You Must Question

by Guest Wed Apr 30, 2014 12:14 pm

First topic message reminder :

30th April 2014

Just how many Muslims are living amongst us.

For 200 Subways to change their menu to cater for them and not us. That's 200 areas of England!

For banks to go out of their way to introduce new products - that isn't cheap and i know it isn't just Lloyds TSB.

For our schools and other public places to only serve halal food.

Now, if i were a business - whether for profit or not-for-profit, i'd cater for the majority.

Please discuss.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:07 am

Dear me

I guess sassy did not read the scientific evidence presented

Again we are herbivores who adapted:

Eating Meat and Marrow

The diet of the earliest hominins was probably somewhat similar to the diet of modern chimpanzees: omnivorous, including large quantities of fruit, leaves, flowers, bark, insects and meat (e.g., Andrews & Martin 1991; Milton 1999; Watts 2008). Tooth morphology and dental microwear studies suggest that the diet of some hominins may have included hard food items such as seeds and nuts, and underground storage organs (USOs) such as roots and tubers (Jolly 1970; Peters & O'Brien 1981; Teaford & Ungar 2000; Luca et al. 2010). By at least 2.6 million years ago, a remarkable expansion in this diet started to occur; some hominins began incorporating meat and marrow from small to very large animals into their diet.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:08 am

Humans have canine teeth. End of story."

The truth is our so-called "canine teeth" are canine in name only. Humans' "canine teeth" are unlike the canine teeth of actual canines, which are really long and really pointed. Our teeth are absolutely not like theirs. In fact, other vegetarian animals (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) possess the same so-called "canine" teeth, which are often used for defensive purposes rather than for eating. Check out the chimpanzee picture at right, and consider that chimps' diets are up to 99% vegetarian (and what litle non-vegetarian food they eat usually isn't meat, it's termites). And remember that we're more similar to chimps than to any other animal.

John A. McDougall, M.D., has a good take on this:
Our dentition evolved for processing starches, fruits, and vegetables, not tearing and masticating flesh. Our oft-cited "canine" teeth are not at all comparable to the sharp teeth of true carnivores. I lecture to over 10,000 dentists, dental hygienists, and oral specialists every year, and I always ask them to show me the “canine” teeth in a person’s mouth – those that resemble a cat’s or dog’s teeth – I am still waiting to be shown the first example of a sharply pointed canine tooth.

If you have any doubt of the truth of this observation then go look in the mirror right now – you may have learned to call your 4 corner front teeth, “canine teeth” – but in no way do they resemble the sharp, jagged, blades of a true carnivore – your corner teeth are short, blunted, and flat on top (or slightly rounded at most). Nor do they ever function in the manner of true canine teeth. Have you ever observed someone purposely favoring these teeth while tearing off a piece of steak or chewing it? Nor have I. The lower jaw of a meat-eating animal has very little side-to-side motion – it is fixed to open and close, which adds strength and stability to its powerful bite. Like other plant-eating animals our jaw can move forwards and backwards, and side-to-side, as well as open and close, for biting off pieces of plant matter, and then grinding them into smaller pieces with our flat molars.
[size][color][font]
I love the canine argument because the people who make it place so much importance on it, insisting that humans having canines immediately wins the whole argument, all by itself, case closed! But when they discover that they were wrong, then suddenly the canine issue reallywasn't so important to them after all, and they simply move on to their next misconception, as though their previous argument never happened. That really lays their motivations bare: They were never really interested in evaluating the evidence, they were only interested in being right. But really, if someone thinks that canine teeth are the be-all and end-all of the herbivore vs. omnivore debate, then when they find out that they're wrong about teeth, that ought to tell them something. But does it ever? Nope. If we needed evidence of bias, there you have it.[/font][/color][/size]

"Humans have always eaten meat."

No, we haven't, and I'll provide evidence for that shortly. More importantly, early humans, like modern humans, could have simply acted outside of instinct, and made interesting dietary choices contrary to their anatomy. We really have to look at our digestive system to get the best evidence for what we're optimized for eating, not what some humans chose to eat. Otherwise, thousands of years from now anthropologists might conclude that eating McDonald's is natural because humans circa 2012 used to eat a lot of it.
Also, of early humans who did eat meat, they might have eaten it as sparingly as modern chimps do.

"We're capable of eating meat, therefore we're omnivores. Case closed."

Okay, fine, then cats are omnivores, too. ("Case closed.") Commercial cat foods, both wet and dry, contain things like rice, corn, and wheat. In fact, some people feed their cats a pure vegan diet with no meat at all.
But of course, cats are true carnivores. We don't call them omnivores just because they'll eat things contrary to what nature intended. That would be silly. No one makes that argument for cats. But they make it for humans, enthusiastically. However, they can't have it both ways: Either we don't assume humans are omnivores just because we can eat meat, or we apply the same standard to other animals and conclude that cats are omnivores, too. Which is it?

"Humans are omnivores."

"Omnivore" doesn't mean 50% plants and 50% animals. Many consider chimpanzees to be omnivores but 95-99% of their diet is plants, and most of the rest isn't meat, it's termites. If humans are omnivores, then the anatomical evidence suggests that we're the same kind: the kind that eats almost exclusively plant foods. And if an omnivore is an animal that is capable of eating both plants and animals, and ever does so, then sure, we're omnivores, but then again, so are cats. (See above.) A true omnivore would have a body optimized for eating both plants and animals. With non-humans we can look at what they eat in the wild to figure out their preferred diets, but humans lost our instincts long ago, so we can look only at our anatomy and digestive systems. And that evidence is compelling.

"You're not a credible source."

You don't have to believe me, you can look at the evidence I cite. My critics talk as though I claim this article to be original research, but really, I'm just reporting on what the science says, citing credible sources along the way.

It's funny, my critics think I'm not allowed to speak without credentials, but somehow they don't need any themselves in order to argue the contrary position. For example, when Internet forums discuss whether meat-eating is natural, someone will undoubtedly lunge at the "canines = meat-eater" argument, then someone else will point them to this article where I explain that other plant-eaters have larger canines than ours, then the canine guy will exclaim, "Bluejay isn't a credible source! He has no formal training!" As though the critic has a Ph.D in biology. And as though my own lack of credentials means than gorillas, horses, and hippos don't have large canine teeth. The critics don't think they need any special training to spout off (wrong) pronouncements about human canines, for example, but anyone who dares disagree with their misinformed assumptions had better have multiple advanced degrees and tenure at an Ivy League university.

What matters is the evidence, and I cite my sources. If the critics have better evidence, rather than pulling pronouncements about canine teeth out of the ether, they'd do well to present it, rather than just dismiss evidence they don't like out of hand.
By the way, doctors like John McDougall and Milton R. Mills (both M.D.'s) believe that human anatomy favors plant foods. I wonder whether the people who send me hate mail about this article and tell me I'm an idiot would feel just as confident in telling these two doctors that the doctors are idiots, too?

"Vitamin B12. End of story."

I'm not joking when I tack on "End of story" to the sample counter-arguments. People actually make them that way, literally. Here again, they think one point invalidates all other evidence. Amazing.
The argument here is that since B12 isn't found in plant foods and modern vegans must supplement, a vegan diet can't be natural. Here's what's wrong with that argument:

B12 isn't made by animals, it's made by bacteria.[size=undefined] (source)[/size] It's found in animal foods because they're a hotbed of bacterial activity. It's also found in feces of most species. Historically it was easier for vegans to get B12 because their environment was so dirty. Plants pulled from the ground and not washed scrupulously could have bacterial contamination, and thus B12. [size=undefined](source)[/size]
B12 is also found in lakes, before the water is sanitized. [size=undefined](source)[/size]
Remember that "plant-eaters" aren't exclusively plant-eaters; they eat some small amounts of non-plant foods. For example, of the 1-5% of chimps' diets that aren't plants, most is generally termites, which happen to be loaded with B12. [size=undefined](source)[/size]
We saw that fecal matter contaminating the environment can provide B12. But not taking any chances, many plant-eating animals actually eat their own feces. Prehistoric humans might have done the same. (Human feces is loaded with B12.) [size=undefined](source)[/size]
Because the ability to absorb B12 decreases with age, the Food and Nutrition board says that all people over 50 should eat B12-fortified food or take B12 supplements, not just vegans.[size=undefined] (source)[/size]

[size][color][font]
So the idea that our bodies are designed to eat large amounts of meat because of a single vitamin made by bacteria isn't very compelling.
In any event, there's no question that modern vegans must take a B12 supplement, recommended at least weekly. [size=undefined](source)[/size] No plant food is a reliable source, and most fermented products (like tempeh) which list B12 on the Nutrition Facts actually don't have any, because the FDA mandates the wrong test for B12. [size=undefined](source)[/size][/font][/color][/size]

"Other primates eat meat."

Hardly. Various sources (below) say that a chimp's diet is 95-99% plant foods, and the primary non-plant food isn't meat, it's termites. Remember also that primates are intelligent and can make choices outside of instinct, just like humans do, so the tiny amount of meat they might eat could be due to choice, not instinct.

I cover the primate diet in more detail bolew.

"You're not considering evolution."

How so? However much our species has changed, the end result is that our anatomy still favors a predominantly plant diet.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:10 am

Where did he get that chimps only eat vegetation. Chimps kill and eat small monkey, so I'm not very impressed with him.

It appears that also eat leopards:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2554620/Researchers-discover-10-000-community-chimpanzees-war-torn-Africa-eating-LEOPARDS.html

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:13 am

Sassy wrote:Where did he get that chimps only eat vegetation. Chimps kill and eat small monkey, so I'm not very impressed with him.

Some chimps do, not all chimps, anyway, his point is valid and there is no denying our body system is designed as herbivores, not carnivores, we adapted to eating meat, no doubt to food being scarce at a time long ago and again the reality is the consensus and evidence points to us being herbivores adapting meat.
I suggest you try and open up a deer with your bare hands sassy and let me know how you get on

by veya_victaous Sat May 03, 2014 9:13 am

Early hominids, Before Homo Habilis But from then on we ate meat

Homo habilis (also Australopithecus habilis) is a species of the Hominini tribe, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago, during the Gelasian Pleistocene period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

You Must Question - Page 6 Hom_habilis

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:14 am

veya_victaous wrote:Early hominids, Before Homo Habilis But from then on we ate meat

Homo habilis (also Australopithecus habilis) is a species of the Hominini tribe, which lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago, during the Gelasian Pleistocene period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_habilis

Which proves we adapted meat to our diet Veya, not that we were designed herbivores

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:15 am

The Predatory Behavior and Ecology of Wild Chimpanzees
==================================================

When Jane Goodall first observed wild chimpanzees hunting and eating meat nearly 40 years ago, skeptics suggested that their behavior was aberrant and that the amount of meat eaten was trivial. Today, we know that chimpanzees everywhere eat mainly fruit, but are also predators in their forest ecosystems. In some sites the quantity of meat eaten by a chimpanzee community may approach one ton annually. Recently revealed aspects of predation by chimpanzees, such as its frequency and the use of meat as a political and reproductive tool, have important implications for research on the origins of human behavior. These findings come at a time when many anthropologists argue for scavenging rather than hunting as a way of life for early human ancestors. Research into the hunting ecology of wild chimpanzees may therefore shed new light on the current debate about the origins of human behavior.

One of the most important and intriguing questions in human evolution is when meat became an important part of the diet of our ancestors. Physical anthropologists and archaeologists have been using a number of techniques to try to answer this question. The presence of primitive stone tools in the fossil record tells us that 2.5 million years ago early hominids were using stone implements to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted or whose carcasses they had scavenged. The pattern of obtaining and processing meat by more recent people has been studied by examining archaeological sites in Europe and elsewhere, and also by studying the hunting and meat-eating behavior of modern foraging people, the so-called hunter-gatherers. Before 2.5 million years ago, however, we know very little about the foods that hominids ate, or the role that meat may have played in their diet. We know that the earliest upright-walking (bipedal) hominids, the australopithecines, evolved in Africa about 5 million years ago, and that they shared a common ancestor with modern chimpanzees shortly before that time. Modern people and chimpanzees share an estimated 98.5% of our DNA sequence, making us more closely related to each other than either is to any other animal species. Therefore, understanding chimpanzee hunting behavior and ecology may tell us a great deal about the behavior and ecology of those very earliest hominids. This is the approach I have taken in my field study of the hunting behavior of wild chimpanzees, and especially their relationship with the animal that is their major prey, the red colobus monkey. What are the social and ecological factors that predict when chimpanzees will hunt and whether they will be successful ? What is the effect of chimpanzee predation on the populations of their prey animals, such as the red colobus ? What are the likely similarities in meat-eating patterns between chimpanzees and the earliest hominids ?

In the early 1960's, when Dr. Jane Goodall began her now famous study of the chimpanzees of Gombe National Park, Tanzania, it was thought that chimpanzees were strictly vegetarian. In fact, when Goodall first reported this behavior, many people were skeptical and claimed that meat was not a natural part of the chimpanzee diet. Today, hunting by chimpanzees at Gombe has been well documented (Teleki 1973; Goodall 1986), and hunting has also been observed at most other sites in Africa where chimpanzees have been studied, including Mahale Mountains National Park (Uehara et al. 1992) (also in Tanzania) and Tai National Park in Ivory Coast in West Africa (Boesch and Boesch 1989). At Gombe, we now know that chimpanzees may kill and eat more than 150 small and medium sized animals such as monkeys, wild pigs and small antelopes each year. Chimpanzee society is called fission-fusion, to indicate that there is little cohesive group structure apart from mothers and their infants; instead, temporary subgroupings called parties come together and separate throughout the day. These parties vary in size, in relation to the abundance and distribution of the food supply (Wrangham 1975) and the presence of estrous females (who serve as a magnet for males, Goodall 1986), so the size and membership of hunting parties vary greatly, from a single chimpanzee to as many as 35. The hunting abilities of the party members as well as the number of hunters present can thus influence when a party hunts as well as whether it will succeed in catching a colobus.
Chimpanzee Predatory Behavior

After three decades of research on the hunting behavior of chimpanzees at Gombe, we already know a great deal about their predatory patterns. We know that although chimpanzees have been recorded to eat more than 35 types of vertebrate animals (Uehara 1997), the most important vertebrate prey species in their diet is the red colobus monkey. At Gombe, red colobus account for more than 80% of the prey items eaten. But Gombe chimpanzees do not select the colobus they will kill randomly; infant and juvenile colobus are caught in greater proportion than their availability (Stanford et al. 1994a, 1998a); 75% of all colobus killed are immature ...

http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:16 am

I see Sassy is back to spamming articles and not debating

Sigh

by veya_victaous Sat May 03, 2014 9:17 am

designed????

didge are you smoking crack Evil or Very Mad

Cause i didn't take you for a creationist. Suspect

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:17 am

Oh I see, when you put information it's ok, but apparently when anyone else does it's spamming, especially when it shows you are wrong eh Didge?

Think of all the cave drawings that show man hunting.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:18 am

veya_victaous wrote:designed????

didge are you smoking crack
Cause i didn't take you for a creationist.

Yeh, that took me back as well!

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:18 am

veya_victaous wrote:designed????

didge are you smoking crack
Cause i didn't take you for a creationist.

No not smoking crack, our bodies are designed as herbivores, it is a phrase, stop thinking silly Veya

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:20 am

Sassy wrote:Oh I see, when you put information it's ok, but apparently when anyone else does it's spamming, especially when it shows you are wrong eh Didge?

Think of all the cave drawings that show man hunting.

No if ou read back I write most of my own posts, you spam 50% of yours with articles you do not have the first clue about, anyone can google sassy

by veya_victaous Sat May 03, 2014 9:20 am

we adapted to eat more meat, but we probably ate insects and smaller mammals and reptiles when we could catch them like most monkeys and apes.

it definitely would not have been as important to them, like it is an important part of the homo sapiens diet Cool

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:21 am

For example Veya, I am not the only one that uses the phrase designed:

Opinion: Humans are designed to eat plants

http://www.vancouversun.com/health/Opinion+Humans+designed+plants/8831255/story.html

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:22 am

veya_victaous wrote:we adapted to eat more meat, but we probably ate insects and smaller mammals and reptiles when we could catch them like most monkeys and apes.

it definitely would not have been as important to them, like it is an important part of the homo sapiens diet

Probably is not really evidence though is it Veya, the fact is our bodies share similar traits to herbivores, not carnivores.

::D::

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:23 am

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:Oh I see, when you put information it's ok, but apparently when anyone else does it's spamming, especially when it shows you are wrong eh Didge?

Think of all the cave drawings that show man hunting.

No if ou read back I write most of my own posts, you spam 50% of yours with articles you do not have the first clue about, anyone can google sassy

Good god Didge, you are such a hypocrite. I wrote most of my own posts too, however, when it comes to scientific evidence, I, like you, posted evidence from a scientist.

You only resort to saying things like that when you know you are not right.

Conclusion
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.

From the previous link.

We have been eating meat since the stone age, the cave drawings prove it.

by veya_victaous Sat May 03, 2014 9:23 am

the oldest cave paintings are 50,000 years old, Hominids started making meat a major part of their diet almost 2 million years ago

And didge he is American Rolling Eyes

so possible creationist

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:24 am

veya_victaous wrote:the oldest cave paintings are 50,000 years old, Hominids started making meat a major part of their diet almost 2 million years ago

And didge he is American so possible creationist

No he's British lol

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:25 am

Yes you write around 50% and spam the rest as stated and prove my point by doing so again above.
You though ignore the fact we share many similar traits to herbivores, not even omnivores.

Of which I can do the same as you:

That jibes with what Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine President Dr. Neal Barnard says in his book, The Power of Your Plate, in which he explains that "early humans had diets very much like other great apes, which is to say a largely plant-based diet, drawing on foods we can pick with our hands. Research suggests that meat-eating probably began by scavenging--eating the leftovers that carnivores had left behind. However, our bodies have never adapted to it. To this day, meat-eaters have a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and other problems."

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:27 am

veya_victaous wrote:the oldest cave paintings are 50,000 years old, Hominids started making meat a major part of their diet almost 2 million years ago

And didge he is American so possible creationist

Sigh I am an atheist, we say designed, does not mean literally Veya, for fuck sake grow up.

Also I am British with Irish and Sicilian ethnicity, so do not label me you silly boy

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:31 am

There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr.Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).
In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."
The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr.William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:34 am

Perhaps you would like to read, because I won't post being so scared of your wrath (not)

5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)
http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:35 am

Didge wrote:There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr.Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).
In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."
The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr.William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Spamming again?

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:38 am

Sassy wrote:Perhaps you would like to read, because I won't post being so scared of your wrath (not)

5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)
http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/

Dear me argue against all anthropologists sassy, because they state quite correctly who come from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores.

Fact

You ignore the fact are hands are better suited for picking fruit, and not tearing flesh.
You ignore the fact meat which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, yes we gain some benefits, whoop de doo, but the down sides show we increase the risks vastly more

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:39 am

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:There is no more authoritative source on anthropological issues than paleontologist Dr.Richard Leakey, who explains what anyone who has taken an introductory physiology course might have discerned intuitively--that humans are herbivores. Leakey notes that "[y]ou can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand.... We wouldn't have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines" (although we have teeth that are called "canines," they bear little resemblance to the canines of carnivores).
In fact, our hands are perfect for grabbing and picking fruits and vegetables. Similarly, like the intestines of other herbivores, ours are very long (carnivores have short intestines so they can quickly get rid of all that rotting flesh they eat). We don't have sharp claws to seize and hold down prey. And most of us (hopefully) lack the instinct that would drive us to chase and then kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. Dr. Milton Mills builds on these points and offers dozens more in his essay, "A Comparative Anatomy of Eating."
The point is this: Thousands of years ago when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have needed a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don't need it now. Says Dr.William C. Roberts, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, "Although we think we are, and we act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
Sure, most of us are "behavioral omnivores"--that is, we eat meat, so that defines us as omnivorous. But our evolution and physiology are herbivorous, and ample science proves that when we choose to eat meat, that causes problems, from decreased energy and a need for more sleep up to increased risk for obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer.

Spamming again?

://?roflmao?/:

After your last post did the same

PMSL

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:45 am

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:Perhaps you would like to read, because I won't post being so scared of your wrath (not)

5 Brain Nutrients Found Only in Meat, Fish and Eggs (NOT Plants)
http://authoritynutrition.com/5-brain-nutrients-in-meat-fish-eggs/

Dear me argue against all anthropologists sassy, because they state quite correctly who come from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores.

Fact

You ignore the fact are hands are better suited for picking fruit, and not tearing flesh.
You ignore the fact meat which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, yes we gain some benefits, whoop de doo, but the down sides show we increase the risks vastly more

This from a man who said he knew more about Israel than a previous Israel Prime Minister, don't make me laugh.

We have been eating meat for millions of years. We are omnivore.

http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BIO309-OC-3.8.1-Comparison-of-Digestive-Systems-FINAL.pdf

Find out the difference in the digestive systems.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:49 am

I'll leave you to it Didge, then you won't have to admit you are wrong and can get the last word in. Wink

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:50 am

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Dear me argue against all anthropologists sassy, because they state quite correctly who come from the most reputable institutions imaginable say categorically that humans are natural herbivores.

Fact

You ignore the fact are hands are better suited for picking fruit, and not tearing flesh.
You ignore the fact meat which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, yes we gain some benefits, whoop de doo, but the down sides show we increase the risks vastly more

This from a man who said he knew more about Israel than a previous Israel Prime Minister, don't make me laugh.

We have been eating meat for millions of years. We are omnivore.

http://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/BIO309-OC-3.8.1-Comparison-of-Digestive-Systems-FINAL.pdf

Find out the difference in the digestive systems.

Exposing Sassy lying out of her arse

I said I knew more history

Lie exposed

Reputable biologists and anthropologists say we are natural Herbivores.

Sigh

Our bodies do not have the acidity that carnivores have and thus we suffer greatly from food Poisoning and yet again the benefits are outweighed vastly by the side affects of eating meat which can cause high cholesterol, heart disease, etc, sorry you are onto a no brainer sassy.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 12:59 pm

didge didge didge...

Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 8:51 pm

Didge wrote:Humans have canine teeth. End of story."

The truth is our so-called "canine teeth" are canine in name only. Humans' "canine teeth" are unlike the canine teeth of actual canines, which are really long and really pointed. Our teeth are absolutely not like theirs. In fact, other vegetarian animals (like gorillas, horses, and hippos) possess the same so-called "canine" teeth, which are often used for defensive purposes rather than for eating. Check out the chimpanzee picture at right, and consider that chimps' diets are up to 99% vegetarian (and what litle non-vegetarian food they eat usually isn't meat, it's termites). And remember that we're more similar to chimps than to any other animal.

John A. McDougall, M.D., has a good take on this:

I love the canine argument because the people who make it place so much importance on it, insisting that humans having canines immediately wins the whole argument, all by itself, case closed! But when they discover that they were wrong, then suddenly the canine issue reallywasn't so important to them after all, and they simply move on to their next misconception, as though their previous argument never happened. That really lays their motivations bare: They were never really interested in evaluating the evidence, they were only interested in being right. But really, if someone thinks that canine teeth are the be-all and end-all of the herbivore vs. omnivore debate, then when they find out that they're wrong about teeth, that ought to tell them something. But does it ever? Nope. If we needed evidence of bias, there you have it.
"Humans have always eaten meat."
No, we haven't, and I'll provide evidence for that shortly. More importantly, early humans, like modern humans, could have simply acted outside of instinct, and made interesting dietary choices contrary to their anatomy. We really have to look at our digestive system to get the best evidence for what we're optimized for eating, not what some humans chose to eat. Otherwise, thousands of years from now anthropologists might conclude that eating McDonald's is natural because humans circa 2012 used to eat a lot of it.
Also, of early humans who did eat meat, they might have eaten it as sparingly as modern chimps do.
"We're capable of eating meat, therefore we're omnivores. Case closed."
Okay, fine, then cats are omnivores, too. ("Case closed.") Commercial cat foods, both wet and dry, contain things like rice, corn, and wheat. In fact, some people feed their cats a pure vegan diet with no meat at all.
But of course, cats are true carnivores. We don't call them omnivores just because they'll eat things contrary to what nature intended. That would be silly. No one makes that argument for cats. But they make it for humans, enthusiastically. However, they can't have it both ways: Either we don't assume humans are omnivores just because we can eat meat, or we apply the same standard to other animals and conclude that cats are omnivores, too. Which is it?
"Humans are omnivores."
"Omnivore" doesn't mean 50% plants and 50% animals. Many consider chimpanzees to be omnivores but 95-99% of their diet is plants, and most of the rest isn't meat, it's termites. If humans are omnivores, then the anatomical evidence suggests that we're the same kind: the kind that eats almost exclusively plant foods. And if an omnivore is an animal that is capable of eating both plants and animals, and ever does so, then sure, we're omnivores, but then again, so are cats. (See above.) A true omnivore would have a body optimized for eating both plants and animals. With non-humans we can look at what they eat in the wild to figure out their preferred diets, but humans lost our instincts long ago, so we can look only at our anatomy and digestive systems. And that evidence is compelling.
"You're not a credible source."
You don't have to believe me, you can look at the evidence I cite. My critics talk as though I claim this article to be original research, but really, I'm just reporting on what the science says, citing credible sources along the way.

It's funny, my critics think I'm not allowed to speak without credentials, but somehow they don't need any themselves in order to argue the contrary position. For example, when Internet forums discuss whether meat-eating is natural, someone will undoubtedly lunge at the "canines = meat-eater" argument, then someone else will point them to this article where I explain that other plant-eaters have larger canines than ours, then the canine guy will exclaim, "Bluejay isn't a credible source! He has no formal training!" As though the critic has a Ph.D in biology. And as though my own lack of credentials means than gorillas, horses, and hippos don't have large canine teeth. The critics don't think they need any special training to spout off (wrong) pronouncements about human canines, for example, but anyone who dares disagree with their misinformed assumptions had better have multiple advanced degrees and tenure at an Ivy League university.

What matters is the evidence, and I cite my sources. If the critics have better evidence, rather than pulling pronouncements about canine teeth out of the ether, they'd do well to present it, rather than just dismiss evidence they don't like out of hand.
By the way, doctors like John McDougall and Milton R. Mills (both M.D.'s) believe that human anatomy favors plant foods. I wonder whether the people who send me hate mail about this article and tell me I'm an idiot would feel just as confident in telling these two doctors that the doctors are idiots, too?
"Vitamin B12. End of story."
I'm not joking when I tack on "End of story" to the sample counter-arguments. People actually make them that way, literally. Here again, they think one point invalidates all other evidence. Amazing.
The argument here is that since B12 isn't found in plant foods and modern vegans must supplement, a vegan diet can't be natural. Here's what's wrong with that argument:

B12 isn't made by animals, it's made by bacteria. (source) It's found in animal foods because they're a hotbed of bacterial activity. It's also found in feces of most species. Historically it was easier for vegans to get B12 because their environment was so dirty. Plants pulled from the ground and not washed scrupulously could have bacterial contamination, and thus B12. (source)
B12 is also found in lakes, before the water is sanitized. (source)
Remember that "plant-eaters" aren't exclusively plant-eaters; they eat some small amounts of non-plant foods. For example, of the 1-5% of chimps' diets that aren't plants, most is generally termites, which happen to be loaded with B12. (source)
We saw that fecal matter contaminating the environment can provide B12. But not taking any chances, many plant-eating animals actually eat their own feces. Prehistoric humans might have done the same. (Human feces is loaded with B12.) (source)
Because the ability to absorb B12 decreases with age, the Food and Nutrition board says that all people over 50 should eat B12-fortified food or take B12 supplements, not just vegans. (source)

So the idea that our bodies are designed to eat large amounts of meat because of a single vitamin made by bacteria isn't very compelling.
In any event, there's no question that modern vegans must take a B12 supplement, recommended at least weekly. (source) No plant food is a reliable source, and most fermented products (like tempeh) which list B12 on the Nutrition Facts actually don't have any, because the FDA mandates the wrong test for B12. (source)
"Other primates eat meat."
Hardly. Various sources (below) say that a chimp's diet is 95-99% plant foods, and the primary non-plant food isn't meat, it's termites. Remember also that primates are intelligent and can make choices outside of instinct, just like humans do, so the tiny amount of meat they might eat could be due to choice, not instinct.

I cover the primate diet in more detail bolew.
"You're not considering evolution."
How so? However much our species has changed, the end result is that our anatomy still favors a predominantly plant diet.

Trust didge to find the WORST possible citation to support his mistaken view....

this " John A. McDougall, M.D" is a veggie "nazi"

http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-mcdougall-in-shocking-vegan-interview

"Let me start by saying this: Being a vegan is fine. I find the ethical arguments compelling and I’m impressed by people who manage to avoid animal products for ethical reasons. Also, I believe that most vegan food (supplemented by vitamin B12) is healthier than a standard Western diet.

That said, I was shocked when listening to a new interview with low-fat vegan advocate Dr John McDougall. A couple of days ago he was on Jimmy Moore’s podcast and, really, you have to hear it to believe it:

The LLVLC Show (Episode 686): Dr. John McDougall Pushes Starchy Diets For All

Here’s the problem:

Agricultural bliss?

Dr McDougall believes that everybody should eat a low-fat high-starch diet comprised of potatoes, rice, beans etc. and avoid meat, dairy and even olive oil. His main argument? Throughout “all of recorded history” every successful major civilization based their food intake on that kind of food.

That’s correct. It’s called agriculture.

Agriculture supplied the plentiful source of calories that allowed populations to grow big, starting 10,000 years ago or so. But that does not mean it’s healthy. Fossil records show a decline in human health and stature at the start of agriculture.

Furthermore, history did not start 10,000 years ago. Human evolution (depending on where you draw the line) has been going on for hundreds of thousands of years if not millions of years. Back then there was no agriculture.

Finally there were no vegan cultures, ever, during all of human history. People who completely avoided animal products for a long time died from vitamin B12-deficiency. So while agriculture supplied a lot of food it was never the only source."

the rest of its is at the site quoted.

So...un researched and biased by a "vested interest" hmmm...thats a reliable source ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 8:56 pm

Does not matter victor, you can argue on a source what does that give you?

Zero, biologically and anthropologist agree we are natural herbivores, are you claiming they are wrong, this the hunter who claims to know when an animal is mortally wounded with no medical knowledge?

Can you argue against this, or are you going to go off the back we only adapted meat which as seen causes us more problems than without.

Maybe Victor will tell us as a hunter how with are bare hands how we tear open flesh without tools?

I love a man with a grudge, they do not argue sense but bollocks, becuase they are angry

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 8:57 pm

also...from HIS web site

Mary and I have held nothing back in our Free McDougall Program. The pages that follow contain all of the information you need to successfully change your diet and lifestyle in order to quickly regain control of your health and appearance. The Free McDougall Program puts recovery from chronic disease and attainment of excellent health within everyone’s reach.

sounds great doesnt it..."free advice"...except in order to REALLY gain the knowlege you need you are "encouraged" to get........

Changing your diet, starting an exercise program and giving up bad habits require effort. We encourage you to take advantage of additional educational opportunities such as our national bestselling books, DVDs, weekend seminars, and our 10-day residential program for more help.

ohh...now its buy our books, dvd's seminars AND a 10 day residential program....

now where have I heard THAT kind of blurb before.....OHHH I know...All those religious nutters "over there"

Now I really take our John A. McDougall, M.D seriously ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 8:59 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:also...from HIS web site

Mary and I have held nothing back in our Free McDougall Program. The pages that follow contain all of the information you need to successfully change your diet and lifestyle in order to quickly regain control of your health and appearance. The Free McDougall Program puts recovery from chronic disease and attainment of excellent health within everyone’s reach.

sounds great doesnt it..."free advice"...except in order to REALLY gain the knowlege you need you are "encouraged" to get........

Changing your diet, starting an exercise program and giving up bad habits require effort. We encourage you to take advantage of additional educational opportunities such as our national bestselling books, DVDs, weekend seminars, and our 10-day residential program for more help.

ohh...now its buy our books, dvd's seminars AND a 10 day residential program....

now where have I heard THAT kind of blurb before.....OHHH I know...All those religious nutters "over there"

Now I really take our John A. McDougall, M.D seriously ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg:: ::smthg::

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Love it slag off the site but not able to counter the points

Take your time Mr hunter, as we have all night, as seen we are herbivores, let me know when you have points to disprove this

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:09 pm

Lets see if Victor can discount this:

[ltr]When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop and snack on them? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered “no” to these questions, congratulations—like it or not, you’re an herbivore.[/ltr]
[ltr]According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.[/ltr]
[ltr]Human Physiology[/ltr]
[ltr]Although many humans choose to eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the dubious title of “omnivore,” we are anatomically herbivorous.[/ltr]
[ltr]Teeth, Jaws, and Nails[/ltr]
[ltr]Humans have short, soft fingernails and pathetically small “canine” teeth. In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of tearing flesh.[/ltr]
[ltr]Carnivores’ jaws move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow them whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, allowing them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth. Like other herbivores’ teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars.[/ltr]
[ltr]Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, “You can’t tear flesh by hand, you can’t tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don’t have large canine teeth, and we wouldn’t have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines.”[/ltr]
[ltr]Stomach Acidity[/ltr]
[ltr]Carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to break down flesh and kill the dangerous bacteria in meat that would otherwise sicken or kill them. Our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison because strong acids aren’t needed to digest pre-chewed fruits and vegetables.[/ltr]
[ltr]Intestinal Length[/ltr]
[ltr]Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal relatively quickly, before it can rot and cause illness. Humans’ intestinal tracts are much longer than those of carnivores of comparable size. Longer intestines allow the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from plant-based foods, but they make it dangerous for humans to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, increasing the risk of food poisoning. Meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through human intestines, which increases the risk of colon cancer.[/ltr]
[ltr]Read author John Robbins’ discussion of the anatomical differences between humans and carnivores or review Dr. Milton Mills’ entire article on the topic to learn more.[/ltr]
[ltr]Human Psychology[/ltr]
[ltr]Humans also lack the instinct that drives carnivores to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. While carnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and ate the raw corpse would be considered deranged. Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of blood, intestines and raw flesh, and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, another indication that we were not designed to eat meat.[/ltr]
[ltr]If We Were Meant to Eat Meat, Why Is It Killing Us?[/ltr]
[ltr]Carnivorous animals in the wild virtually never suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, or obesity, ailments that are caused in humans in large part by the consumption of the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat.[/ltr]
[ltr]Fat and Cholesterol[/ltr]
[ltr]Studies have shown that even when fed 200 times the amount of animal fat and cholesterol that the average human consumes each day, carnivores do not develop the hardening of the arteries that leads to heart disease and strokes in humans. Researchers have actually found that it is impossible for carnivores to develop hardening of the arteries, no matter how much animal fat they consume.[/ltr]
[ltr]Human bodies, on the other hand, were not designed to process animal flesh, so all the excess fat and cholesterol from a meat-based diet makes us sick. Heart disease, for example, is the number one killer in America according to the American Heart Association, and medical experts agree that this ailment is largely the result of the consumption of animal products. Meat-eaters have a 50 percent higher risk of developing heart disease than vegetarians![/ltr]
[ltr]Excess Protein[/ltr]
[ltr]We consume twice as much protein as we need when we eat a meat-based diet, and this contributes to osteoporosis and kidney stones. Animal protein raises the acid level in our blood, causing calcium to be excreted from the bones to restore the blood’s natural pH balance. This calcium depletion leads to osteoporosis, and the excreted calcium ends up in the kidneys, where it can form kidney stones or even trigger kidney disease.[/ltr]
[ltr]Consuming animal protein has also been linked to cancer of the colon, breast, prostate, and pancreas. According to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health, and the Environment, “In the next ten years, one of the things you’re bound to hear is that animal protein … is one of the most toxic nutrients of all that can be considered.”[/ltr]
[ltr]Eating meat can also have negative consequences for stamina and sexual potency. One Danish study indicated that “Men peddling on a stationary bicycle until muscle failure lasted an average of 114 minutes on a mixed meat and vegetable diet, 57 minutes on a high-meat diet, and a whopping 167 minutes on a strict vegetarian diet.”⁹ Besides having increased physical endurance, vegan men are also less likely to suffer from impotence.[/ltr]
[ltr]Food Poisoning[/ltr]
[ltr]Since we don’t have strong stomach acids like carnivores to kill all the bacteria in meat, dining on animal flesh can also give us food poisoning. According to the USDA, meat is the cause of 70 percent of foodborne illnesses in the United States because it’s often contaminated with dangerous bacteria like E. coli, listeria, and campylobacter. Every year in the United States alone, food poisoning sickens over 75 million people and kills more than 5,000.[/ltr]
[ltr]Dr. William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of the authoritative American Journal of Cardiology, sums it up this way: “[A]lthough we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.” Learn more about how meat damages human health.[/ltr]
[ltr]Human Evolution and the Rise of Meat-Heavy Diets[/ltr]
[ltr]If it’s so unhealthy and unnatural for humans to eat meat, why did our ancestors sometimes turn to flesh for sustenance?[/ltr]
[ltr]During most of our evolutionary history, we were largely vegetarian. Plant foods like potatoes made up the bulk of our ancestors’ diet. The more frequent addition of modest amounts of meat to the early human diet came with the discovery of fire, which allowed us to lower the risk of being sickened or killed by parasites in meat. This practice did not turn our ancestors into carnivores but rather allowed early humans to survive in periods when plant foods were unavailable.[/ltr]
[ltr]Modern Humans[/ltr]
[ltr]Until recently, only the wealthiest people could afford to feed, raise, and slaughter animals for meat; less wealthy and poor people ate mostly plant foods. Consequently, prior to the 20th century, only the rich routinely were plagued with diseases like heart disease and obesity.[/ltr]
[ltr]Since 1950, the per capita consumption of meat has almost doubled. Now that animal flesh has become relatively cheap and easily available (thanks to the cruel, cost-cutting practices of factory farming), deadly ailments like heart disease, strokes, cancer, and obesity have spread to people across the socio-economic spectrum. And as the Western lifestyle spills over into less developed areas in Asia and Africa, people there, too, have started to suffer and die from the diseases associated with meat-based diets.[/ltr]

Read more: http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/#ixzz30gXfpIoH

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:10 pm

Didge wrote:Does not matter victor, you can argue on a source what does that give you?

Zero, biologically and anthropologist agree we are natural herbivores, are you claiming they are wrong, this the hunter who claims to know when an animal is mortally wounded with no medical knowledge?

Can you argue against this, or are you going to go off the back we only adapted meat which as seen causes us more problems than without.

Maybe Victor will tell us as a hunter how with are bare hands how we tear open flesh without tools?

I love a man with a grudge, they do not argue sense but bollocks, becuase they are angry

didge..if you post bullshit citations to back your argument ...your argument is dust...simples....

I mean...how long back do you want to take this evolutionary thing....

2 million years ago?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250603/Reduction-in-tooth-size

well....At first glance early hominin skulls appear to be more like those of apes than humans. Whereas humans have small jaws and a large braincase, great apes have a small braincase and large jaws. In addition, the canine teeth of apes are large and pointed and project beyond the other teeth, whereas those of humans are relatively small and nonprojecting. Indeed, human canines are unique in being incisorlike, and the front lower premolar tooth is bicuspid. In apes and in many monkeys, however, the lower premolar is unicuspid and hones the upper canine tooth to razor sharpness.

so our early ancestors indeed had big, effective cannines and COULD tear meat and hide...

what of the evolutionary group the apes evolved from?? what was THEIR teeth like....

and more over IF OVER TIME we have "adapted" to being omnivores THEN WE BLOODY WELL ARE OMNIVORES.

christ on a bike you would argue black is white or another shade of grey.

our teeth are NOT vegetarian (wholey) or carnivorous (wholey)..
our gut likewise...PHYSICALLY our gut is carnivore...we lack the structures to be soley herbivorous. Now, we did have some of those traits...but we Adapted...so ARE NO LONGER herbivorous. Our phisiology however is not fully adapted to be SOLEY carnivorous, so too much meat (which in the west we are guilty of) is not good either....

we have BECOME omnivorous....therefor we ARE omnivorous...regardless of what our past may or may not have been.....

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:16 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:Does not matter victor, you can argue on a source what does that give you?

Zero, biologically and anthropologist agree we are natural herbivores, are you claiming they are wrong, this the hunter who claims to know when an animal is mortally wounded with no medical knowledge?

Can you argue against this, or are you going to go off the back we only adapted meat which as seen causes us more problems than without.

Maybe Victor will tell us as a hunter how with are bare hands how we tear open flesh without tools?

I love a man with a grudge, they do not argue sense but bollocks, becuase they are angry

didge..if you post bullshit citations to back your argument ...your argument is dust...simples....

I mean...how long back do you want to take this evolutionary thing....

2 million years ago?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250603/Reduction-in-tooth-size

well....At first glance early hominin skulls appear to be more like those of apes than humans. Whereas humans have small jaws and a large braincase, great apes have a small braincase and large jaws. In addition, the canine teeth of apes are large and pointed and project beyond the other teeth, whereas those of humans are relatively small and nonprojecting. Indeed, human canines are unique in being incisorlike, and the front lower premolar tooth is bicuspid. In apes and in many monkeys, however, the lower premolar is unicuspid and hones the upper canine tooth to razor sharpness.

so our early ancestors indeed had big, effective cannines and COULD tear meat and hide...

what of the evolutionary group the apes evolved from?? what was THEIR teeth like....

and more over IF OVER TIME we have "adapted" to being omnivores THEN WE BLOODY WELL ARE OMNIVORES.

christ on a bike you would argue black is white or another shade of grey.

our teeth are NOT vegetarian (wholey) or carnivorous (wholey)..
our gut likewise...PHYSICALLY our gut is carnivore...we lack the structures to be soley herbivorous. Now, we did have some of those traits...but we Adapted...so ARE NO LONGER herbivorous. Our phisiology however is not fully adapted to be SOLEY carnivorous, so too much meat (which in the west we are guilty of) is not good either....

we have BECOME omnivorous....therefor we ARE omnivorous...regardless of what our past may or may not have been.....

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

This really made me laugh our ancestors had canines to teat flesh even though they did not do so, because Gorillas do not do so, showing how ignorant Victor is, seriously have to laugh at his ignorance, and they eat 95% vegetables, they use their teeth for offensive displays and attack and not to eat meat

Sorry did he say our gut was carnivore?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Really so wy do we suffer food poisoning?

All we did was adapt meat from dead animals, not hunting, we then learnt how to hunt, but it only came about because food was scarce, all biologist and anthropologists agree, why do you argue bollocks with no evidence?

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:35 pm

Behaviorial Patterns of the Earliest Hominids

One of the most important and intriguing questions in human evolution is about the diet of our earliest ancestors.

The presence of primitive stone tools in the fossil record tells us that 2.5 million years ago, early hominids (A. garhi) were using stone implements to cut the flesh off the bones of large animals that they had either hunted or whose carcasses they had scavenged.

Earlier than 2.5 million years ago, however, we know very little about the foods that the early hominids ate, and the role that meat played in their diet. This is due to lack of direct evidence.

Nevertheless, paleoanthropologists and archaeologists have tried to answer these questions indirectly using a number of techniques.

Primatology (studies on chimpanzee behavior)
Anatomical Features (tooth morphology and wear-patterns)
Isotopic Studies

What does chimpanzee hunting behavior suggest about early hominid behavior?

Earliest ancestors and chimpanzees share a common ancestor (around 5-7 million years ago). Therefore, understanding chimpanzee hunting behavior and ecology may tell us a great deal about the behavior and ecology of those earliest hominids.

In the early 1960s, when Jane Goodall began her research on chimpanzees in Gombe National Park (Tanzania), it was thought that chimpanzees were herbivores. In fact, when Goodall first reported meat hunting by chimpanzees, many people were extremely sceptical.

Today, hunting by chimpanzees at Gombe and other locations in Africa has been well documented. We now know that each year chimpanzees may kill and eat more than 150 small and medium-sized animals, such as monkeys (red colobus monkey, their favorite prey), but also wild pigs and small antelopes.

Did early hominids hunt and eat small and medium-sized animals? It is quite possible that they did. We know that colobus-like monkeys inhabited the woodlands and riverside gallery forest in which early hominids lived 3-5 Myrs ago. There were also small animals and the young of larger animals to catch opportunistically on the ground. Many researchers now believe that the carcasses of dead animals were an important source of meat for early hominids once they had stone tools to use (after 2.5 million years ago) for removing the flesh from the carcass. Wild chimpanzees show little interest in dead animals as a food source, so scavenging may have evolved as an important mode of getting food when hominids began to make and use tools for getting at meat. Before this time, it seems likely that earlier hominids were hunting small mammals as chimpanzees do today and that the role that hunting played in the early hominids' social lives was probably as complex and political as it is in the social lives of chimpanzees.

When we ask when meat became an important part of the human diet, we therefore must look well before the evolutionary split between apes and humans in our own family tree.
What do tooth wear patterns suggest about early hominid behavior?

Bones and teeth in the living person are very plastic and respond to mechanical stimuli over the course of an individual's lifetime. We know, for example, that food consistency (hard vs. soft) has a strong impact on the masticatory (chewing) system (muscles and teeth). Bones and teeth in the living person are therefore tissues that are remarkably sensitive to the environment. As such, human remains from archaeological sites offer us a retrospective biological picture of the past that is rarely available from other lines of evidence. Also, new technological advances developed in the past ten years or so now make it possible to reconstruct and interpret in amazing detail the physical activities and adaptations of hominids in diverse environmental settings.

Some types of foods are more difficult to process than others, and primates tend to specialize in different kinds of diets. Most living primates show three basic dietary adaptations:

insectivores (insect eaters);
frugivores (fruit eaters);
folivores (leaf eaters).

Many primates, such as humans, show a combination of these patterns and are called omnivores, which in a few primates includes eating meat.

The ingestion both of leaves and of insects requires that the leaves and the insect skeletons be broken up and chopped into small pieces. The molars of folivores and insectivores are characterized by the development of shearing crests on the molars that function to cut food into small pieces. Insectivores' molars are further characterized by high, pointed cusps that are capable of puncturing the outside skeleton of insects. Frugivores, on the other hand, have molar teeth with low, rounded cusps; their molars have few crests and are characterized by broad, flat basins for crushing the food.

In the 1950s, John Robinson developed what came to be known as the dietary hypothesis. According to this theory there were fundamentally two kinds of hominids in the Plio-Pleistocene. One was the "robust" australopithecine (called Paranthropus) that was specialized for herbivory, and the other was the "gracile" australopithecine that was an omnivore/carnivore. By this theory the former became extinct while the latter evolved into Homo.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Introduction_to_Paleoanthropology/Hominids_Early_Behavior

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:37 pm

Love it early humanoids, great sassy, but naturally w are still Herbivores, we adapted meat to our diet spam queen

You need to disproves that point, let me know when you can

Thanks

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:40 pm

Spam, you cheeky bastard after all those huge C&Ps above and asking for evidence. You are as mad and stupid as they come. Victor, don't bother, you could show the idiot evidence from the highest authority and he'd still stick his fingers in his ears and go la la la la.

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 9:43 pm

Sassy wrote:Spam, you cheeky bastard after all those huge C&Ps above and asking for evidence. You are as mad and stupid as they come. Victor, don't bother, you could show the idiot evidence from the highest authority and he'd still stick his fingers in his ears and go la la la la.

I am able to prove your spamming mounts for little we are natural herbivores who have adapted meat to our diet , so much so it has created so many medically problems.

Victor has not proved me wrong except on choice of halal, he knows it and you are in no position to talk with how you reacted last night to his views

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 11:09 pm

Didge wrote:Lets see if Victor can discount this:

[ltr]When you see dead animals on the side of the road, are you tempted to stop and snack on them? Does the sight of a dead bird make you salivate? Do you daydream about killing cows with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered “no” to these questions, congratulations—like it or not, you’re an herbivore.[/ltr]

When you see a field of corn, are you tempted to stop and snack on it? Does the sight of a potato make you salivate? Do you daydream about ravishing a field of turnips with your bare hands and eating them raw? If you answered “no” to these questions, congratulations—like it or not, you’re an carnivore.

[ltr]According to biologists and anthropologists who study our anatomy and our evolutionary history, humans are herbivores who are not well suited to eating meat. Humans lack both the physical characteristics of carnivores and the instinct that drives them to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses.[/ltr]

which biologists...which anthropologists....this is "weasle words" irrelevant padding

[ltr]Human Physiology[/ltr]

[ltr]Although many humans choose to eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods, earning us the dubious title of “omnivore,” we are anatomically herbivorous.[/ltr]

erm...no...we are an adapted "hybrid" part herbi part carni....I.e we are OMNIVORE

[ltr]Teeth, Jaws, and Nails[/ltr]

[ltr]Humans have short, soft fingernails and pathetically small “canine” teeth. In contrast, carnivores all have sharp claws and large canine teeth capable of tearing flesh.[/ltr]

Due to adaption....NOT because "we are NOT" ..we are not "hairy all over" to a significant degree...

[ltr]Carnivores’ jaws move only up and down, requiring them to tear chunks of flesh from their prey and swallow them whole. Humans and other herbivores can move their jaws up and down and from side to side, allowing them to grind up fruit and vegetables with their back teeth. Like other herbivores’ teeth, human back molars are flat for grinding fibrous plant foods. Carnivores lack these flat molars.[/ltr]

and MOST herbivores lack canines...and those that do have them they are either "vestigial" (horses) or adapted for defence....(hippos)
Human "side to side" motion can be done but is inefficient our bite is best up and down...

[ltr]Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist, summarizes, “You can’t tear flesh by hand, you can’t tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don’t have large canine teeth, and we wouldn’t have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines.”[/ltr]

except...a long long time ago...2 million years plus...we had BIG canines..and then we learned about ....tools.....we adapted...omg what part of adapted into omnivores dont you get???

[ltr]Stomach Acidity[/ltr]

[ltr]Carnivores swallow their food whole, relying on their extremely acidic stomach juices to break down flesh and kill the dangerous bacteria in meat that would otherwise sicken or kill them. Our stomach acids are much weaker in comparison because strong acids aren’t needed to digest pre-chewed fruits and vegetables.[/ltr]

and are much stronger than obligate herbivores

[ltr]Intestinal Length[/ltr]

[ltr]Carnivores have short intestinal tracts and colons that allow meat to pass through the animal relatively quickly, before it can rot and cause illness. Humans’ intestinal tracts are much longer than those of carnivores of comparable size. Longer intestines allow the body more time to break down fiber and absorb the nutrients from plant-based foods, but they make it dangerous for humans to eat meat. The bacteria in meat have extra time to multiply during the long trip through the digestive system, increasing the risk of food poisoning. Meat actually begins to rot while it makes its way through human intestines, which increases the risk of colon cancer.[/ltr]

thats rubbish...AND i CAN prove it.....
also our gut LACKS some of the features required for an obligate herbivore....remember the appendix??? the rabbit NEEDS its caecum....which is what the appendix used to be...somewhere back in our development

[ltr]Read author John Robbins’ discussion of the anatomical differences between humans and carnivores or review Dr. Milton Mills’ entire article on the topic to learn more.[/ltr]

[ltr]Human Psychology[/ltr]

[ltr]Humans also lack the instinct that drives carnivores to kill animals and devour their raw carcasses. While carnivores take pleasure more emotive unfounded and never proven rubbish from a poor and unreliable source in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and ate the raw corpse would be considered deranged.So all those primitive tribes in amazonia and elsewhere are deranged are they??? Carnivorous animals are excited by the scent of blood much the same as we are excited by the smell of FOOD??and the thrill of the chase. Most humans, on the other hand, are revolted by the sight of blood, intestines and raw flesh, and cannot tolerate hearing the screams of animals being ripped apart and killed.More emotive rubbish, perhaps applicable in the MODERN world which is differently educated, but definitely NOT applicable to other peoples.. The bloody reality of eating animals is innately repulsive to us, another indication that we were not designed to eat meat.[/ltr]

all in all false psychology based on nothing...

[ltr]If We Were Meant to Eat Meat, Why Is It Killing Us?[/ltr]

[ltr]Carnivorous animals in the wild virtually never suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, strokes, or obesity, ailments that are caused in humans in large part by the consumption of the saturated fat and cholesterol in meat.[/ltr]

]color=#ff0000]wrong again and bad science....Most of those ailments are caused by eating EXCESS meat..COMBINED with lack of excercise and activity....and PETA cites its OWN work ...BAD BAD BAD....

animals DO suffer from heart disease...strokes AND moreover diabetes is quite common in some species....

BTW...latest research suggest that cholesterol problems are NOT due to unsaturated fats per se...ALL fats...including plant oils can be a cause...basically ...its nor WHAT you eat...its how much AND what your body does with it...[/color]

[ltr]Fat and Cholesterol[/ltr]

[ltr]Studies have shown that even when fed 200 times the amount of animal fat and cholesterol that the average human consumes each day, carnivores do not develop the hardening of the arteries that leads to heart disease and strokes in humans.thats nonsense...I had a pet meerkat...which died of a stroke..proven at post mortem...and yes didge...conducted by our vet. Researchers have actually found that it is impossible for carnivores to develop hardening of the arteries, no matter how much animal fat they consume.[/ltr]

no resaerch quoted...wheres the citation....more unfounded waffle from PETA

[ltr]Human bodies, on the other hand, were not designed to process animal flesh, so all the excess fat and cholesterol from a meat-based diet makes us sick. Heart disease, for example, is the number one killer in America according to the American Heart Association, and medical experts agree that this ailment is largely the result of the consumption of animal products. Meat-eaters have a 50 percent higher risk of developing heart disease than vegetarians![/ltr]

again rubbish...or at best twisting facts to suit...consuming EXCESS meat products..combined with lack of exercise is the killer....

[ltr]Excess Protein[/ltr]

[ltr]We consume twice as much protein as we need when we eat a meat-based diet, depending SOLEY upon HOW MUCH we eat...western diets with TOO MUCH meat can be a problem, but that does NOT mean we are NOT meat eaters and this contributes not causes to osteoporosis and kidney stones. Animal protein raises the acid level in our blood, causing calcium to be excreted from the bones ONLY i your diet is ASLO deficient in calcium.. to restore the blood’s natural pH balance. This calcium depletion leads to osteoporosis, and the excreted calcium ends up in the kidneys, where it can form kidney stones or even trigger kidney disease.[/ltr]

[ltr]Consuming(excess) animal protein has also been linked to cancer of the colon, breast, prostate, and pancreas. According to Dr. T. Colin Campbell, the director of the Cornell-China-Oxford Project on Nutrition, Health, and the Environment,another veggie organisation, with "vested interests" “In the next ten years, one of the things you’re bound to hear is that animal protein … is one of the most toxic nutrients of all that can be considered.”[/ltr]

The China–Cornell–Oxford Project was a large observational study conducted throughout the 1980s in rural China

hmm well somewhat MORE tan 10 years have passed and we still havnt heard " animal protein … is one of the most toxic nutrients of all that can be considered."

[ltr]Eating meat can also have negative consequences for stamina and sexual potency. One Danish study indicated that “Men peddling on a stationary bicycle until muscle failure lasted an average of 114 minutes on a mixed meat and vegetable diet, 57 minutes on a high-meat diet, and a whopping 167 minutes on a strict vegetarian diet.”⁹ Besides having increased physical endurance, vegan men are also less likely to suffer from impotence.[/ltr]

One danish study...which study when who by...another no citation sound bite....waffle

[ltr]Food Poisoning[/ltr]

[ltr]Since we don’t have strong stomach acids like carnivores to kill all the bacteria in meat, dining on animal flesh can also give us food poisoning. According to the USDA, meat is the cause of 70 percent of foodborne illnesses in the United States because it’s often contaminated with dangerous bacteria like E. coli, listeria, and campylobacter. Every year in the United States alone, food poisoning sickens over 75 million people and kills more than 5,000.[/ltr]

even carnivores can get food poisoning...they are not miraculously immune....and the point is "contaminated" as opposed to "properly prepared"...If your blackberries were contaminated with sewerage or animal faeces do you really think you would not get ill??? and "OFF plant food can be just as dangerous as meat...for instance nuts and grain can be "off" with a mould..aspergillus...which produces a toxin.... aflatoxin

Aflatoxins are naturally occurring mycotoxins that are produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, species of fungi. The name was created around 1960 after the discovery that the source of turkey X disease was Aspergillus flavus toxins.[1] Aflatoxins are toxic and among the most carcinogenic substances known.[2]

"Aflatoxin-producing members of Aspergillus are common and widespread in nature. They can colonize and contaminate grain before harvest or during storage. Host crops, which include maize, sorghum and groundnuts, are particularly susceptible to infection by Aspergillus following prolonged exposure to a high-humidity environment, or damage from stressful conditions such as drought, a condition that lowers the barrier to entry. In 2003, 120 people died in Kenya after eating maize with very high aflatoxin levels.[6]

The native habitat of Aspergillus is in soil, decaying vegetation, hay, and grains undergoing microbiological deterioration, and it invades all types of organic substrates whenever conditions are favorable for its growth. Favorable conditions include high moisture content (at least 7%) and high temperature. The Aflacontrol project, conducted by IFPRI with scientists from CIMMYT, the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) and other organisations, sought to provide evidence of the cost-effectiveness of aflatoxin risk-reduction strategies along maize and groundnut value chains in Africa, and to understand what prevented adoption of these control strategies. The project found that, in both Kenya and Mali, maize drying and storage practices were inadequate in minimising exposure to aflatoxins.[7]

The toxin can also be found in the milk of animals that are fed contaminated feed.

International sources of commercial peanut butter, cooking oils (e.g. olive, peanut and sesame oil), and cosmetics have been identified as contaminated with aflatoxin.[8][9][10] In some instances, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS), and other analytical methods, revealed anywhere from 48–80% of selected product samples as containing detectable quantities of aflatoxin. In many of these contaminated food products, the aflatoxin exceeded U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or other regulatory agency, safe limits.[9][10][11][12]

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has established action levels for aflatoxin present in food or feed to protect human and animal health which range between 20 and 300 ppb.[13"

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aflatoxin

[ltr]Dr. William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of the authoritative American Journal of Cardiology, sums it up this way: “[A]lthough we think we are one and we act as if we are one, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.” Learn more about how meat damages human health.[/ltr]

[ltr]Human Evolution and the Rise of Meat-Heavy Diets[/ltr]

[ltr]If it’s so unhealthy and unnatural for humans to eat meat, why did our ancestors sometimes turn to flesh for sustenance?[/ltr]

[ltr]During most of our evolutionary history, we were largely vegetarian. Plant foods like potatoes made up the bulk of our ancestors’ diet. The more frequent addition of modest amounts of meat to the early human diet came with the discovery of fire, which allowed us to lower the risk of being sickened or killed by parasites in meat. This practice did not turn our ancestors into carnivores but rather allowed early humans to survive in periods when plant foods were unavailable.[/ltr]

rubbish...if plant food were NOT available...prey animals (herbivores) would not be available.......since there would be nothing for THEM to eat...

[ltr]Modern Humans[/ltr]

[ltr]Until recently, only the wealthiest people could afford to feed, raise, and slaughter animals for meat; less wealthy and poor people ate mostly plant foods. Consequently, prior to the 20th century, only the rich routinely were plagued with diseases like heart disease and obesity.[/ltr]

note again...ate MOSTLY...but NOT exclusively plant food...only the rich ate EXCESS meat. that proves nothing ...except what we ALL know..that too much of anything will do you no good...

[ltr]Since 1950, the per capita consumption of meat has almost doubled. Now that animal flesh has become relatively cheap and easily available (thanks to the cruel, cost-cutting practices of factory farming and there you have it...THE WHOLE reason for this tripe...PETA's "pet" agenda....), deadly ailments like heart disease, strokes, cancer, and obesity have spread to people across the socio-economic spectrum. And as the Western lifestyle spills over into less developed areas in Asia and Africa, people there, too, have started to suffer and die from the diseases associated with meat-based diets.[/ltr]

Read more: http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/#ixzz30gXfpIoH

You really must try harder with your sources didge...thats two discredited sources in one thread.... ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Sat May 03, 2014 11:14 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

didge..if you post bullshit citations to back your argument ...your argument is dust...simples....

I mean...how long back do you want to take this evolutionary thing....

2 million years ago?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275670/human-evolution/250603/Reduction-in-tooth-size

well....At first glance early hominin skulls appear to be more like those of apes than humans. Whereas humans have small jaws and a large braincase, great apes have a small braincase and large jaws. In addition, the canine teeth of apes are large and pointed and project beyond the other teeth, whereas those of humans are relatively small and nonprojecting. Indeed, human canines are unique in being incisorlike, and the front lower premolar tooth is bicuspid. In apes and in many monkeys, however, the lower premolar is unicuspid and hones the upper canine tooth to razor sharpness.

so our early ancestors indeed had big, effective cannines and COULD tear meat and hide...

what of the evolutionary group the apes evolved from?? what was THEIR teeth like....

and more over IF OVER TIME we have "adapted" to being omnivores THEN WE BLOODY WELL ARE OMNIVORES.

christ on a bike you would argue black is white or another shade of grey.

our teeth are NOT vegetarian (wholey) or carnivorous (wholey)..
our gut likewise...PHYSICALLY our gut is carnivore...we lack the structures to be soley herbivorous. Now, we did have some of those traits...but we Adapted...so ARE NO LONGER herbivorous. Our phisiology however is not fully adapted to be SOLEY carnivorous, so too much meat (which in the west we are guilty of) is not good either....

we have BECOME omnivorous....therefor we ARE omnivorous...regardless of what our past may or may not have been.....

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

This really made me laugh our ancestors had canines to teat flesh even though they did not do so, because Gorillas do not do so,(so gorillas dont...and that proves what???) showing how ignorant Victor is, seriously have to laugh at his ignorance, and they eat 95% vegetables( and thus presumably eat 5% meat...making them what??), they use their teeth for offensive displays and attack and not to eat meat

Sorry did he say our gut was carnivore?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Really so wy do we suffer food poisoning?

and animals dont?? I have dogs that would tell you otherwise...being the disgusting creatures they are

All we did was adapt meat from dead animals, not hunting, we then learnt how to hunt, but it only came about because food was scarce, all biologist and anthropologists agree, why do you argue bollocks with no evidence?

But thats the point...2 million years ago we CHANGED...we adapted....and our bodies adapted too...our GUT is NOT soley herbivorous (and its not SOLEY carnivorous either) ..bit of a bodge job really.....but the point remains we are NOT strictly herbivores...or strictly carnivores...we are (badly put together) OMNIVORES....
what we are NOT adapted to is the western habit of eating half a cow at a sitting

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 1:22 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

This really made me laugh our ancestors had canines to teat flesh even though they did not do so, because Gorillas do not do so,(so gorillas dont...and that proves what???) showing how ignorant Victor is, seriously have to laugh at his ignorance, and they eat 95% vegetables( and thus presumably eat 5% meat...making them what??), they use their teeth for offensive displays and attack and not to eat meat

Sorry did he say our gut was carnivore?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Really so wy do we suffer food poisoning?

and animals dont?? I have dogs that would tell you otherwise...being the disgusting creatures they are

All we did was adapt meat from dead animals, not hunting, we then learnt how to hunt, but it only came about because food was scarce, all biologist and anthropologists agree, why do you argue bollocks with no evidence?

But thats the point...2 million years ago we CHANGED...we adapted....and our bodies adapted too...our GUT is NOT soley herbivorous (and its not SOLEY carnivorous either) ..bit of a bodge job really.....but the point remains we are NOT strictly herbivores...or strictly carnivores...we are (badly put together) OMNIVORES....
what we are NOT adapted to is the western habit of eating half a cow at a sitting

And?
Does that stilll mean our bodies are not sill adapted to being natural herbivores?

No

You still do not get it do you Victor, we adapted are diet, that is it.

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 1:52 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

But thats the point...2 million years ago we CHANGED...we adapted....and our bodies adapted too...our GUT is NOT soley herbivorous (and its not SOLEY carnivorous either) ..bit of a bodge job really.....but the point remains we are NOT strictly herbivores...or strictly carnivores...we are (badly put together) OMNIVORES....
what we are NOT adapted to is the western habit of eating half a cow at a sitting

And?
Does that stilll mean our bodies are not sill adapted to being natural herbivores?

No

YES

Lets look at this .....what do "herbivores" eat....
Every herbivore eats "low grade vegetation" almost exclusively...grasses (not by intent grains) leaves etc...some fruit which is not the same fruit we eat usually it is again low grade in terms of nutritional value and highly indigestible to us...
could we eat grass ...and survive on it...
even you, the closest representative to monkeys in the human sphere we have, could not eat their diet and survive let alone thrive...

Now...a Vegetarian diet, to be one which you could thrive on, i.e nutritionally complete is (not withstanding your mad claim to have lived for one year SOLEY on a diet of pasta and suffered nothing more than "a few dificiencies) complex and WHOLEY artificial... You need a wide variety of plant sources from different countries...nuts, grains and pulses along with different fruits etc...and MOST of those plants have been BRED by us to be what they are....most importantly these plant sources are HIGH GRADE foods...which generally ARE easily digested....

why this disparity, after all, if we were truely "herbivorous" we could indeed eat grass or leaves ....

the answer is of course yes...we adapted our diet..for whatever reason....BUT OUR BODIES ADAPTED IN TURN to this novel diet...so we are no longer competent herbivores, we are..as I said, badly put together omnivores...we can eat virtually any "reasonable" source of food i.e stuff not actually poisonous to us. the problems arise because we are not FULLY adapted to being carnivores and being greedy over eat on a food source that in terms of some nutrients is 10 times as potent as ANY plant food...(and of course we have become lazy and dont excercise enough either.)

You still do not get it do you Victor, we adapted are diet, that is it.

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 2:00 am

Still answering with the abilities of an idiot IO see.

Now arguing over change, thanks for that, but we are natural herbivores who have adapted to being omnivores.
Your argument is utterly idiotic Victor, it does not look at what we are but what we can adapt to doing.

You also stupidly think the benefits of meat out weight the bad, they do not and then make daft claims on being vegetarian, when we look at the world and see the longest living have a mainly vegetarian diet, not meat, making your view point even more absurd

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 2:00 am

Simple question for Victor, are we naturally herbivores or meat eaters?

Take your time

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 2:05 am

Didge wrote:Still answering with the abilities of an idiot IO see.

Now arguing over change, thanks for that, but we are natural herbivores who have adapted to being omnivores.
2 million years or so ago....dont you think that that means that we are now omnivores per se.....I mean...after 2 million years.....

Your argument is utterly idiotic Victor, it does not look at what we are but what we can adapt to doing.

No it looks at what we were..and what we have become

You also stupidly think the benefits of meat out weight the bad, they do not and then make daft claims on being vegetarian, when we look at the world and see the longest living have a mainly vegetarian diet, not meat, making your view point even more absurd

so you recon you can eat grass or monkey food leaves??

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 2:09 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:Still answering with the abilities of an idiot IO see.

Now arguing over change, thanks for that, but we are natural herbivores who have adapted to being omnivores.
2 million years or so ago....dont you think that that means that we are now omnivores per se.....I mean...after 2 million years.....

Your argument is utterly idiotic Victor, it does not look at what we are but what we can adapt to doing.

No it looks at what we were..and what we have become

You also stupidly think the benefits of meat out weight the bad, they do not and then make daft claims on being vegetarian, when we look at the world and see the longest living have a mainly vegetarian diet, not meat, making your view point even more absurd

so you recon you can eat grass or monkey food leaves??

Yes we adapted when food was short but naturally we are herbivores and our bodies are structured that way, you need to refute that and you cannot.
Asking me about things I cannot eat is rather stupid as can I eat apples?
Yes
Potatoes?
Yes
Does meat add the risk of high cholesterol and heart disease?

Take your time

by Guest Sun May 04, 2014 2:39 am

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

so you recon you can eat grass or monkey food leaves??

Yes we adapted when food was short but naturally we are herbivores and our bodies are structured that way, you need to refute that and you cannot.
Asking me about things I cannot eat is rather stupid as can I eat apples?

yes BUT realistically ONLY the ones WE have adapted...naturally occuring apples are immensely unpalatable and highly indigestible
Yes
Potatoes?
Yes
Again only "tame" varieties the "wild" equivalent is toxic
Does meat add the risk of high cholesterol and heart disease?

uhm...according to the latest from my doctor the jury's is...at present ......"out" on this one, due to some recent research which shows that even plant oils in excess can do the same...and that animal fats in "proper amounts may be no more harmful than plant fats" I'll keep you posted when I get my sticky paws on that, because I have a particular interest in that research....Lets leave that one with a question mark at the side of it for now...

Take your time

by Sponsored content