Humans as Carnivores ?

[realfood]

Sure we can tolerate eating flesh, blood vessels, arterial plaque, fat and even hair just as we can tolerate smoking tobacco and using heroin. That is not a rational argument in favor of ingesting these substances or that we were fitted for them by nature. An alcoholic feels better after a few drinks. Does that imply that he needed the alcohol? Come on...the thing about truth is that it stands on its' own authority and requires no references than a moments' reflection.

[Fear Itself]

Presumably, this column:

Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature?

Cecil never made the argument that humans are carnivores because they 'tolerate' meat.

And your comparison of meat eating to consuming tobacco and heroin is false also, because the deleterious effects of tobacco and heroin have been well documented for decades, if not longer. Your claims for meat-caused disease are tenuous at best, and based on specious anecdotes. You are going to have to do better than that to make the case that we are not the evolved result of selection to eat meat.

[Chronos]

We do not tolerate an omnivorous diet; that's what's normal for us. We can tolerate a vegetarian or (with modern science) even a vegan one, but it's not natural.

[74westy]

Originally Posted by realfood

Come on...the thing about truth is that it stands on its' own authority and requires no references than a moments' reflection.

Reflecting for a moment without reference to the world outside our heads is guaranteed to reinforce our existing prejudices and gets us nowhere near the truth as your post proves.

[Ulfreida]

what about those pesky eskimos?

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by Ulfreida

what about those pesky eskimos?

Is eating veggies troublesome for eskimo people (I'm not sure of the preferred term)?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by mangeorge

Is eating veggies troublesome for eskimo people (I'm not sure of the preferred term)?

Aside from the iceberg lettuce, I don't think they had much in the way of vegetable food sources.

[kurtisokc]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Aside from the iceberg lettuce, I don't think they had much in the way of vegetable food sources.

Well, according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet the traditional inuit diet is indeed pretty heavy on animal sources, though apparently they do have some access to vegatable sources.

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by kurtisokc

Well, according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_diet the traditional inuit diet is indeed pretty heavy on animal sources, though apparently they do have some access to vegatable sources.

I wasn't talking about availability, I'm wondering if their gut is (or was) capable of handling vegetable matter without some problems.
BTW, I was raised in iceberg lettuce land and I promise you the plant wouldn't fare well in the far north.

[kurtisokc]

Originally Posted by Chronos

We do not tolerate an omnivorous diet; that's what's normal for us. We can tolerate a vegetarian or (with modern science) even a vegan one, but it's not natural.

I'm certainly not vegetarian myself, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a vegetarian diet is "unnatural." In a "state of nature," human beings will consume whatever food sources are available and while that usually includes some meat, it doesn't necessarily.

A truly carnivorous diet would be unnatural for human beings since we require several nutrients which are generally only availalbe in sufficient quanties from plant sources. The inuit may be something of an exception, but even they aren't 100% carnivoures.

[kurtisokc]

Originally Posted by mangeorge

I wasn't talking about availability, I'm wondering if their gut is (or was) capable of handling vegetable matter without some problems.
BTW, I was raised in iceberg lettuce land and I promise you the plant wouldn't fare well in the far north.

AFAIK the inuit's digestive tract isn't really any different than other people's. If their traditional diet is low on vegatable sources, presumbly it would be primaiy due to lack of availabiliy. BTW, the sources I've read seem to indicate that as traditional subsistence hunting and gathering is in decline, their diet is becoming more like that of non-natives.

[kurtisokc]

Originally Posted by mangeorge

Is eating veggies troublesome for eskimo people (I'm not sure of the preferred term)?

In Canada, "eskimo" is considered at least somewhat degrogatory: The preferred term is "inuit." In Alaska, the term "eskimo" is considered more acceptable, in part because there it encompasses some groups which aren't technically "inuit."

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Chronos

We do not tolerate an omnivorous diet; that's what's normal for us. We can tolerate a vegetarian or (with modern science) even a vegan one, but it's not natural.

Not sure I got that one, what need has a Vegan for modern science and how is it not natural?

[Chronos]

Actually, you can get all the nutrients you need from raw meat, which is hardly surprising, given that animals are made of all the same stuff as we are. The problem is that some of those nutrients are destroyed by cooking.

And even if the various northern natives don't have an evolved adaptation towards meat or away from vegetables, they may well have individually-acclimated adaptations. Humans (or other animals) who suddenly make a significant change to their diet often have some digestive troubles for a while. At a guess, I'd expect someone who ate mostly meat for their whole life but who suddenly started eating significant amounts of vegetables would end up with a bad case of gas.

[Chronos]

Not sure I got that one, what need has a Vegan for modern science and how is it not natural?

It's almost impossible to get enough B12 from plant sources, without supplements. A little bit of eggs or dairy will do the trick, though.

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Chronos

It's almost impossible to get enough B12 from plant sources, without supplements. A little bit of eggs or dairy will do the trick, though.

is b12 your best reason for it being unnatural?

[Michael63129]

Here is an interesting column from Cecil on the Inuit and their diet; even without vegetables, they avoided vitamin deficiencies because vitamins, including Vitamin C, are present in many of the (often raw, and including organs like brains) meats they eat (or used to, as they eat a more Western diet nowadays; it is also interesting that they now suffer from Western aliments like heart disease as a result, one reason being that Western diets have too much omega-6 and not enough omega-3).

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Actually, you can get all the nutrients you need from raw meat, which is hardly surprising, given that animals are made of all the same stuff as we are. The problem is that some of those nutrients are destroyed by cooking.

And even if the various northern natives don't have an evolved adaptation towards meat or away from vegetables, they may well have individually-acclimated adaptations. Humans (or other animals) who suddenly make a significant change to their diet often have some digestive troubles for a while. At a guess, I'd expect someone who ate mostly meat for their whole life but who suddenly started eating significant amounts of vegetables would end up with a bad case of gas.

I was vegetarian for a few years, and gas was a pretty serious problem for a while. Not only socially, but often it was kinda painful. Beano helped, but I eventually got over it.
Most of us took B12, but I never did find out why except that our diet lacked it.
I eventually went back to meats after she went back to Canada.

[Michael63129]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

is b12 your best reason for it being unnatural?

Well, that just shows that humans NEED to eat meat (or animal products like milk and eggs) to get all of their nutrients; herbivores don't need to eat meat because they can produce their own B12 (they absorb it from bacteria in their intestines, while humans can't, at least not enough to avoid deficiency).

Sure, one can eat any of the countless artificially enriched foods out there today, but in the natural state humans wouldn't eat any of that stuff (never mind that too often this kind of food has too much sodium, sugar and artificial trans fats added).

[SnakeBabe]

I have read in New England journal of medicine Vitamin B-12 has been found in significant amounts in many plant foods, some of which are bananas, dates, greens, peanuts, and particularly sprouts and raw sunflower seeds. I have also read that meat eater has more reported cases of B12 deficiency than Vegans
B 12 has been found in water and even in the dirt on my veggies. I read that the problem isn't that i cant get cruelty free b12 but that in our steril environment that is often cleaned away. Is this not true?

[SnakeBabe]

This B12 discussion has moved a bit off the topic, sorry. So, getting back on track and to respond to the topic
Having read this article
I feel fairly convinced we are herbivores.

[Ulfreida]

Originally Posted by kurtisokc

In Canada, "eskimo" is considered at least somewhat degrogatory: The preferred term is "inuit." In Alaska, the term "eskimo" is considered more acceptable, in part because there it encompasses some groups which aren't technically "inuit."

I know, I just couldn't resist the alliteration. I was tempted, I fell. Mea culpa.

If iceberg lettuce counts as a vegetable, I think baked alaska should count too.

[al27052]

There are vegan villages in China that have been Buddhist and vegan for centuries.

Plenty of Eskimo/Inuit groups eat (and have eaten for millenia) basically nothing but fish, meat, and other flesh foods.

The real issues with veganism are B-12 and certain fatty acids. B-12 can be gotten from brewer's yeast. The fatty acids are a little harder to come by, although, after a couple of millenia of eating very, VERY little meat, the Chinese, in the strict Buddhist villages, appear to have been able to convert to total veganism.

Vegetarianism that uses milk/dairy and/or eggs is not a problem. There are plenty of fatty acids in those foods. Veganism is where it starts to get dicey.

I personally know a number of vegans who appear to have neurological problems after many years of strict veganism. Some merely experience the tingling/numbness in fingers/toes that is caused by B-12 deficiency. Others seem to have panic and anxiety problems that could either be B-12 deficiency or fatty acid deficiency.

So the smart money, as usual, is on the middle path. Extremes, as we know from life experience, are rarely safe.

[John W. Kennedy]

Originally Posted by kurtisokc

In Canada, "eskimo" is considered at least somewhat degrogatory:

Yes, but wrongly so, based on an urban myth.

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by al27052

...
I personally know a number of vegans who appear to have neurological problems after many years of strict veganism. Some merely experience the tingling/numbness in fingers/toes that is caused by B-12 deficiency. Others seem to have panic and anxiety problems that could either be B-12 deficiency or fatty acid deficiency......

interesting. I belong to several vegan groups with thousands and thousands of members that have no dietary health issues. My doctor (a carnist) has told my hubby and I that due to our vegan diet our chances of heart disease, diabetes, obesity, high-blood pressure, gout, stroke and cancer (and more) are greatly lower than one who consumes dead animals. So, if your correct, rather than take part in animal cruelty and add to the torment and pain inflicted on innocent animals ill just stay off the middle road and take a b12 vitamin and eat veggies.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

This B12 discussion has moved a bit off the topic, sorry. So, getting back on track and to respond to the topic
Having read this article
I feel fairly convinced we are herbivores.

There are many falsehoods and stupidities in that article, but a running theme is that the author ignores the role of the human brain and our tool-making ability when it comes to our diet. Humans don't need sharp teeth because we can cut our meat. We don't need heavy-duty stomach acid because we can cook food to sanitize it (and in some cases release nutrients). We don't need big claws because we use weapons to take down our prey. We don't need to sleep all the time because our efficient hunting techniques allow us to gather as much food as we need (most animals spend a very high percentage of their waking hours gathering food--herbivores grazing and carnivores hunting--humans are unusual in this respect).

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

There are many falsehoods and stupidities in that article, ....

If there are many I must be missing them so I re-read it and I am still in agreement. Can you copy/paste a few of these stupidities for me? I'd like to contact the writer and let him know of his stupidity and correct my false belief.

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

....a running theme is that the author ignores the role of the human brain and our tool-making ability when it comes to our diet......

I agree with you. I wish the writer had commented on that too. I have a viewpoint on it but would have appreciate to hear his (hers?)

[Chronos]

OK, so if humans are naturally herbivores, why do we have cuspids? Why is our digestive tract so short? Why does meat taste good to most of us? Those are all traits that would be hard to explain in a herbivore.

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Chronos

OK, so if humans are naturally herbivores, why do we have cuspids?....

Herbivorous animals have these small teeth. And really, try using the small little ones you have to rip thru the skin of a cow and see how far you get

Originally Posted by Chronos

....Why does meat taste good to most of us? .....

Try eating it like a true carnivore. Do not cook it, no seasoning or picking the parts of the animal you want to eat. A true carnivore eats the eyes, hair, intestines, anus- Everything. Try eating road kill fresh off the pavement. A true carnivore does and can digest it without harm.

Originally Posted by Chronos

.... Those are all traits that would be hard to explain in a herbivore.

I dont get this one

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Chronos

....Why is our digestive tract so short? ....

this may help you about the digestive tract this short clip opens with talk of that

[Irishman]

Humans show the traits of their heritage. Humans evolved from great apes, from lesser apes, from monkeys. Certainly there are ancestors of humans that were primarily or almost entirely herbivores, like gorillas (gorillas are herbivores, not gorillas are our direct ancestors).

But the thing is, the ancestors of humans diverged from those populations. One trait in which we diverged is making use of denser energy sources, i.e. meat. We made tools to help us, including stabby tools and clubbing tools and cutting tools and cooking tools, especially fire.

To say that humans are "naturally herbivores" is to dismiss anthropology entirely. Humans have been eating meat since before we were humans. Not exclusively meat, but meat certainly contributing a significant portion of our diet.

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

Try eating it like a true carnivore. Do not cook it, no seasoning or picking the parts of the animal you want to eat. A true carnivore eats the eyes, hair, intestines, anus- Everything. Try eating road kill fresh off the pavement. A true carnivore does and can digest it without harm.

No one claims that humans are "true carnivores". Only that we will and can eat meat.

[Michael63129]

If our ancestors didn't start eating meat, we might not be here right now (as in, conversing on computers, as opposed to swinging through trees or whatever):

BERKELEY-- Human ancestors who roamed the dry and open savannas of Africa about 2 million years ago routinely began to include meat in their diets to compensate for a serious decline in the quality of plant foods, according to a physical anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

It was this new meat diet, full of densely-packed nutrients, that provided the catalyst for human evolution, particularly the growth of the brain, said Katharine Milton, an authority on primate diet.

Without meat, said Milton, it's unlikely that proto humans could have secured enough energy and nutrition from the plants available in their African environment at that time to evolve into the active, sociable, intelligent creatures they became. Receding forests would have deprived them of the more nutritious leaves and fruits that forest-dwelling primates survive on, said Milton.

And of course, as Irishman points out, just because some of our relatives are herbivores doesn't mean that humans are the same; we evolved on a meat-based diet (of course, not exclusively). Or rather, we evolved because we started eating meat (this goes both ways)

[Dr. Strangelove]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

If there are many I must be missing them so I re-read it and I am still in agreement. Can you copy/paste a few of these stupidities for me? I'd like to contact the writer and let him know of his stupidity and correct my false belief.

An outright falsehood was the claim that humans have lost the taste for amino acids. On the contrary--umami is well-known as the "fifth taste" and represents the taste of the amino acid L-glutamate. Some vegetables contain glutamate but the taste is primarily associated with meat and other animal products.

A stupidity is the author's insistence that we can somehow use the appeal of foods to determine what is "natural", and yet dismiss that same evidence when it comes to any foods the author doesn't approve of--whether a McDonalds burger or otherwise.

Of course there's another falsehood here, which is the implication that humans don't find raw meat appealing. Maybe the author doesn't, and I won't claim that I find a dismembered bird appealing in the way my cat does. But the author needs this to be universally true, and it patently isn't, given the appeal or sushi/sashimi, steak tartare, oysters, etc.

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

I agree with you. I wish the writer had commented on that too. I have a viewpoint on it but would have appreciate to hear his (hers?)

The short answer is that we are a tool-using, cooking species in the way that birds are a flying species. Cooking was one of the very first things we did as humans--it predates Homo sapiens, at any rate. Excluding it as unnatural is as ridiculous as asking how a bird is supposed to get by without wings.

Finally, I have to laugh at the author's recipes at the end of the article, which contain at least three simulated animal products. If animal products are so unnatural and wrong, why are you trying so hard to simulate them?

(I nevertheless applaud those vegetarians who acknowledge that animal foods are delicious, but for moral or health reasons eschew them, and so come up with innovative ways of simulating them. I personally would be happy to go vegetarian if the simulations were good enough.)

[Powers]

My question is, why do vegetarians seem to be so invested in the idea that humans are not "supposed to" eat meat? No one cares if they're vegetarians. We don't care if they don't want to eat meat. So why do they care whether or not it's "natural" to do so?


Powers &8^]

[gamerunknown]

Powers, I think it may be a result of the naturalistic fallacy. It's used to oppose the concept of vegetarianism, so rather than pointing out that such arguments are fallacious, attempts are made to construct a "tu quoque".

Personally, I can cede that an omnivorous diet comes naturally to humans and that our existence here (as forum users) is predicated on it, without feeling any great desire to consume meat. It's been discussed on the debate forum here for instance.

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by Powers

My question is, why do vegetarians seem to be so invested in the idea that humans are not "supposed to" eat meat? No one cares if they're vegetarians. We don't care if they don't want to eat meat. So why do they care whether or not it's "natural" to do so?


Powers &8^]

Yes you (the you of your "we") do care. Vegetarians do catch a lot of crap for not eating meat, and not solely due to their attitude. Especially from meat eaters in a group. Usually the discorse starts with the meat eaters as soon as they learn someone is a vegetarian.

[ZenBeam]

Originally Posted by mangeorge

Yes you (the you of your "we") do care. Vegetarians do catch a lot of crap for not eating meat, and not solely due to their attitude. Especially from meat eaters in a group. Usually the discorse starts with the meat eaters as soon as they learn someone is a vegetarian.

You put an herbivore in a pack of carnivores and they naturally attack. More proof humans are carnivores.

[mangeorge]

Originally Posted by ZenBeam

You put an herbivore in a pack of carnivores and they naturally attack. More proof humans are carnivores.

Yes, but they never ate me.
Dang!
Well, one did.

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Irishman

....
No one claims that humans are "true carnivores". Only that we will and can eat meat.

I do not deny that humans can and will eat dead animal flesh. I was trying to discuss are humans naturally carnivores (as in the topic title) and the evidences I see says we are not. We may currently eat dead animals but I do not see humans naturally as carnivores from what I read. And when I think about it, i just dont see cave men doing it naturally either. I mean, if i was a hungry cave-girl, I could grab an apple off a tree or pick a berry from a bush. Easy. But given the opposing view I'd have to first create weapons to do what I naturally lack in claws and teeth, then I'd have to somehow use my cave-girl brain to guess that cooking will aid the process of digestion of foods I cant naturally digest and to make this new found bloddy mess taste good I'd have to add vegan spices to the rotting flesh because it doesn't naturally taste very good on its own. It just dosent seem natural.

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Powers

My question is, why do vegetarians seem to be so invested in the idea that humans are not "supposed to" eat meat? No one cares if they're vegetarians. We don't care if they don't want to eat meat. So why do they care whether or not it's "natural" to do so?


Powers &8^]

The animals care.
Your choice subjects 10 billion land animals a year to life in hellish conditions that if we subjected a dog to we would go to jail. If you dont know watch this video

[XT]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

I was trying to discuss are humans naturally carnivores (as in the topic title) and the evidences I see says we are not.

But the topic in the OP is a strawman, since no one has said that humans are carnivores. And you have continued to defend the strawman, in the face of the fact that NO ONE HAS MADE THIS CLAIM.

Humans aren't carnivores. Humans are herbivores either. The overwhelming evidence, both archeological and physiological is that humans are omnivores. Now, if you want to try and attack THAT position, then feel free. Straw is not on the menu, boyz...

We may currently eat dead animals but I do not see humans naturally as carnivores from what I read.

Obvious examples of humans and pre-humans eating meat go back hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions of years. It's hardly a new trend in human behavior.

Again, no one is saying we are carnivores...no one. So, attacking that position is simply continuing the strawman from the OP.

I mean, if i was a hungry cave-girl, I could grab an apple off a tree or pick a berry from a bush.

Hopefully all of this was said tongue in cheek.

But given the opposing view I'd have to first create weapons to do what I naturally lack in claws and teeth, then I'd have to somehow use my cave-girl brain to guess that cooking will aid the process of digestion of foods I cant naturally digest and to make this new found bloddy mess taste good I'd have to add vegan spices to the rotting flesh because it doesn't naturally taste very good on its own.

Again, I'm hoping you are just kidding with all of this horseshit.

-XT

[SnakeBabe]

Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove

An outright falsehood was the claim that humans have lost the taste for amino acids. .....

Of course there's another falsehood here, which is the implication that humans don't find raw meat appealing.
...

I agree with you that it does paint with a broad stroke of the brush but I pass that as just authors opinion. I dont even know what an animo wold taste like but with the exception of sushi I do not know of anyone that eats raw meat daily as a carnivore can. All in all, I didn't see falsehoods that would make me throw this article in the trash but thanks for reading it. I appreciate your time

[XT]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

I dont even know what an animo wold taste like but with the exception of sushi I do not know of anyone that eats raw meat daily as a carnivore can.

I don't suppose it ever occurred to you that this is the case because you live in a modern, technological society and that you have the CHOICE as to what (and how much) you eat, and how it's prepared...has it?

-XT

[SnakeBabe]

Thanks XT. I didn't get that but it has been a fun discussion. Thanks for letting me take part even if i was off base

[XT]

It's a message board. Participate or don't participate at your own pleasure. It's not MY message board...I merely participate as the whim and leisure time take me. If you want to try and defend the position that humans aren't meant to 'naturally' eat meat, then feel free. We've had plenty of debates on this, and the facts seem pretty overwhelmingly against the notion that humans don't eat meat 'naturally', but feel free to knock yourself out.

But batting at the position that humans clearly aren't 'Carnivores' is tilting at a strawman that, afaik, no either on this board or anywhere else has made (caveat...I'm sure some bonehead some time in the past has asserted this, but it's hardly a common theme).

-XT

[mangeorge]

The topic of the OP came long before this discussion. A lot of people "out there", especially men, proudly claim to be carnivores. And they each include others, but not 'strawmans', in their claim.
I agree that we are omnivores, and because few of us are hunter/gatherers, scavengers.

[Irishman]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

If there are many I must be missing them so I re-read it and I am still in agreement. Can you copy/paste a few of these stupidities for me?

The obvious one that jumps out at me

Intestines
A carnivore’s or omnivore’s small intestine is 3 to 6 times the length of its trunk. This is designed for rapid elimination of food that rots quickly. An herbivore’s small intestine is 10 to 12 times the length of its trunk, and winds itself back and forth in random directions. This is designed for keeping food in it for long enough periods of time to extract all the valuable nutrients and minerals before the food enters the large intestine.
A carnivore’s or omnivore’s large intestine is relatively short and simple, like a pipe. This passage is also relatively smooth and runs fairly straight so that fatty wastes high in cholesterol can easily slide out before they start to putrefy. (This is why it’s impossible for carnivores to get cancer or heart disease from high cholesterol and clogged arteries.) An herbivore’s large intestine, or colon, is puckered and pouched, an apparatus that runs in three directions (ascending, traversing and descending), designed to hold wastes that originally were foods high in water content. This is so that the fluids can be extracted from these wastes, now that all the useful nutrients and minerals have been extracted. Substances high in fat and cholesterol that have been putrefying for hours during their long stay in the small intestine tend to get stuck in the pockets that line the large intestine. (Vegetarians have lower rates of colon cancer

(Underlining added for emphasis.)

This page claims that digesting food rots (putrifies) in the intestines. This is misleading, if not an outright falsehood. Digestion is not the same as decaying. It is true that microbes play a role in both digestion and decay, but to equate the two is the same as equating rolling in a mud puddle with taking a bath, because the end result in both cases gets you wet.

Yes, there is a difference between a carnivore's intestine and an herbivore's intestine. That is because meat is easily broken down by the animal's digestive tract, and the useful nutrients and amino acids extracted. Whereas herbivores are trying to digest cellulose, something that their intestinal tract cannot do by itself. Herbivores require the use of bacteria in their intestinal tracts to break down the cellulose.

Actually, there are two types of herbivores: ruminants and nonruminants.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks.../overview.html

Ruminants are like cows. They have a large digestive system before the stomach were fermentation takes place. The microbes in this area, the rumen, help break down the cellulose into fatty acids and nutrients that the ruminant can absorb. Then the food, including microbes, pass down the stomach and through the small intestine, and finally the large intestine. Ruminants actually digest the microbes and use those amino acids and fatty acids.

Non-ruminants also have a fermentation chamber where microbes break down cellulose, but in non-ruminants this occurs in the long large intestine, behind the small intestine where much of the nutrients get absorbed. Because of this, non-ruminants do not digest the microbes from their gut, and therefore actually have to eat more and excrete wastes that have more undigested materials in them.

Rabbits are non-ruminants that have devised an interesting system to make their digestion more efficient. They have two distinct types of bowel movements. Their digestive system makes use of an appendage called a cecum, that helps digest and break down the cellulose material. Because this cecum is located after the small intestine, the digested material will not be absorbed in the large intestine before the rabbit poops. Therefore, the rabbit has evolved a system that alerts it when it is going to poop out this kind of material, called a cecotrope. The rabbit then eats this cecotrope, which allows the partially digested material to reenter the digestive tract, go through the stomach, and then be absorbed in the small intestine.

http://www.dummies.com/how-to/conten...ve-system.html

So, what reality says is that the animals more likely to involve "decay" as their digestive system are herbivores. They require more time because they are trying to digest cellulose, which their bodies cannot do on their own, and they require microbes to do the work. Whereas meat is digested much more quickly, and thus the digestive system for carnivores does not need to be nearly as long.

True omnivores’ teeth are most similar to carnivore teeth.

A pig is a true omnivore. Look at pig teeth. They do have incisors, and they do have canines (tusks), but they also have grinding teeth.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...c/pigpage.html

Bears, one of the "True omnivores" listed, do have incisors and large canines (fangs), but also have grinding molars.

http://www.grizzlybay.org/LearnMore/...ybearteeth.htm

Dogs also have incisors and canines up front, and molars in back for grinding.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...c/dogpage.html

Horses do not have canines. They have incisors up front and molars in back, and a gap between them.

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

Humans have incisors up front, molars in back, and humans have canines. They are small canines, but they are present. They do not resemble tusks, but they are a bit pointy.

Cats do not have grinding teeth.
http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks...c/catpage.html

So it is unfair to state that omnivore teeth are more similar to carnivore teeth. Of course the part you see is more similar, because the grinding parts are hidden toward the back of the jaw and the pointy bits are up front where they can do the tearing and such. This is at best misleading, if not a deliberate misrepresentation.

That page also shows pictures of "herbivores", and shows an orangutan. Yet, while orangutans are largely frugiverous (fruit eaters), they are also known to eat meat.

Plant food species represent 453 genera and 131 families, while invertebrate species eaten include 4 species of ants, 4 species of termites, 2 species of caterpillars, leeches, wasps, maggots, bee larvae, crickets and ticks. Vertebrates consumed include slow lorises, gibbons, birds’ eggs, young birds and tree rats (Russon et al, 2009a).

http://www.orangutanrepublik.org/bec...specifics/diet

Now I concede that 90% of their diet is from fruit, which makes them mostly vegetarian. And insects may not seem the most "meatlike" to you. But you must concede that lorises (small primates), gibbons (small primates), young birds, and tree rats do constitute meat. And vegans classify eggs as meat as well, so you must concede that this is simply either an exaggeration or a falsehood about orangutans. They eat meat. Maybe a small percent of their diet, but nevertheless, it is a part of their diet.

Is that enough stupidities for you?

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

I do not deny that humans can and will eat dead animal flesh. I was trying to discuss are humans naturally carnivores (as in the topic title) and the evidences I see says we are not.

I agree that humans are not naturally carnivores, and that the thread title is inaccurate and the OP misinformed. That does not dismiss the fact that humans do eat meat, and have for longer than we have been humans.

We may currently eat dead animals but I do not see humans naturally as carnivores from what I read. And when I think about it, i just dont see cave men doing it naturally either. I mean, if i was a hungry cave-girl, I could grab an apple off a tree or pick a berry from a bush. Easy. But given the opposing view I'd have to first create weapons to do what I naturally lack in claws and teeth, then I'd have to somehow use my cave-girl brain to guess that cooking will aid the process of digestion of foods I cant naturally digest and to make this new found bloddy mess taste good I'd have to add vegan spices to the rotting flesh because it doesn't naturally taste very good on its own. It just dosent seem natural.

However "natural" it seems to you, anthropology is solid that "cave men and women" did develop tools like clubs and spears and learn to hunt and cook meat long before they developed such things as walking completely upright, language, or building shelters like huts and such. However much sense it makes to you, it is what happened.

The fact is, pre-humans used their physiological adaptation to be excellent hunters even if they didn't have sharp claws and teeth, or the speed to chase down a gazelle. Instead, they used the technique called "persistance hunting", which involves chasing a prey animal until the prey animal exhausts itself. You see, humans have an adaptation that animals like gazelles and such do not. Humans are able to sweat, and to have endurance. Now your modern first world person may be a bit of a softy used to sitting around all day, but our ancestors were survivalists that could run their prey animals into the ground. You see, the prey animals race off and get hot and panting, and then have to rest, but the humans can breathe and sweat and come along in their trail, and force the prey to run again, and again, and again, until the prey animal exhausts itself and cannot move. At which point the human walks up and conks it on the head, or breaks its neck, or cuts its throat. Because it is too tired to move.

There are human tribes that still do this kind of hunting.

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

...but with the exception of sushi I do not know of anyone that eats raw meat daily as a carnivore can.

There are folks in Africa that hunt down grasshoppers, not so they can go fishing, but because grasshoppers are tasty treats. There are groups in Africa that cut open the throat of a live cow and capture a cup/jug of blood, then patch up the cow. They then drink the blood from the cow, fresh. While the very thought of this disgusts me to no end, it is a common practice.

You are trying to make judgements about humanity based upon your limited personal experience, rather than awareness of the practices of humanity as a whole throughout history.

[Powers]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

The animals care.
Your choice subjects 10 billion land animals a year to life in hellish conditions that if we subjected a dog to we would go to jail.

Not of necessity. I can be in favor of reforming abusive practices without forgoing meat.

But on the other hand, if you're arguing that the meat industry is cruel and we should be vegetarians because of that, why bring in the nonsense about humans not being "supposed to" eat meat? It's two separate issues. By all means, highlight cruelty and work to change it. But whether or not raising animals for food is cruel, it has nothing to do with whether humans are naturally omnivorous or not.

Originally Posted by mangeorge

A lot of people "out there", especially men, proudly claim to be carnivores.

Yes, metaphorically. There's a difference. All they mean is that they really like to eat meat.


Powers &8^]

[JillGat]

Vegans can get enough B12 if they eat organic produce and don't wash it too well. Manure contains lots of micronutrients.

[Captain Amazing]

Originally Posted by SnakeBabe

But given the opposing view I'd have to first create weapons to do what I naturally lack in claws and teeth, then I'd have to somehow use my cave-girl brain to guess that cooking will aid the process of digestion of foods I cant naturally digest and to make this new found bloddy mess taste good I'd have to add vegan spices to the rotting flesh because it doesn't naturally taste very good on its own. It just dosent seem natural.

Anyone who as a kid has picked up and caught bugs, frogs, snakes, lizards, etc., will know you don't have to create weapons to hunt them.