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.
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?
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.
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
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.
So all i'm saying here i guess is that your argument is rather pointless.
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.
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*
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.
Originally posted by sirnex
We didn't evolve to cook food, we invented the process.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
Originally posted by sirnex
I'm going to assume you eat more than your fair share of red meats?
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 didn't ignore it, i just didn't need to respond to something i agreed with.
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".
We invented the process and then it appears it changed our evolution.
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.
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.
I understand what you are saying, however we can digest meat in it's raw form, so what is your point again?
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.
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.
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.
A fly digests its food on the outside
A monkey smashes nuts with a rock
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!