Originally posted by Kali74
I'm not judging here, but humans actually aren't meant to eat meat and it is shown to encourage cancer growth, not to mention the effects red meat
and animal fat have on blood pressure, cholesterol and the human heart. It's your bodies though and your choice on what you eat.
You are incorrect. Red meat in abundance, or "too much of a good thing" can certainly be a contributing factor for such ailments.
The following is actually a slightly revised, but more or less repeat post that I did from a similar answer on another thread. It is my post. Feel
free to look it up. I feel it applies here, and it was a bugger to write. Please forgive my lazyness. So once more:
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 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 real question in terms of carnivore or omnivore when it comes to our teeth is the relative size and structure compared to other teeth, in
conjunction with jaw size, strength and structure. In this regard, compared to other mammals, and primates specifically, the canine tooth reference is
the only thing that might hold water for an 'humans are not carnivores or omnivores' argument.
But boy it's a stretch and a big one; there are other omnivore opportunists with similarly small canine and jaw structure, without a mouth full of
sharp teeth. So... Not much of an argument at all really. There is a biological template for a niche that we fit into.
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.