Eating Animals is Making us Sick

If we did not eat meat, then we would not have evolved into the intelligent species that we are (lack of protein). If we did not cook our meat, we would have to consume far more in order to offset the energy required to digest it. It is also hypothesized that the act of cooking our meat is what caused us to become a social species. We are omnivores, and straying from that is detrimental to our evolution.

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


There still is no proof that humans need to eat meat. Maybe there should be a thread just for that very subject, which this thread is not about.

Nobody wants to comment on the CASO and CFEs?

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
If we did not eat meat, then we would not have evolved into the intelligent species that we are (lack of protein). If we did not cook our meat, we would have to consume far more in order to offset the energy required to digest it. It is also hypothesized that the act of cooking our meat is what caused us to become a social species. We are omnivores, and straying from that is detrimental to our evolution.

prove even 1 part of that statement and i will be impressed.

reply to post by STFUPPERCUTTER


PBS's Nova: Becoming Human

Watch all three parts and get back to me...

Disprove any of the points and I'll be impressed!

Can't watch it... they are stuck in IE world.

It's strange how people want to believe in Evolution (which isn't proven), yet they don't believe we have evolved any further. Wonder how life survived before 'meat' could be considered 'meat'.

Another digression.

Originally posted by dzonatas
Can't watch it... they are stuck in IE world.

It's strange how people want to believe in Evolution (which isn't proven), yet they don't believe we have evolved any further. Wonder how life survived before 'meat' could be considered 'meat'.

Another digression.

If evolution is understood to be a function of natural selection, why are we evolving further? If anything, our technological advancements have slowed the process of natural selection. Weaker members survive now that once upon a time, wouldn't. Medicines, eye glasses, artificial limbs, advancements in basic hygiene as a result of understanding germ theory.....these things have buffered us from the cruel pruning of mother nature.

What force is carving and shaving off weaker members of the herd?

Why do you believe we're going to somehow evolve beyond what we are now?

What reason would there be for such an unprecedented biological event - evolution resulting from the removal of environmental stressors. We have animals on this planet that have been here for millions of years beyond humans. Some of them have changed very little in design. Why? Because they have a stable niche, and they don't have to.

Humans haven't had such a stable niche. We are defined by change and adaptability. So we got good at manipulating our local environment. Now it doesn't just act on us - we act on it.



Evolution may not be 'proven' insofar as we don't have an unbroken chain of skeletons taking us all the way back to the missing link, but the process of selection has been amply demonstrated and validated as central to "the process formerly known as evolution".

It is a subject worth pondering, however, that nature generates novelty, and yet all according to some kind of unbroken chain of cause and effect leading back indefinitely in time.

I'm not saying we can't evolve any more, but I am saying that this is a matter of a unified function with regard to organism and environment. operating as two sides of the same coin, roughly speaking. One is defined by the other.





[edit on 10-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895) was an English doctor and anthropologist who supported Darwin's theories and became the president of the Royal Society. Among other books he wrote Zoological Evidences as to Man's Place in Nature and Compared Anatomy. Let's look at some of Huxleys' statements:

1. "Man came before the axe and fire so he couldn't be carnivorous."
2. "The length of mans digestive tube is 5-8 meters and the distance between the mouth and the coccyx is 50 to 80 centimetres, which gives us a result of 10 as in other frugivorous animals and not 3 as in the carnivorous or 20 as in the herbivorous animals."
3. "The only animal with probable omnivorous morphology that exists, is the bear, which has some pointed teeth and others that are flat."

www.giveittomeraw.com...



MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

[edit on Fri Dec 11 2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

reply to post by JaxonRoberts


Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift.
...
The adaptive biological significance of meat eating was summarized by Milton (1999),who came to the conclusion that "the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution", otherwise the arid and seasonal environment likely to have been the cradle of hominids would not have provided enough protein. The link between a high quality diet (including animal matter) and the enlargement of the brain (characterizing hominization) has been highlighted by several authors (Martin, 1983; Foley and Lee, 1991; Leonard and Robertson, 1997).

In their most quoted paper, the argument of Aiello and Wheeler (1995) supports this view, proposing the "expensive-tissue hypothesis", related to the evolutionary forces implied in the increase of hominid brain size. They focus on the shift to a high-quality diet and corresponding gut adaptation. A reduced intestinal mass would considerably lower the relative energy cost and permit disposal of sufficient energy to cover the extra-expenditure of a larger brain. The main point of Aiello and Wheeler is based on the relationship between body mass and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR): the Kleiber line characterizing the relationship between BMR and body size is identical for all mammals, including humans. Since maintenance of gut tissue is as expensive as that of brain tissue, Aiello and Wheeler proposed that gut reduction compensated for brain increase.

Henneberg et al. (1998), following this point of view, developed further arguments on the role of meat eating in human evolution. For these authors, the "quantitative similarity of human gut morphology to guts of carnivorous mammals" is a strong argument for a human status of "well evolved meat eater". In fact, one should ask if there is actual evidence of human gut adaptation to meat eating in the past that would have permitted a characteristic swing towards carnivorousness.
...
Thus, in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). ..

Returning to the issue of relating increase in brain size to dietary adaptation, there is obviously no direct relationship. Similarly, Martin (1983) in his allometric analysis of the evolution of the mammal brain identified four separate "grades" of relative brain size (Fig. 2) characterized by the slope of the major axis of the relationship between cranial capacity and body weight.


link




[edit on 10-12-2009 by Rawhemp]

Originally posted by Rawhemp

1. "Man came before the axe and fire so he couldn't be carnivorous."
2. "The length of mans digestive tube is 5-8 meters and the distance between the mouth and the coccyx is 50 to 80 centimetres, which gives us a result of 10 as in other frugivorous animals and not 3 as in the carnivorous or 20 as in the herbivorous animals."
3. "The only animal with probable omnivorous morphology that exists, is the bear, which has some pointed teeth and others that are flat."

1) fallacious. man didn't have fire before he started eating meat, and the most modern forensic evidence demonstrates this conclusively; I posted a NYT article from Nov 29th (I believe) that covers this. people seem to think that we must have needed fire to cook and kill germs in order to eat meat, but this is simply not true. in fact, there are still people on earth today, like certain tribes in africa, who thanks to a long time in close contact with their surroundings, have developed immunity - otherwise they were de-selected long ago. even something as simple as water can kill us if it doesn't come from our habitat - people just don't think about it, because we treat our supplies in the developed world.



2) this is inductive reasoning, not true science. it is basically an unproven hypothesis.


3) see #2.



It doesn't make sense that you rely on the word of a scientist from over a century ago, and completely reject contrary data generated since that time. we have more information and better tools of analysis, across 100+ years, and you reject it out of hand.

This has nothing to do with science - this is now in the territory of belief - just as divorced from objective reality as the idea that the sun revolves around the earth.

It's simply not true, and not scientific.


mod edit, quote tags


[edit on Fri Dec 11 2009 by DontTreadOnMe]

Originally posted by TrueTruth



It doesn't make sense that you rely on the word of a scientist from over a century ago, and completely reject contrary data generated since that time. we have more information and better tools of analysis, across 100+ years, and you reject it out of hand.

Modern scientist only have two interest, big business and keeping you sick. I take nothing they say as fact

Originally posted by Rawhemp

Originally posted by TrueTruth



It doesn't make sense that you rely on the word of a scientist from over a century ago, and completely reject contrary data generated since that time. we have more information and better tools of analysis, across 100+ years, and you reject it out of hand.

Modern scientist only have two interest, big business and keeping you sick. I take nothing they say as fact

Yet another fantasy. I know a good number of scientists personally, and this is just plain nonsense. I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about, frankly.

Do you also believe the earth is only 4000 years old?

Maybe if you studied more science and spent more time around people in the field, you could free yourself of this misguided fundamentalism.

Do you really think all those forensic archaeologists are part of a world-wide corporate conspiracy to sell us meat and make us sick?

Tens of thousands of scientists are all on the take from the NWO?

Don't you think that sounds a little grandiose/paranoid?







[edit on 10-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by TrueTruth


Do you also believe the earth is only 4000 years old?

Maybe if you studied more science and spent more time around people in the field, you could free yourself of this misguided fundamentalism.

Do you really think all those forensic archaeologists are part of a world-wide corporate conspiracy to sell us meat and make us sick?

Tens of thousands of scientists are all on the take from the NWO?

I agree with pretty much all of those points for the most part

I study nature, i don't need a text book to tell me what is and what isn't.









[edit on 10-12-2009 by Rawhemp]

reply to post by Rawhemp


Good grief.

Did nature tell you about the conspiracy? Are you the guy who talked to Ishmael?

Or maybe you were woken up by seven little dwarfs?

Runes?

Omens?



sigh.

I guess you're determined in your retreat to scientific solipsism.

At least we finally arrived at the root of your beliefs:

denial.

reply to post by TrueTruth


I tend to agree with Rawhemp usually. I find when he/she posts a perfectly applicable source many of you dismiss it for some reason. Basically, there's no way to win an argument on either side.

I find wiki to be a more reliable source than anything. In fact a study has been done that shows Wikipedia is as much or more accurate than encyclopedia Britannica. news.cnet.com...

*sigh*

Well continue your name calling and circle talking everyone.

Originally posted by Avarus
reply to post by TrueTruth

 

I tend to agree with Rawhemp usually. I find when he/she posts a perfectly applicable source many of you dismiss it for some reason. Basically, there's no way to win an argument on either side.

I find wiki to be a more reliable source than anything. In fact a study has been done that shows Wikipedia is as much or more accurate than encyclopedia Britannica. news.cnet.com...

*sigh*

Well continue your name calling and circle talking everyone.

Circle talking? You mean, continuing to elaborate an argument?

Continuing to differentiate between high and low quality data?



Well, you are free to believe as you wish.

But there's a fundamental difference between a position based on 150 year old scientific theorizing by one individual, versus the subsequent 150 years of investigation by tens of thousands of other individuals.



[edit on 10-12-2009 by TrueTruth]

Originally posted by TrueTruth

denial.

denial of what? Sorry i disagree with your believe of scientific theories. Maybe one day you'll awake from your ignorance and agree with me or not, that's your decision

reply to post by TrueTruth


I'm sorry, but belittling your opponent's view by accusing him of using runes and omens is an "elaborate argument", I'm not sure you understand what an elaborate argument is.

Also, There are MANY old theories and studies that are still used today. Just because Einstein's contribution to physics was in the early 1900's, many of his theories are still true today. Pythagoras of Samos (530 BC) contributed to mathematics and is still being taught in school today.

The point is, you can't dismiss it, just because it's old.

If God didn't want us to eat animals, he would not have made them taste so good.

I get very suspicious about the food police. Demonizing anything ie. smoking, fast food, alcohol, just gives the PTB the excuse to tax the heck out of it.

What I've always found interesting when studying this topic is that there is no definitive proof that either side is absolutely correct. Some people, like myself, use certain cultures or societies sustaining on the chosen diet as the basis of their argument; others use current or past scientific studies. The point I'm trying to make is that we humans can clearly live a long, healthy, fruitful life sustaining on either meat, vegetables, fruits or all of them together. However, some people will find that certain diets will or won't work for them, like me for instance.

Whether it be our similarities to other carnivores, origination in tropical climates, brain size, or gut length; what people aren't acknowledging are three things. First, humans have the capacity to digest plant and animal matter, cooked and raw. Secondly, in today's world there are people who are portraits of health following vegan, omnivorous, and carnivorous diets; free from all common dietary ills. And third, vegans and variations of, and SAD dieters have roughly the same lifespan, contrary to popular belief.

I've looked at many studies and surprisingly enough, on average, vegans live no longer than SAD dieters and vice versa. Now we can continue to argue, which I'm sure we will, but the fact is, in the context of diet, animals are killing us just as much as vegetables and fruits.

Now, dietary matters aside, I agree that factory farms are overwhelmingly inhumane. I also agree that killing animals for food is wrong, however, it is simply part of the cycle of life. I know many vegans eat the way they do not just because they believe it is healthier than the alternative, but also because it doesn't involve the senseless slaughter of animals. What needs to be known is that while switching to a vegan diet may rid you of the guilt imposed by factory farms, animals are still being slaughtered.

The land needed to grow the vegetables and fruits we eat today demolish ecosystems and their furry inhabitants as well. Let it also be known that the harvesting and maintenance of these vegetables and fruits that we eat kill even more animals. Between combine harvesters, pesticides, clearing of land, and fertilizer run-off; is factory farming really that bad?

Think for a moment. According to "http://www.vrg.org/press/2009poll.htm" 3% of the U.S. population is vegan. Think about the entirety of the crop industry today with 3% of the population vegetarians. Now imagine 25% of the population vegetarian, factory farming is no longer the only elephant in the room anymore. Simply put, being a vegetarian may keep your conscious clean, but it doesn't keep the blood off your hands. And yes I am aware that meat eating requires much more land than plant eating, however, my point still stands.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by TrueTruth]