It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 51
46
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:12 AM
link   
I found this blog only to burst your bubble about the characteristics of "herbivores" eg no pointed teeth etc

listverse.com...

So now go back to your stool and find something meaningful to throw into our faces please, not this weird stuff of the OP again.

Thank you!




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:24 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



You do understand that there are tons of fruits and vegetables you cannot simply eat raw, just consider kidney beans, they can be quite dangerous without cooking and have you tried eating porridge without cooking it?


First, allow me to respond by repeating the first part of the post in which you politely ignored.

*I agree that we are meant to eat some meat*

Now we can get to the issue you raised. Are you equally aware that there is not a single herbivorous species on this planet that can eat every single form of plant matter? Essentially, your point is moot. I do not personally know the vast array of culinary delights other species can enjoy if they took up cooking to destroy the toxic compounds in plants they normally can't eat, but that does not detract from the fact that those same plants and meats we eat by cooking are NATURALLY toxic in their raw form. Take a hint from the natural world, no other species eats something they can't eat raw.

We didn't evolve to cook food, we invented the process. We're an extremely smart species (depending on how you look at it) that figured out we can eat certain foods we normally couldn't before because we couldn't (and still can't) digest them naturally, but through processing or breaking down the toxic compounds we can make that food usable.


Are you also aware that most herbivorous animals spend the majority of their waking hours eating. This is because eating things raw means you extract less of the nutrients.


This is a half truth and wholly depends on the species, it's size and it's metabolism. Please don't fudge the facts on purpose. To make it clear again, I never said humans were herbivorous either, so the argument is moot.


Humans were not designed to eat raw plants either, we have not evolved to do this. Oh sure we can eat some raw plants, just like we can eat raw fish. Oh and you would actually process raw fish better than you would raw spinach, it is plant matter that needs more cooking to make it digestable due to the double cell membrane of plant cells, which would suggest we are more suited to eating uncooked fish


Your missing the entire point aren't you? No other single species eats something they naturally can't digest in it's raw form. Digest that for a minute before you respond back to me again.



Using tools is something we have evolved to be able to do and our utilization of those tools and cooking methods has allowed use to extract the maximum from our foods.


There is a difference between using a tool to procure food (which a lot of species do) and processing your food through fire in order to make it edible where it previously wasn't edible (which we are the only species to do).


So all i'm saying here i guess is that your argument is rather pointless.


Really? You purposefully left out part of my post and attack the remainder as if I was against meat eating. Then you have the ignorant gall to call my post pointless as if your post was more meaningful?


I'm going to assume you eat more than your fair share of red meats?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danger Girl

Originally posted by slackerwire
Uh, humans have canine teeth why then?

Humans are omnivores.

No sharp pointed front teeth. I believe the two canines teeth are a futile attempt of our bodies to adapt to what we and our forefathers have stuffed in our mouth.


All mammals have canine teeth. Canine teeth have been apparent in homo sapiens long before our evolutionary inception as homo sapiens. In short, we've had canine teeth since before we were human. They are not a 'futile attempt' to adapt to anything. They are a necessary adaptation that predates modern existence, memory, and our entire species. Our 'forefathers' had canine teeth before they had thumbs or a frontal cortex... Or really, before they even got out of the trees or (possibly) up into them in the first place.

The question in terms of carnivore or omnivore is the relative size and structure compared to other teeth, and jaw size, strength and structure. In this regard, compared to other mammals, and primates specifically, the canine tooth reference is the only thing you have that holds water for your 'humans are not carnivores or omnivores' argument.

However, there are other omnivore opportunists with similarly small canine and jaw structure, without a mouth full of sharp teeth. So...

We also have dietary needs that are best met by a diet that includes meat as well. In fact, in terms of our original evolution... When we were still hunters and gatherers and hadn't domesticated animals to get milk yet, our only source for many of these necessaries, beside meat would have been eggs. In societies without alot of resources they will invariably seek out, or attempt to cultivate (and often highly prize) domesticated forms of 'fast and dirty' sources of protein from animals. This quest for animal forms of protein is universal enough to be considered an instinct, and certainly a dietary requirement.

Binocular vision, and our critical thinking capacity, are huge arguments in favor of an omnivore, or even a predator. We also have an elongated small intestine and lack the huge colon of other apes.

Also, the argument has been made: 'What do we need big canines for when we have thumbs and the intelligence to make a kill-it-slice-it stand in that is often even more efficient, and puts us at less risk?' (Like a knife, or a spear).

There is fossil evidence the predecessors to homo sapiens were butchering animals and eating meat as long as 2.5 million years ago... And, further evidence that the habit carried through the evolutionary steps to, well... Us.

It has also been put forth by anthropologists that we wouldn't have been able to even develop such a big brain without having access to meat... Seafood specifically. Docoahexaenoic acid is a major contributor to brain growth, and seafood has lots of it. Not to mention that meat (in general) is a far more energy concentrated food source than plants (in general), and we wouldn't have been able to sustain, and continue to evolve such a big, energy-consuming, monster as the human brain without it. In fact, this is the standard view currently held in most of the anthropological community.

Long story short, there is a great deal of evidence that we wouldn't be able to comprehend the morality of eating meat (or not), or even be able to build a society that would allow such a luxury, without our ancestors eating meat.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex

First, allow me to respond by repeating the first part of the post in which you politely ignored.

*I agree that we are meant to eat some meat*


I didn't ignore it, i just didn't need to respond to something i agreed with.


Originally posted by sirnex
Now we can get to the issue you raised. Are you equally aware that there is not a single herbivorous species on this planet that can eat every single form of plant matter? Essentially, your point is moot. I do not personally know the vast array of culinary delights other species can enjoy if they took up cooking to destroy the toxic compounds in plants they normally can't eat, but that does not detract from the fact that those same plants and meats we eat by cooking are NATURALLY toxic in their raw form. Take a hint from the natural world, no other species eats something they can't eat raw.


Many of the meats we cook before eating can be safely eaten in their raw form, ever been to a steak house where they serve steak that oozes blood? We cook meats partly because it makes them taste even better. Still fish are of course eaten raw pretty often.

All i am saying is that the idea that we are built to only eat raw foods is incorrect. You might want to check out the history of cooking, there is a very interesting theory that cooking helped propel our evolution. If you're interested you can check out the book "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human".


Originally posted by sirnex
We didn't evolve to cook food, we invented the process.


We invented the process and then it appears it changed our evolution.


Originally posted by sirnex
We're an extremely smart species (depending on how you look at it) that figured out we can eat certain foods we normally couldn't before because we couldn't (and still can't) digest them naturally, but through processing or breaking down the toxic compounds we can make that food usable.


Yes but the issue is whether we are built to eat meat, as we have canine teeth and the digestive enzymes to break meat down then it suggests we have evolved to eat meat, therefore the original post is moot and your argument about raw foods is completely without merit.


Originally posted by sirnex

This is a half truth and wholly depends on the species, it's size and it's metabolism. Please don't fudge the facts on purpose. To make it clear again, I never said humans were herbivorous either, so the argument is moot.


Yes it does depend on those things and that is why i said most and not all. You accuse me of ignoring something in your post and then you happily do the same.


Originally posted by sirnex
Your missing the entire point aren't you? No other single species eats something they naturally can't digest in it's raw form. Digest that for a minute before you respond back to me again.


I understand what you are saying, however we can digest meat in it's raw form, so what is your point again?


Originally posted by sirnex

There is a difference between using a tool to procure food (which a lot of species do) and processing your food through fire in order to make it edible where it previously wasn't edible (which we are the only species to do).


Again, we can eat meat raw (well certain kinds) so your line of reasoning is moot. We have the body of an omnivour, hence why we can eat meat. That is in direct conflict with the opening post of this thread. In all truth the thread shouldn't have gone beyond 3 pages once someone pointed out the rather obvious biological facts.


Originally posted by sirnex

Really? You purposefully left out part of my post and attack the remainder as if I was against meat eating. Then you have the ignorant gall to call my post pointless as if your post was more meaningful?


I left out a small part because i agreed with it, it's a debating forum so if i just quoted the parts i agree with simply to agree with them then it would clog things up a little don't you think? As for me thinking my reply is more meaningful, well that's attacking me the poster and not the post, it's an ad hom, not something that should be used in a debate.


Originally posted by sirnex
I'm going to assume you eat more than your fair share of red meats?


No i don't, i rarely ever eat red meat. I stick to chicken, rabbit and fish and eat those only a couple of times a week. Of course you wrote this to paint me as one of those rabid carnivore type people, basically another ad hom attack.

Leave the ad homs at the door man, they only discredit you when someone points them out.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Danger Girl
 


Actually our canine teeth are much smaller than our ancestors. It takes a VERY long time to evolve different teeth structure. Another reason they are good indicators of what species are connected form looking only at fossils.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Danger Girl, Do you wear shoes? use the internet? Type with your fingers? Drink water form a bottle? Or turn on the faucet for water? Shower in a bathroom???!!

Despicable!! Disgusting! Don't you know we weren't designed for ANY of that?
Get out there, bathe in stream, drink from that same stream. Spend your days picking lice off of your body instead of debating online, cause we clearly weren't designed for any of this.

That said, I eat much like our ancestors. Lots of fruits and vegetables, some nuts, grain, and beans, and only occasionally meat. When I do eat meat, it is usually fish, chicken, and only rarely beef. The high protein of meat is actually one of the bigger factors that led to our enhanced intelligence. And the desire to use tools for hunting and scraping meat off the bone, helped in us becoming upright. Our first tools were offensive, in fact. And I don't know the last time I needed something sharp to take care of a banana.

As someone else previously posted, carbon samples have been found amongst our hominid ancestors, where their digestive tract would be that correspond with a diet consisting of meat. Sure, we eat far more than we should, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at all. Also, we are just as less adapted fro being a herbivore as a carnivore. We are in between, able to do both. The VERY definition of Omnivore.

One of the biggest parts of being human is that very adaptability.

Growing up, I ate way too much meat: And I felt horrible.
When I was on my own, I rebelled and became vegan: I felt horrible.
Now I eat a low meat balanced diet: I am energetic, fit, get plenty of sleep, have no facial blemishes, tons of problems most people have are gone.

Really be sensible people. We don't have extra stomachs, and we don't have claws, find a balance and stop thinking you are beyond your evolution.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by cosmicstorm
I have been a vegetarian my whole life... it hasnt done me any harm not eating meat....i dont really take vitamins either.... i honestly do not think eating meat is at all necessary, and my evidence is me!


....ive also stopped drinking milk, which is very unatural, we are the only species to drink another species milk....

.....if meat was presented in its natural form, without a bun and ketchup and fries, do you think it would look as tasty?...... i think meat is presented in a way where you dont associate it with an animal at all, if it was....i bet there would be more vegetarians..


I'd eat it, sure. Might sterilize it first, which is what cooking does. If I could sterilize it without cooking, I would love that. Just get rid of any bacteria and go to town, my face coated in red.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



I didn't ignore it, i just didn't need to respond to something i agreed with.


No, you did ignore it and this is quiet obvious by the nature of how you attacked the remainder of the post as if I was in favor of not eating meat. Moaning about how we can't eat every last single plant is your argument, not mine. It doesn't affect at all one iota my stance that we can not efficiently tear into animal flesh.


Many of the meats we cook before eating can be safely eaten in their raw form, ever been to a steak house where they serve steak that oozes blood? We cook meats partly because it makes them taste even better. Still fish are of course eaten raw pretty often.


No, I haven't been to one of those nor do I really care for red meats myself especially given that they aren't exactly heart healthy. But hey, some people still think we can run down a cow and bit our canines into it's flesh. Should make for a great reality tv show!


All i am saying is that the idea that we are built to only eat raw foods is incorrect. You might want to check out the history of cooking, there is a very interesting theory that cooking helped propel our evolution. If you're interested you can check out the book "Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human".


I've heard of this theory before and there is no real evidence that I am aware of that proves the theory is how it happened. It's like saying the creation of wikipedia is starting to make everyone smarter. A useful tool is just a useful tool. Fire is a useful tool, not something a species evolves for.


We invented the process and then it appears it changed our evolution.


I refer to the above.


Yes but the issue is whether we are built to eat meat, as we have canine teeth and the digestive enzymes to break meat down then it suggests we have evolved to eat meat, therefore the original post is moot and your argument about raw foods is completely without merit.


You completely missed the point of my reply to that other poster then. I'm *NOT* against meat eating. What I was informing him was that we *CAN NOT* run down a cow and sink our teeth into its flesh. This was in response to his statement that we can efficiently eat meat which is untrue. We can not efficiently eat meat without the tools to acquire it. We're more adapted to eating bugs than we are cows.


Yes it does depend on those things and that is why i said most and not all. You accuse me of ignoring something in your post and then you happily do the same.


Most implies more than some. Choose your words more carefully.


I understand what you are saying, however we can digest meat in it's raw form, so what is your point again?


Please point out the problem as I'm missing it. I'm not against eating certain meats. What exactly are you going on about?


Again, we can eat meat raw (well certain kinds) so your line of reasoning is moot. We have the body of an omnivour, hence why we can eat meat. That is in direct conflict with the opening post of this thread. In all truth the thread shouldn't have gone beyond 3 pages once someone pointed out the rather obvious biological facts.


My line of reasoning is moot because we have the body of an omnivore which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Your a confused person and your arguing for the sake of arguing.


I left out a small part because i agreed with it, it's a debating forum so if i just quoted the parts i agree with simply to agree with them then it would clog things up a little don't you think? As for me thinking my reply is more meaningful, well that's attacking me the poster and not the post, it's an ad hom, not something that should be used in a debate.


What in the world are you debating? You didn't debate anything I mentioned. Don't call this a debate if you aren't going to argue against the fact that we can not efficiently sink our teeth into animal flesh. Again, I feel the need to repeat (as if I'm talking to a child mind you) that I'm not against meat eating and that I do agree that certain animals we are suited to eat over others. I fail to see where your having the problem.


No i don't, i rarely ever eat red meat. I stick to chicken, rabbit and fish and eat those only a couple of times a week. Of course you wrote this to paint me as one of those rabid carnivore type people, basically another ad hom attack.


Learn how to apply the ad hominem argument properly, it doesn't apply as none were made.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


A fly digests its food on the outside.... why could this not be compared to cooking? A monkey smashes nuts with a rock... why isnt this also comparable? Some birds swallow rocks to help digest food....... Some ants allow mold to grow on plant matter as food.

Its all about bringing food to a useable state. It doesnt matter how its done.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wertdagf
 



A fly digests its food on the outside


Different species that digests it's food differently is not akin to using tools to make a fire in which to cook unusable food into usable food.


A monkey smashes nuts with a rock


Lots of animals use tool in which to procure food and if you've noticed, I'm not against tool use for food procurement. Never have I argued that, what I did mention is that we are the only species that *cooks* food that we couldn't eat without cooking.


Some birds swallow rocks to help digest food


Different anatomy is not akin to cooking.


Some ants allow mold to grow on plant matter as food


This is more akin to farming than it is to cooking or processing unusable food to make them usable.


Its all about bringing food to a useable state. It doesnt matter how its done.


Fail.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex


While I agree with you that we evolved to also eat meat, I disagree with your choice of wording to make that point.

Not a single human alive can run down and bite into the flesh of a cow to kill and eat it. So simply saying we are efficient at ripping and tearing animal flesh is complete nonsense, we aren't and can't do that.


Actually, that's only true because cows have hides that are thick enough to protect them from our teeth. We aren't designed to kill large animals with our teeth, no... We're designed to kill them with the tools we are designed to make, and then eat them. Also, cows are kind of big. One on one, a cow would maul an unarmed human. Eating a big piece of cow that's already been killed and had the skin removed is perfectly doable. In fact, it's one of my favorite things to do... nomnomnom!

So to clarify my wording, we are designed to hunt with tools and then eat the meat we catch from the hunt. Contrary to popular belief, we can eat many animals raw. We simply choose not to, because unlike other omnivores we have learned that cooking our food reduces the spread of disease and parasites.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by troubleshooter
 


Could you provide peer reviewed data for this comment about seaweed and B12 please. I only ask because last time i read about it the issue was still in contention because other studies have found that small crustaceans, ground up in the processing of seaweed are the real source of vitamin B12, others have found it was symbiotic bacteria living on the seaweed that provided the B12.

You might be right about the Seaweed and bacteria...
...whatever the case it appears to still be a dietary source of B12.

I actually thought someone would pick me up on the Cyanates and indogenous B12 production.

Ever wondered why a cow that eats grass produces B12?
Maybe humans don't eat the right grass.




posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by troubleshooter
You might be right about the Seaweed and bacteria...
...whatever the case it appears to still be a dietary source of B12.


Yes but that B12 may not be suitable for vegans if it is due to crushed up crustaceans
The simple truth is that meat, dairy and other things like that are the best way to gain B12 and it shows a real bias when people try and argue against that clear scientific fact.



Originally posted by troubleshooter
I actually thought someone would pick me up on the Cyanates and indogenous B12 production.

Ever wondered why a cow that eats grass produces B12?
Maybe humans don't eat the right grass.



Cows are able to get B12 because they grind up grass and then basically ferment it. The bacteria in their guts are able to produce B12 because they are built to digest plant matter in large quantities. As we don't have multiple stomachs and don't chew the cud it seems wrong to compare us and them.

Still i think people should eat less meat than they do and red meat should be abandoned.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Danger Girl
 


good thread and i think there's a good chance you may be right.

the ancient greeks said a society that eats meat would need a lot of doctors. you can verify that quote if you have the time/energy.

also, the bible states that plants and seeds shall be our meat - or words to that effect, towards the beginning.. (genesis i think)

only later on does it talk about us eating meat.

therefore perhaps at creation, we were designed not to eat meat.

red meat causes inflammation in teh body (studies show this) and inflammation in teh body is bad, basically. cancer etc is linked to inflammation.

dairy is just wrong, because milk exists in nature to make baby animals of a particular species grow into big animals, and FOR NO OTHER PURPOSE. Milk was not put here so we could have cafe lattes.

and if you're gonna have a cafe latte you should really be drinking human milk, not cow milk but even that would be bad for you becuz you are not a baby and dont need it.

so it will send your body haywire and probly give you cancer, which there is scientific evidence of: read the china study by dr campbell (a cambridge study that linked milk to cancer).

if you have to eat meat, which i suspect we possibly shouldnt as the op says, then i would stick to white meat only and eat it sparingly. in v small portions and infrequently. eggs are probly ok i suppose... altho if the op is right, we shouldnt need them either.

but you would have to make sure your veg diet gave you all the nutrients you needed and be careful about it. eat lots of nuts, seeds, wholegrains and beans, chickpeas, lentils. and a wide variety of fruit and vegies. seaweed is probly good. and make sure you dont get deficient in anything..

(a veg diet consisting of cakes, whitebread, sugar, and milk products is a waste of time and will just make you sick.)



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


If we were naturally evolved to eat vast quantities of meat then we would have the necessary bodily adaptations in which to procure that meat. We don't possess any natural bodily adaptation to procure vast quantities of meat.

Sure, we can reason and build tools to acquire something that wasn't previously available to us, but we can also drink large quantities of alcohol and create drugs, but none of that means we should or that it's naturally good for us. It's about common sense, just because you can find a way to do something doesn't mean you should.

We weren't meant to eat red meat, we weren't meant to drink the milk of other animals and there are some plants that we just can't consume despite any process we can invent to make them palatable or digestible. Name one other species on this planet that goes against what evolution deemed nutritional and healthy for that species besides humans. Just name one, that's all I ask. Think about it.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
If we were naturally evolved to eat vast quantities of meat then we would have the necessary bodily adaptations in which to procure that meat. We don't possess any natural bodily adaptation to procure vast quantities of meat.



You are correct we are not designed to eat vast quantities of meat and mattification didn't say we were, we are designed to eat a varied diet, which can include meat. Of course we can exist on a meat heavy diet, like eskimos do.

We share a common ancestor with the great apes and some of them eat meat, which was actually quite a shock to the world when it was discovered they go on monkey hunts. Yet they don't really have adaptations to hunt, they don't have the correct teeth like a big cat, they don't have claws, they don't have weapons other than their own two hands. We could also aquire meat like that but we have brains that allow us to use more advanced methods.


Originally posted by sirnex
Sure, we can reason and build tools to acquire something that wasn't previously available to us, but we can also drink large quantities of alcohol and create drugs, but none of that means we should or that it's naturally good for us. It's about common sense, just because you can find a way to do something doesn't mean you should.


Your argument seems to centre around the idea of having natural ability to hunt. Again i point to the great apes who have none of the usual predatory adaptations. Human beings don't need tools to gather meat, it's just easier to use them.


Originally posted by sirnex
We weren't meant to eat red meat, we weren't meant to drink the milk of other animals and there are some plants that we just can't consume despite any process we can invent to make them palatable or digestible. Name one other species on this planet that goes against what evolution deemed nutritional and healthy for that species besides humans. Just name one, that's all I ask. Think about it.


You asert we were not meant to eat red meat and i just have to once again point out the great apes who eat monkeys, are they not meant to? How about ants that farm aphids? this is not something that evolution intended but the ants, being smart as they are figured it out. Sorry but this argument about being "meant" to eat something or not is stupid.

As for going against what is nutritional, well monkeys in holiday resorts, the same ones i talked about that let fruit ferment, regularly steal peoples alcoholic drinks. This is most certainly not something evolution intended and yet they go against evolution and get completely drunk.

So there you go, one other species!



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Humans are Omnivors

Humans are Omnivors

by John McArdle, Ph.D ~a Vegetarian.


Although evidence on the structure and function of human hands and jaws, behavior, and evolutionary history also either support an omnivorous diet or fail to support strict vegetarianism, the best evidence comes from our teeth.

The short canines in humans are a functional consequence of the enlarged cranium and associated reduction of the size of the jaws. In primates, canines function as both defense weapons and visual threat devices. Interestingly, the primates with the largest canines (gorillas and gelada baboons) both have basically vegetarian diets. In archeological sites, broken human molars are most often confused with broken premolars and molars of pigs, a classic omnivore. On the other hand, some herbivores have well-developed incisors that are often mistaken for those of human teeth when found in archeological excavations.





Humans are classic examples of omnivores in all relevant anatomical traits. There is no basis in anatomy or physiology for the assumption that humans are pre-adapted to the vegetarian diet. For that reason, the best arguments in support of a meat-free diet remain ecological, ethical, and health concerns.


[Dr. McArdle is a vegetarian and currently Scientific Advisor to The American Anti-Vivisection Society. He is an anatomist and a primatologist.]

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Anamnesis]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



You are correct we are not designed to eat vast quantities of meat and mattification didn't say we were, we are designed to eat a varied diet, which can include meat. Of course we can exist on a meat heavy diet, like eskimos do.


Eskimo dietary intake of meat is mainly from the sea, which is fine and I agree that this is where we should be getting our meat from when we do consume meat.


We share a common ancestor with the great apes and some of them eat meat, which was actually quite a shock to the world when it was discovered they go on monkey hunts. Yet they don't really have adaptations to hunt, they don't have the correct teeth like a big cat, they don't have claws, they don't have weapons other than their own two hands. We could also aquire meat like that but we have brains that allow us to use more advanced methods.


Of the four great apes, humans and chimps are the only one's to consume meat. Chimps main dietary intake consists of ninety percent fruits, leaves, seed etc. The remainder of that 10% is largely insects as source of protein and only occasionally do they hunt which is why it was quiet a shock when we discovered them doing so! The success rate of hunting is highly dependent on their 90% diet, not on the amount of meat they eat. Without that 90% they are poor hunters and can't keep up with the prey they hunt. 80% of the prey they hunt are red colobus and of that 80%, 75% of them are INFANTS. So yea, I think they do have the necessary adaptation to hunt infants. The vast majority of of omnivorous and carnivorous animals go after the young and weak. Your argument is a huge fail.


Your argument seems to centre around the idea of having natural ability to hunt. Again i point to the great apes who have none of the usual predatory adaptations. Human beings don't need tools to gather meat, it's just easier to use them.


And with those tools we choose to eat the wrong meats and to kill our planet to do so.


You asert we were not meant to eat red meat and i just have to once again point out the great apes who eat monkeys, are they not meant to?


One species out of four is what your pointing out mind you. If your going to argue something, at least take the time to do it properly. Of that ONE other species, it's dietary intake of animal meat is very low.


How about ants that farm aphids? this is not something that evolution intended but the ants, being smart as they are figured it out.


There are numerous species that share a symbiotic relationship. Learn to spot the difference.



Sorry but this argument about being "meant" to eat something or not is stupid.


Ah, so the surmounting evidence of our western diet being linked to cancer is all a sham as well? Now that itself is just stupid!!


As for going against what is nutritional, well monkeys in holiday resorts, the same ones i talked about that let fruit ferment, regularly steal peoples alcoholic drinks. This is most certainly not something evolution intended and yet they go against evolution and get completely drunk.

So there you go, one other species!


Now that is something I didn't previously know. I looked it up and that is quiet interesting! Still doesn't mean that learning how to make alcohol means you should consume it.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Ha. Really? I applaud your effort, but no sir we are not designed to eat plants. You have shown similarities sure, but no proof. There is alot more proof on the meat eater side for sure. Similarities are not proof of overall fact lol.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:55 PM
link   
HA! who dug up this old thread...its like 2 years old!
..sigh the memories...



new topics

top topics



 
46
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in

join