On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 13:29:44 +0100, Richard
wrote:

On 26/09/2020 10:47, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 26 Sep 2020 07:43:21 +0100, Richard
wrote:

snip
Ah, like the cavemen did. I really hate to think what else you still
consider to be acceptable in 2020 (well, we know some of it as you
have admitted it here).

A caveman would definitely out survive us if our technologies failed.

What's this, some actual sense for a change?

Cheap shot from a cheap ****.

Just telling it as I see, given how much trolling you have been doing
I though it to be appropriate.

You should accept that for humans and any other animal to be robust
enough to survive, they will eat anything that their physiology wants
them to consume.

Why do you think I wouldn't have already 'accepted' that?

Forget about the conscious passionate thinking for a
moment and think instead of the numerous times in your life that you
really wanted to eat a particular foodstuff.

Ok ... ?

That's your body telling
you what it needs and that stuff didn't originally come in pill form.

Like a sausage and egg McMuffin you mean?


You are absolutely right for the vast majority, not only because they
wouldn't be able (physically or emotionally) able to do what they
might *need* to do to survive, but how to do it.

And once again it would demonstrate how animals are superior to us and
have evolved over millions of years to do so, knowing what they can
eat and what will poison / bite / kill them and how to best do the
things they need to survive (like getting sufficient minerals) using
(in most cases), just with what they were born with.

You've missed the point a bit, but that is your normal state.

Cheap shot from a cheap ****?

So, from your vast knowledge base, can you tell me which particular
species alive today has evolved to be superior to homo sapiens?

In what way are you judging 'superior', if we are comparing like for
like?

Might? We are pathetic.
Speed? We are pathetic.
Longevity? We are pathetic.
Sight? We are pathetic.
Hearing? We are pathetic.
Temperature tolerance? We are pathetic.
Underwater? We are pathetic.
In the sky? We are pathetic.
Reaction times? We are pathetic.
Memory? We are pathetic.
Long distance communication? We are pathetic.
Ability to live in harmony with nature? We are pathetic.
Being self sufficient from birth? We are pathetic.
Ability to **** up the one place we need to survive? We are brilliant.

What area specifically were you thinking of?

A chimp with it's bare hands versus us with a knife, or do you mean
someone in cammo gear, hiding up a tree and shooting a deer from 500
yards away with a rifle and a scope?

Or maybe you think that because we can design a microprocessor is all
it takes to make us 'superior' to everything else?

Also, about the evolution over millions of years, did homo sapiens
spontaneously arrive on the planet or were they a part of an
evolutionary process?

Erm, what do you think I'd say? But do you have a point?


We can't easily eat most meat without fire and cooking (or cutting it
very thin or pulverising it), couldn't catch much without traps,
weapons or tools, and couldn't break it down into the bits we can eat
(typically just the flesh), without more tools.

And?

So we aren't carnivores. Being an omnivore *doesn't* mean we can eat
everything, it just means we aren't *obligate* herbivores OR
carnivores.


Q. Are all mushrooms edible?
A. Yes, but many will kill you if you eat them.

NSS. However, there are many people who do know the difference.

Quite, but what percentage of today's population do you think, if we
are talking about us reverting to cavepersons (which I wasn't of
course).

Cheers, T i m