It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


We Weren't Designed To Eat Meat, Here Is Proof

page: 21
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

Actually, you're wrong.

Accumulation of modern post-1960s research shows apes are not actually vegetarians. The main problem with the comparative anatomy argument, then--at least when used to support vegetarianism--is that scientists now know that apes are not vegetarians after all, as was once thought. The comparative anatomy argument actually argues for at least modest amounts of animal flesh in the diet, based on the now much-more-complete observations of chimpanzees, our closest animal relatives with whom we share somewhere around 98 to 98.6% of our genes.[74] (We'll also look briefly at the diets of other apes, but the chimpanzee data will be focused on here since it has the most relevance for humans.)

Diet of chimpanzees. Though the chimp research is rarely oriented to the specific types of percentage numerical figures we Hygienists would want to see classified, from what I have seen, it would probably be fair to estimate that most populations of chimpanzees are getting somewhere in the neighborhood of 5%* of their diet on average in most cases (as a baseline) to perhaps 8-10%* as a high depending on the season, as animal food--which in their case includes bird's eggs and insects in addition to flesh--particularly insects, which are much more heavily consumed than is flesh.[75]

* Meat consumption by chimps. There is considerable variation across different chimp populations in flesh consumption, which also fluctuates up and down considerably within populations on a seasonal basis as well. (And behavior sometimes differs as well: Chimps in the Tai population, in 26 of 28 mammal kills, were observed to break open the bones with their teeth and use tools to extract the marrow for consumption,[76] reminiscent of early Homo habilis.) One population has been observed to eat as much as 4 oz. of flesh per day during the peak hunting season, dwindling to virtually nothing much of the rest of the time, but researchers note that when it is available, it is highly anticipated and prized.[77] It's hard to say exactly, but a reasonable estimate might be that on average flesh may account for about 1-3% of the chimp diet.[78]

* The more significant role of social-insect/termite/ant consumption. Now of course, meat consumption among chimps is what gets the headlines these days,[79] but the bulk of chimpanzees' animal food consumption actually comes in the form of social insects[80] (termites, ants, and bees), which constitute a much higher payoff for the labor invested to obtain them[81] than catching the colobus monkeys that are often the featured flesh item for chimps. However, insect consumption has often been virtually ignored[82] since it constitutes a severe blind spot for the Western world due to our cultural aversions and biases about it. And by no means is insect consumption an isolated occurrence among just some chimp populations. With very few exceptions, termites and/or ants are eaten about half the days out of a year on average, and during peak seasons are an almost daily item, constituting a significant staple food in the diet (in terms of regularity), the remains of which show up in a minimum of approximately 25% of all chimpanzee stool samples.[83]

* Breakdown of chimpanzee food intake by dietary category. Again, while chimp researchers normally don't classify food intake by the types of volume or caloric percentages that we Hygienists would prefer to see it broken down for comparison purposes (the rigors of observing these creatures in the wild make it difficult), what they do record is illustrative. A chart for the chimps of Lope in Gabon classified by numbers of different species of food eaten (caveat: this does not equate to volume), shows the fruit species eaten comprising approx. 68% of the total range of species eaten in their diets, leaves 11%, seeds 7%, flowers 2%, bark 1%, pith

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Danger Girl
Our bodies are designed to eat grains and plants.
So why do we eat meat?
When did we start doing it and why?
Will we be healthier if we stop?

True carnivores (and omnivores) salivate about the idea of eating whole prey animals when they see them. Humans do not. We're interested in eating the body parts only because they've been removed from the original animal and processed, and because we grew up eating them, making it seem perfectly normal. It's amazing how much of a disconnect we've been able to learn about the difference between animals and food.

Compare our physiology to meat eaters and herbivores:

More insightful reading here.

omg, this has got to the biggest ost silly post i have ever seen

"let's see, we don't look ANYTHING like T-Rex, so why the hell do we eat me, we don't think it's appetising to eat raw livers and eye balls, so we CAN'T be made to eat meat"

im sorry, but anyone who replies to a post like this with any kind of thought is just as silly as the person who thinks this is true.

afct of the matter is, we were "designed" as omnivours, or animals that eat plants AND meat, we have been doing it since the beginning of time, we didn't just start eating meat a few hundred years ago....

and im sure a million years ago (or whenever) that cromagnon man was walking around, he though that eating prey whole was appetising, but you see we have this little thing in the world called "civilization" and in a civilized world, eating raw, entire animals is not considered civilized.

i really wish there was a giant "rofl" smiley for this thread particularly

sorry if this post isn't exactly the model of what you want to see around here, but i just had to say something.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:21 PM
Do any of you know the human race's history?

We are the result of crossbreeding between various forms of ape and proto-humans. Neanderthals eat big game, simple proto-monkeys eat fruit, and etc etc. After several generations of cross-mutations, our bodies where the result of an equilibrium in desirable traits (one can assume the early man was smart enough to realize certain women gave his children certain traits. Sorry for shovianism, but that was how the crazy proto-humans were in the early days.)

Just as a whalphin has the average teeth between a whale and dolphin, we have the average teeth of our species' needs.

as to plant eaters. You're fools. All a plant is is nothing more then an animal cell adapted to the sun as energy. A plant is just another animal, no different then an animal except for its specialization to its environment.

As to meat, I eat buffalo. Cow meat is either poisoned or heart-attack city, so I go with Canada's bounty.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:25 PM
I know a vegan (who is heavily involved in animal rights activism....of course) who feeds their dog a vegetarian diet.

Please discuss.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:30 PM
must be loaded with artificial, because last I checked, a Dog can't eat only plants. Their called canine teeth for a reason.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:32 PM
reply to post by Curio

Again the argument is NOT about whether you can sustain yourself on a vegan or vegetarian diet. It is about whether humans evolved (or were created) to eat an omnivorous diet.

Why do people keep bringing in the ethical question or the health question when this is a scientific debate? At least it should have been scientific as it's a science question. As listed above, there are many things to show humans are omnivorous by nature. Whether you want to choose to eat meat or not is nothing to do with your bodies evolution and simply about your concious morals.

Lets keep it on topic and about the human bodies design and function. Otherwise we'll just have to start a whole new thread about the ethics of being a corpse cruncher.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:39 PM

the killing of countless little cute furry animals during the clearing of wooded natural environment and for the building the factories needed in manufacturing them, transporting them and warehouses/shops to store/sell them doesn't happen right?

Killing an animal for food is something you do not have to do. Cutting trees and using them to manufacture products of your everyday need is, up to some degree, necessary, thus, it is not wrong to do it.


Yeah, that's many anti-veg*ns' argument. People who think they would not get enough protein without meat in their diet, think about this>

When does a human being grow fastest, when does it need most proteins and other elements to build muscles and stuff from?
In the age of zero to 6 months, folks. During that time, human's weight doubles.
Now, where is it taking enough proteins for that? Obviously, only from what it consumes. And what babies consume at that time? Human milk. (NO MEAT). Now some facts:
How much protein does human milk contain ANYBODYYY ?? About 1%.
How much protein does meat contain? 20% to 30%.

Now how is it possible that an adult human "needs" to eat meat, while a baby, who needs much more proteins, feels okay with twenty to thirty times LESS amount of protein than an adult is supposed to need?!

Please don't come to a conclusion that by my posts I am trying to convince or de-convince anybody, I'm just trying to reply the meat-eaters' arguments which does not seem valid for me. Like an enormous amount of proteins people supposedly need.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:40 PM
First and foremost, I am EXTREMELY tired of the minority opinion LYING about a Majority opinion in an attempt to bolster their supposed morally superior stance. (or in this case, morally, physically and evolutionary claims)

This thread is a PRIME example of this.

99.9% of meat eaters would accept/ignore/applaud one's decision to not eat meat. In most cases, we never even think about it. It simply does not affect the meat eater for them to form any kind of negative opinion.

If you want to skip meat.. GREAT for you.
A Meat Eater would not try to stop you or sway you.

However, the problems start when Vegans start telling meat eaters that they are bad/wrong/stupid/misled/ignorant/morally bankrupt/cruel/evil/stupid/silly to eat meat.

This DIRECTLY involves the meat eater and causes issues.

The complaints of the vegans here about being treated unfairly shows how dishonest or at the very least, close-minded you all really are.

The OP posted a thread "questioning" if we were made to eat meat, but this wasn't a "question". It was a rally point created to debate his truth against our "misconceptions". This was an attempt to force a "truth" on people.

Then other vegans step in and tell us all about how much healthier they are then we are (cite a source??), what the science is, how our teeth are made for this and not that, how vitamins are this or that, almost all of which is either not proven, not supported or not even considered in actual science.

All the while we can see the harrumphing, sighing, and condescending demeanor as if they were right there in the same room with us.

Then you all whine about it when others get a little riled up??
Leave us alone; we leave you alone, simple. If someone started forcing their views on YOU, backed up with what you believe is Pseudoscience at best and BS and lies at worst and you'd probably react the same way.

and one other thing, having angry people respond to you, insult you or attempt to belittle you doesn't make your side any more valid. I am really tired of that tactic too, like there are only retards on the wrong side of an issue.

************** ******************

As far as some of the arguments here...

The OP doesn't include omnivores in the image posted for good reason.
It wouldn't support their position.

The OP disregards the actual teeth in our heads as "misleading", like somehow we have all been misled for thousands of years that we do not eat meat?

The OP doesn't seem to understand evolution and says not only do we not have omnivore teeth but the "canines" (thought those classified as "omnivore"??) are there from some vein attempt of our "bodies" to "help out" and then a few posts later states they are only "ornamental" (seems the OP doesn't know much about our fossil records either) This is then backed up by other vegans and this is supposed to be "truth"?

The OP spouts the tired line about "ten pounds of meat in our intestines", sometimes it's 5, others it 15-20. Sometimes it's referred to as "spackle" sometimes as "paste". We only get this from Vegans or firms trying to sell the latest scam "cleansing" product. Are some things digested less quickly than others.. um, of course. Is that proof we aren’t supposed to eat it? Not hardly.
I would put forth the only things we shouldn't eat are things that will poison us on the spot or non organics like rocks and dirt (although I tried as a kid)

The OP seems to be posting as anonymous also, to bolster his/her point.. I have no proof, and could be 100% wrong, but the tone and content are similar. If true, that just really sad. Regardless there is enough parroting that it wouldn't matter anyway.

The point is...

A lot of people get really annoyed when someone tells them they have to eat this or that but not this or that and they're only "proof" is opinion, Pseudoscientific conjecture and personal bias.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by Disney

Well it's very simple. A baby had food reserves.

That and it is doubling at a smaller size.

There's this wonderful math system called RATIOS you should look up. Put it to the size of a baby and the size of an adult.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by caitlinfae

To hell with healthy "give me a double quarter pounder and large fries please"

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:02 PM
reply to post by Gorman91

Well it's very simple. A baby had food reserves.

Well - that much proteins in reserve? Where?

That and it is doubling at a smaller size.

Yes, doubling at a much smaller size (weight), and also consuming much less food (weight of food). The ratio of food-to-body weight for baby and adult is nearly equal. But the ratio of proteins-to-body weight is much less for the baby as for the adult > the baby consumes much less proteins.

[edit on 16/6/08 by Disney]

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:06 PM

Originally posted by Curio
I know a vegan (who is heavily involved in animal rights activism....of course) who feeds their dog a vegetarian diet.

Please discuss.

Yea, that probaly should be a form of animal abuse....

There was an idiot Vegan couple in the American South-East, who tried to make thier new-born baby a vegan... and it died after a couple weeks.

I have no problem if vegans and veggitarieans want to hurt thier own bodies and minds, but deprving a new born child of its mothers milk, and subsituting it with wheat grass is moronic... at best...

Ive know a few vegans, and vegataerians, and for the most part, they are 'slower' on average. Not trying to be insulting, but they are depreving themselves of meat, and all the essential vitamins that come with it. I mean they are smart people, they are going to get degrees in art or something, but they are slow when it comes to basic everyday activities that rely on quick thinking. Im just saying, i havent met a Vegan Physics major yet, and i dont belive that it is a coincidence.

Also, is there a link between veganism/vegitarianism, and homosexulaity?
The majority of vegans/veggitarians in my life had been self described gays or bi. That mabye a lack of meat, causes a deficiantcy in the body, and mabye thats how the person gets thier wires crossed and becomes gay??? Im not saying all gays are veggies, or all veggies are gay, but there is a connection in my personal experience.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:08 PM
reply to post by Duality

i think when the issue of survival is brought up, it's mostly addressing whether killing is inheritly wrong or it's okay in certain circumstances (like a survival situation). the fact that a human being could not survive any harsh terrain (be it jungle, forrest, desert, etc.) for an extended period of time without eating meat negates moral vegetarianism because we would need to kill in order to live. to me, that means killing is not wrong in itself, so carnivore should be able to eat whatever creature they want without being labeled a murderer and all that.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by Disney

What does that change? Does a 50 year old man require the same needs as a 20 year old? There are different levels of human development. A baby dies without food, adults can live longer (more of their own body to absorb).

Baby's are just developing differently. Muscular development, REAL muscular development, comes when the baby starts running and using its energy storage.

The baby is attached for 9 months with all resources it needs. It can live a year on its mothers milk and just increase in size.

[edit on 16-6-2008 by Gorman91]

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:24 PM
ok ok ok. anyone who thinks you need to eat meat is fooling themselves -period. you do not NEED to eat meat, you WANT to eat it- period. when you get down to the nitty gritty the only argument for eating meat is "it tastes good" it has nothing in it that you cannot get from sources that do not have a face and a family. The "i tried it for a year and didnt feel good argument" is old and tired, you just were not supplementing yourself properly. you can't just have a plate with steak, rice and salad, and then become vegetarian and take the steak off the plate! it forces you to be creative, aware, and educated about what you put into your body. If you want to eat meat thats fine, thats your choice - but dont pretend like its necessary.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:27 PM
reply to post by tasteslikethunder

Actually, tell me, why does a tree not have a face and family? Ok, so it doesn't have eyes and a mouth, etc. But a tree is no less a collection of cells then an animal is.

What, that it has a nervous system is anything to woe over?

It's cells. every cell in the diet makes something we need.

And yes, we NEED to eat meat, just like we NEED to eat plants.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:31 PM
Milk really doesn't count as a meat, it is not hurting the animal to extract milk, it is its purpose.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:34 PM
reply to post by Danger Girl

Uhh nope, look at ape species that predate humans, way bigger K-9's. Fail.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Steveo-34

And yet the case for not drinking milk is 100 times stronger than the case for not eating meat.

posted on Jun, 16 2008 @ 03:38 PM
actually extracting milk does hurt the animal. thats why there is such a high amount of blood and puss found in milk. milk is meant for baby calves, and even they stop drinking it quite quickly and eat grass for the rest of there lives. we are the only species who feel the need to steal another species milk and drink it. why do you think cow milk has vitamines added to it? its one of the most brilliant marketing schemes in history - selling milk as "healthy".

p.s - did that guy before me actually suggest a link between homosexuality and vegetarians? wow. we have some real neandrathals here.

new topics

top topics

<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in