosities in postganglionic sympathetic neurones

Presynaptic receptor activation and the role of potassium and multiple forms of calcium channels in varicose nerve terminals

Investigation of the nature of the calcium channels controlling ACh release from preganglionic sympathetic nerves

Molecular machinery controlling neurotransmitter release

Yeah ... I never read that much in the 3+ years that composed of my freshman year.
 
Any relationship to Andrew Cunnane, the queer serial killer who killed Versace? I wouldnt trust his frog eating theory if I were you.
Plus, I believe in evidence-based theories rather than theoretical gobblygook. You should read Science Confronts the Paranomal. It's a bit different, but it addresses people who believe in UFOs, Exorcism, Mystics and scientists who come up with theories that are against fossil evidence, pretty much use the same evidence, which is not verifiable or reproducible and not agreed upon by their scientific peers
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
Any relationship to Andrew Cunnane, the queer serial killer who killed Versace? I wouldnt trust his frog eating theory if I were you.
Plus, I believe in evidence-based theories rather than theoretical gobblygook. You should read Science Confronts the Paranomal. It's a bit different, but it addresses people who believe in UFOs, Exorcism, Mystics and scientists who come up with theories that are against fossil evidence, pretty much use the same evidence, which is not verifiable or reproducible and not agreed upon by their scientific peers
Right.....nice try brothabill....
 
javaguru said:
For the record, he's a respected scientist.....
Dr Tom Cunnane

University Lecturer
Fellow and Tutor in Physiological Sciences, Hertford College
Dr Cunnane graduated in Pharmacology at Bath University, and obtained a PhD in the Department of Pharmacology, Glasgow University. He continued his research in the Department of Physiology, Leicester University where he worked for two years with Professor Asa Blakeley funded by the MRC. He then set up an electrophysiological laboratory at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm working with Professor Lennart Stjärne as an MRC and Royal Society Overseas Fellow. Dr Cunnane returned to the UK to set up his own independent research group as an MRC Senior Fellow in the Department of Pharmacology, Glasgow University, before being appointed to his College Fellowship and University Lectureship in Oxford in 1984. Dr Cunnane has developed techniques to study the relationship between action potential propagation and neurotransmitter release at the level of the individual varicosity in sympathetic nerve terminals. More recently, Dr Cunnane's group have been studying calcium dynamics in mature nerve terminals using confocal microscopy, and have discovered an unexpected and novel action of nicotine. Briefly, nicotine induces spontaneous asynchronous calcium transients in individual varicosities.

Dr Cunnane has been an Editor of the British Journal of Pharmacology and Chairman of the International Union of Physiological Sciences Commission on the Physiology of Neurotransmitters and Modulation.

Key Research Areas
Electrophysiological characterisation of neurotransmitter release mechanisms in single living varicosities in postganglionic sympathetic neurones

Presynaptic receptor activation and the role of potassium and multiple forms of calcium channels in varicose nerve terminals

Investigation of the nature of the calcium channels controlling ACh release from preganglionic sympathetic nerves

Molecular machinery controlling neurotransmitter release

That's no evidence whatsoever. A curriculum vitae of experimental reason may contribute to the debate, but, still holds no evidence and does not address the large body of evidence given anthropology studies where are a bunch of nerds spend their whole lives digging with teaspoons to find scraps of poop and dna and fossil records.
Just, lacks basic scientific evidence. you must admit that
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
That's no evidence whatsoever. A curriculum vitae of experimental reason may contribute to the debate, but, still holds no evidence and does not address the large body of evidence given anthropology studies where are a bunch of nerds spend their whole lives digging with teaspoons to find scraps of poop and dna and fossil records.
Just, lacks basic scientific evidence. you must admit that
No, it's just evidence that his opinion is more valid than yours. Post your academic credentials and we'll talk. You completely miss the point brotherbill, he's addressing what happened between coming out of the water and developing tools. It's a widely accepted BB. I learned it in biology 101 back in 1991 and it still makes sense....
 
javaguru said:
No, it's just evidence that his opinion is more valid than yours. Post your academic credentials and we'll talk. You completely miss the point brotherbill, he's addressing what happened between coming out of the water and developing tools. It's a widely accepted BB. I learned it in biology 101 back in 1991 and it still makes sense....

Please, call me Richard. I don't know what religion some professor taught you that you still wrap around yourself as a security blanket, but the evidence. I'll call it EVIDENCE, still completely contradicts your frog eating belief system. You are worse than a muslim
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
Please, call me Richard. I don't know what religion some professor taught you that you still wrap around yourself as a security blanket, but the evidence. I'll call it EVIDENCE, still completely contradicts your frog eating belief system. You are worse than a muslim
You can't bait me to reduce myself to your level BB....just sayin'.
 
javaguru said:
No, it's just evidence that his opinion is more valid than yours. Post your academic credentials and we'll talk. You completely miss the point brotherbill, he's addressing what happened between coming out of the water and developing tools. It's a widely accepted BB. I learned it in biology 101 back in 1991 and it still makes sense....

Why don't y'all continue your debate at the forum on curiousmales.com?
 
javaguru said:
You can't bait me to reduce myself to your level BB....just sayin'.

My level is above a religion/belief system based on frog-eating. lol, your explanation of brain evolution is has as much evidence as some deity walking on water, you'd make a great prosecutor at the Scopes trial against men/hominids deriving from monkeys. Goddam evolutionists and their monkey science lol
Evidence greater than hypotheses or religion
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
My level is above a religion/belief system based on frog-eating. lol, your explanation of brain evolution is has as much evidence as some deity walking on water, you'd make a great prosecutor at the Scope trial againt men/hominids deriving from monkeys. Goddam evolutionists and their monkey science lol
:rolleyes: Take it up with every biology department at every university....
 
javaguru said:
:rolleyes: Take it up with every biology department at every university....

you take it up with EVERY archaeology, evolution department at every university. Cranial capacity evolution is well documented and it's based on hominids eating more protein, in East Africa. That's where the fossils were found. Next you'll say that brain evolution evolved from eating McDonald's quarterpounders as a freshman studying biology 101 at your university in 1991
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
you take with EVERY archaeology, evolution department at every university. Cranial capacity evolution is well documented and it's based on hominids eating more protein, in East Africa. That's where the fossils were found. Next you'll say that brain evolution evolved from eating McDonald's quarterpounders as a freshman studying biology 101 at your university
Wait, how would you expect fossils to develop from creatures living on a beach shore millions of years ago? Fossilization is EXTREMELY rare....

"Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.

Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record."
 
PICK3 said:
I get excited when intellectuals debate.

Just sayin

well for the record, I agree with him on most points, although the timeframes we disagree on, given fossil records. Genetic traceback evidence supports that fisheating (before mercury poisoning by industrial manufacturing changed the health of eating fish). He, or his biological Imam, has a meritous case, although, the limitations are, the evidence. I was merely asking him, to do the work for me to show me the evidence. I recommend eating fish as it is much healthier than meat for long term survival, for some unexplained reason. But, that was the point of his professor he pointed towards. To expand thought. I saw militant atheism under his name. Logic tends to point towards, all beliefs as simply religion. I couldnt resist the cross-comparison as I think about it as well.
We cannot prove the unprovable and a frog religion. If he could 'prove it'. I think that could make us some money down the road. I am not a big fan of pasta, too many carbs, or rastafarianism, too much smoking of pot. So how can we sell froginariasm and get us a yahct? There's got to be a business angle to all of this>
We'll have to dumb it down of course.
We'll sell toads, they are cheaper
 
I didn't read this :nerd: thread, but there's a lot of animals that eat ONLY meat, and umm, they not as smart as we be.
 
javaguru said:
Wait, how would you expect fossils to develop from creatures living on a beach shore millions of years ago? Fossilization is EXTREMELY rare....

"Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly-living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.

Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that lived for a long time. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.

Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.

Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record."

No, no, no!! That will not do! We need to explain (SIMPLY FOR THE COMMON MAN!), how toads can increase their brain powder and penis size!
Your suggestion will only confuse them.
We need, toadstrength.com. And then find some toad in South America and get some native people to say toads increase virility. Then wait for the orders to roll in.
Hmm, horny goat weed!!> We'll relabel and, trademark. Horny TOAD weed. For our toadafarianim business venture
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
name one, and dont say pick3, that's cheating, we all know he has never eaten tuna
Animals that eat meat? Hows about lions? They could be really smart, and just playing it cool. So they don't get teased or something.

T Rex was a meat eater I heard, and had a brain the size of a pick3nut.
 
Richard_D_Feynman said:
name one, and dont say pick3, that's cheating, we all know he has never eaten tuna

I've been eating "tuna" since you've been shitting yellow/green
 
jestro said:
Animals that eat meat? Hows about lions? They could be really smart, and just playing it cool. So they don't get teased or something.

T Rex was a meat eater I heard, and had a brain the size of a pick3nut.



They weren't claiming that any animal that ate meat would evolve to become intelligent, simply that of our predecessessors - ONLY THOSE THAT CONSUMED MEAT evolved to have larger brains and therefore the intelligence to survive. Those that had vegetarian diets, could not evolve intelligent brains and therefore died off.

There wasn't a claim that if you get your lama to eat meat - 4 generations - or a bazzilion generations later they'd be smart. Obviously our species had the capacity to begin with, meat was one ingrediant that made it a reality.

Without it, we'd be 'dumb' like monkeys.

Apparently you family is a bunch of faggot vegans.
 
javaguru said:
The fish theory deals with DHA/EPA...essential fatty acids and their prevalence in the human brain. Infant formula companies have been trying to stabilize them in infant formula, it's their "holy grail" to mimic breast milk. Their research considers it that important...it's the DHA/EPA studies that flax proponents cite when proclaiming the benefits of their product, which requires conversion in the body.
Thanks for setting that ignorant fuck JH1 straight.
 
all the whey said:
Catching 10 min of a show on the Discovery channel pretty much makes you an expert on the subject.

Maybe you should write a book.



that's sig material bro...................god you're a smartass tool!!! :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
 
juiceddreadlocks said:
haha, you and george jung having fun in cell block 8?



Thank God that shit never consumed me like that. I used it, but it was always use... never controlled me, just ended up controlling people in my lives..

almost just as bad though.
 
I'm certainly no expert on the subject, and I'd eat a ribeye a day if I could do it and not die as young as my grandfather, but I doubt simply consuming meat is what got us going down the evolutionary path we're on.

I didn't read the thread either, so whatever.
 
jnevin said:
I'm certainly no expert on the subject, and I'd eat a ribeye a day if I could do it and not die as young as my grandfather, but I doubt simply consuming meat is what got us going down the evolutionary path we're on.

I didn't read the thread either, so whatever.


Ya... it was just one necessary piece of the puzzle nizzle.

Nobody claims that bacteria, that cosumes meat, will be walking talking humans in a few years.

Fuck.
 
jh1 said:
Ya... it was just one necessary piece of the puzzle nizzle.

Nobody claims that bacteria, that cosumes meat, will be walking talking humans in a few years.

Fuck.


I didn't think you were saying that but assumed 90% of the people that posted tried to say you were. Just like it was your original idea, not the show you watched.
 
all the whey said:
Catching 10 min of a show on the Discovery channel pretty much makes you an expert on the subject.

Maybe you should write a book.
:lmao:

exactly what I was thinking.
 
Top Bottom