I said nothing of the ORIGINS of our teeth – I spoke of the NATURE of our teeth – and that IS verifiable scientific fact.

Even then you are wrong – the origins of mammalian teeth are very well known. Mammals unlike any other group of animals have interlocking teeth that are specialized to various jobs. Such teeth have many advantages but come with one major disadvantage: you can’t just keep replacing them since they are so specialized and each one is unique. Crocs and sharks and the like – just keep growing teeth for ever since every tooth is the same as the others. So the problem is- mouths get bigger, the teeth that are perfect in a young-un aren’t in an adult. So mammals (all mammals) grow two sets, one as we leave the very early stages of childhood to last through until just before puberty – and a second which we keep for the rest of our lives. We know the origins of this since it’s clearly visible in the fossil record. More importantly – this created an evolutionary pressure that did not previously exist. What the hell do you feed the babies before that first set of teeth grow in ? 
Result: milk glands. We became mammals BECAUSE of our teeth.

A critique of: A hypothesis to Explain the Role of Meat Eating in Human Evolution by Katharine Milton by Jane Goodall. Scientifically credible information on Vegan and Vegetarian dietshttp://www.ecologos.org/index.htmlhttp://www.brookfieldzoo.org/pagegen/inc…Goodall, Jane, The Chimpanzees of Gombe, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1986), p. 233Lehninger, Principles of Biochemistry, Worth Pub., (1982), p. 158.Graph showing primate dietshttp://www.ecologos.org/primatediets.htmhttp://www.ecologos.org/meat-eating.htm

Nobody knows the truth about the origin of our teeth, stop pretending you do, unless you have conducted an extensive study and can bring new evidencve forward on the subject stop presenting opinion as fact. 

Even if you ignore all that, you never answered my core point. There are no examples in the world today of property being in the hands of it’s rightful owners. If you truly believe that property rights is the basis of a peaceful society and that taking it by force is never acceptable as you claim – then you should be campaigning for the occupation of unused land just as I am – and as I explained in the text – to restore by justice the property that was stolen to those it was stolen from, and you must then support wealth-redistribution to restore the wealth generated from that stolen property to the people it should have belonged to.

PS. There are 3 more posts in this series. Do read them.

Cooperation, which by definition is consensual (in contrast
to compliance, which can be obtained by coercion) only exists where there is
mutual benefit, where the self interest of both parties is served.

When property rights are not respected, there is conflict…when
demented, wild eyed Vikings go on a rampage of rape and pillage, burning and looting
(in service of their self-interest) people become quite upset, particularly the
ones who are emasculated and impaled before having their screaming women
carried off.

It is only when property rights are respected, or at least
when a particular status quo is conceded, and alteration thereof achieved through
mutually agreed trade to the advantage of both parties, can peace prevail.

Force is force, whether an individual acts directly against
others who he reckons hold ‘his’ property, or gets the ‘state’ which holds the
monopoly upon the use of force to act on his behalf against such others is of
little consequence in that it precludes peaceful co existence.