:smack:
No but fruit plant propagation by and large does follow a specific scheme. In lots of cases the seed is toxic or indigestible, where the flesh is not. Or the flesh is toxic, or unsavory until ripe.
And of course some is designed to catch on fur or fly, obviously not for eating.
Just for fun.
That, of course, comes from your link. I can understand why you would try to gloss over it.
Blake, try not to get your blood pressure too far up. Whenever you show that our friend is saying nonsense about human evolution he’ll simply switch to modern eating habits. Whenever you show that modern eating habits have nothing to do with the way our intestines evolved he’ll switch to dietary-based illnesses. When you try to show that dietary-based illness in times of plenty have nothing to do with behaviors during times of scarcity he’ll switch to comparative anatomy.
True, his science and his facts will be wrong every time. But you can’t pin him down because there’s nothing to pin him to. He’s just arguing for the sake of arguing.
However, at least others will get some actual science out of all this.
From link in post 178:
bolding added for emphasis. So your all vegetarian diet made them fat. Nice.
From your link in post 179:
Again, bolding added. So what were you trying to prove again about Europeans not eating meat, or something?
How dare you? Don’t you realize you have to click on “full article” to see that? When you do a Google search for terms you’re responsible for nothing except the sentence those terms appear in! Anything around them that doesn’t fit your point is to be ignored! How can you not get that?
Now apologize for making **JZesbaugh **look foolish by actually reading all the words of a link he gave. How do you expect him to argue his false points if you insist on relying on facts? Humans have always existed on rain and bird droppings, things you don’t have to hunt or chew, but just tilt your head back for. You can tell this by the way their chins are formed prenatally. We have bone evidence from the Loch Ness Monster that shows that humans are haggisivores. Older Eskimos were put out on ice floes and that meant they had 0.47% fewer children per century than Amish hermaphrodites. Lucky Charms are both grains and fruits, as you can see by their colors, although the boxes are toxic since they are meant to deter shoplifters from planting them in savannahs.
Link.
Better for what?
The article doesn’t it even mention fruit
It states that "increased consumption of **meat **by our ancestors provided the additional energy needed for brain expansion. (Cooking would have further increased the amount of calories obtained from meat.) Another holds that a switch to a seafood-rich diet would have provided polyunsaturated fatty acids which, when incorporated into nerve cell membranes, would have made the brain function more efficiently.
The article proves that consuming large amounts of starch is ancient, not modern as you claimed: “an increase in the AMY1 copy number in our ancestors enabled them to digest starch more efficiently, providing the energy needed for expansion of the brain.” Far from starch consumption being modern, it is ancient, ancestral in human beings and widespread amongst hunter-gatherers.
Are you actively trying to provide references that demolish your own argument, or do you just not bother to read them? Because that argument proves beyond doubt that you are totally wrong.
No it’s not, it’s a sign of an addiction, remember. :rolleyes:
WTF? Are you really this ignorant.
OK, I’ll clue you in, I’m a botanist/ecologist by profession, my field of specialisation is tropical savannas. Bare that in mind when making future claims.
Now, let me explain. About 95% of all fruit are carefully designed to be inedible. Plants produce fruit as a way of protecting and dispersing their seeds. The last thing that most plants want is for their seeds to be eaten. the vast majority of seeds are packed within hard, indigestible coatings, loaded with toxins, covered with thorns, laced with noxious tasting compounds and numerous other tricks specifically so they won’t be eaten.
Humans have learned some tricks to enable us to neutralise a lot of these defences, such as grinding, washing and cooking. But if you really believe that toxic fruit would not “work” for the plants purposes, then I suggest you go and eat some Castor oil fruit or Zamia berries. Lets us know how you get on.
Oh, hang on, you won’t be able to. You will be dead.
Uh, no. You claimed that grains were essential to enable all people in a village to eat meat. If I can show you villages where there were no grains and indeed no domestic animals, yet 100% of the population ate meat, your position is revealed as the nonsense that it is.
So I repeat, are you really unaware that European villagers ate meat and never fed grain to their livestock? Are you really ignorant of this fact?
So what? In the vast majority of cases both the flesh and the seed are hideously toxic and/or indigestible and/or unpleasant all the time.
Once again, what is your point here? Where are you going with this?
I have to conclude at this point that you are either incapable of reading, incapable of reasoning, or simply arguing to evoke a response.
Firstly, Soldiers aren’t a village, nor are gladiators. You made a claim that the vast majority of villagers never ate meat. Not slaves. Not people in military camps. Villagers.
Secondly the articles note that Roman soldiers suffered regularly from scurvy and that gladiators were overweight. Does this indicate a healthy, frugivorous diet to your mind?
Finally, and most importantly the article states:
Roman soldiers throughout the Republic and Empire ate meat… the Romans ate ox, sheep, goat, pig, deer, bore, and hare, in most places and in some areas, elk, wolf, fox, badger, beaver, bear, vole, ibex, and otter. Broken **beef bones **suggest the extraction of **marrow **for soup. Alongside the animal bones, archaeologists found equipment for roasting and boiling the **meat **as well as for making **cheese **from the milk of domesticated animals. **Fish **and **poultry **were also popular, the latter especially for the sick.
So what the heck is your point? So far your own references have proven that:
The human brain is the result of our pre-human ancestors eating meat. Thus we are not only natural omnivores but naturally obligate omnivores.
Humans have been living on high starch diets since before our species evolved.
Modern HGs and modern agriculturalists both have high starch diets.
HGs eat fruit as an act of desperation when meat is not available.
Humans are not naturally designed to eat fruit; most fruit is unpleasant, indigestible or downright poisonous to humans.
Ancient people who ate high vegetable diets suffered from obesity and scurvy.
Ancient people such as the Romans all ate meat. Even the poorest soldiers regularly ate meat. The only exception was gladiators, who were all either slaves or totally destitute.
We don’t need to do any work at all. You have thoroughly debunked your own position.
Moreover you have displayed a woeful ignorance of every topic you have even mentioned in passing, much less your central thesis.
I’m not even sure *what *he’s arguing ATM.
He is providing a constant stream of references that all show that humans are naturally omnivorous and that a vegetarian diet was a last resort in desperation because it was hard to digest, toxic and leads to obesity, scurvy and a range of other health problems.
PMSL.
I’m not trying to gloss over it, it says “according to one theory”. Then lists other theories, is that not correct. Meaning there are multiple interpretations of the data?
The key word there is theory.
As I’ve said in the past I will post unbiased sources.
Here blake,
"First, the genomes of 50 American students of European descent were analyzed. It was found that the number of copies of AMY1 varied from between 2 and 15, and that individuals with more copies of the gene had higher levels of the salivary amylase protein in their saliva. On the other hand, chimpanzees, which have a low-starch diet, were found to have just 2 copies of the gene, and low levels of salivary amylase.
The gene copy number in populations with high-starch diets (European Americans, Japanese, and Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania) was then compared to that of populations with a low-starch diet (the Datog peoples of Tanzania, the Yakut of Russia, and the Biaka and Mbuti, both of which are rainforest hunter-gatherers from, respectively, the southern region of the Central African Republic and the Ituri forest in Zaire).
It was found that individuals from populations with a high-starch diet had, on average, more copies of the AMY1 gene than individuals from populations with a low-starch diet - twice as many of the former than the latter had 6 or more copies.
These results show that populations that have a starch-rich diet carry more copies of the AMY1 gene. The authors believe that they have provided one of the very first examples in the human genome of selective pressure resulting in changes in the number of copies of a gene."
That is from the second article on the AMY1 gene. That is all you asked for. You are welcome to attack the other parts of the article that are irrelevant to what you asked for.
Again in the roman gladiator article they state the science that shows they ate plants, will you please cite the science you are using to determine they were over weight? Or that they are using? Not that that is solely relevant. But I’m curious as to why you leap to that conclusion, with out facts.
Finally you said you would find sources, you have not found any on the point you keep saying you will, which starts to lead me to believe you have none.
"The natural diet of a human being is primarily a herbivore diet.
I think its more accurate then just saying omnivore. The article the OP is on is 20 years old, and not up to speed with modern thinking on the issue. Applying the three prong classification system is generally correct, but as I’m trying to demonstrate, misleading.
That’s pretty much it."
To expound on this we have shown with technology even a cow is now classified as an omnivore, by the definition being forwarded here. So if all mammals are omnivores it becomes a misleading term.
You can of course apply it. But our evidence shows that through our history the human diet was not dominated by meat at any point. It has as far as we can tell never been a primary food source long enough to make a biological difference. However starch eating has clearly impacted the human genome. Therefore applying an term which implies a preference, such as granivore(which implies a primary food source) makes more sense. Or in the case of our ancestors, frugivore.
The argument to me seems to be that the vague classification is better, or that the insistence is that we should classify lakes as rivers, because they both involve water, and we need not make a distinction beyond that.
And?
Your contention is, and I quote “amylase was highly selected for and is prevalent in the genes of peoples who adopted agriculture.”
Your own reference that you just quoted states that amylase is just as highly expressed in HGs as in agriculturalists.
Once again, you are providing references that debunk your own position.,
So now it is clear that you are incapable of reading this thread, let alone your own references. Your own references state that they were overweight. The exact quote where it says that has been posted and highlighted on this page already.
Why should anybody believe anything you have to say when you can’t even see a highlighted quite that says that Roman vegetarians were overweight as a result of their diet?
You just provided a reference that said that all Romans throughout the empire ate meat. I can post it again if you like.
And I note that you are still refusing to answer 9 out of 10 questions put to you. If this wasn’t so ROFLMAO funny I would give up now, content that anybody interested can see your input for what it is.
So Eskimos primarily eat plants?
Or the Eskimo diet isn’t natural?
Or Eskimos are subhuman?
Which of those do you believe?
But it involves meat and animal protein. That makes us omnivores.
Wrong. You and only you have said cows should be classified as omnivores.
The rest of us have pointed out that while the technology to render animal protein into a form cows will eat is maybe a century old, the technology to make fire and cutting tools dates back at least til Homo Habilis.
Not all mammals are omnivores. Nobody but you has said that.
Tigers and the other great cats are carnivores, not omnivores.
Off the toppa my hed, horses and pandas are herbivores, not omnivores.
Unless you count the Eskimos. Besides which, meat does NOT have to dominate the diet for us to be omnivores. Any species evolved to eat both plants and animals is an omnivore.
Wrong. A frugivore, last time I checked, was adapted to eat fruits and nothing else. Off the toppa my hed, several species of bat are frugivores.
Omnivore is NOT a vague classification. It means a species adapted to eat both plant and animal matter, homo sapiens for instance.
Bah. I was wrong on the definition of frugivore.
Strangely ( and you should pay attention to this JZ) , admitting my error makes my other arguments more credible and adds to my reputation as a source that can be trusted.
For those interested in actual science.
“Our analysis showed that whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, hunter-gatherers consumed high amounts (45–65% of energy) of animal food. Most (73%) of the worldwide hunter-gatherer societies derived >50% (56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods, whereas only 14% of these societies derived >50% (56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from gathered plant foods. This high reliance on animal-based foods coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient consumption ratios in which protein is elevated (19–35% of energy) at the expense of carbohydrates (22–40% of energy).”
Cordain,L et al. 2008 “Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets.” Am J Clin Nutr 71
“animal food actually provided the dominant (65%) energy source, while gathered plant foods comprised the remainder (35%). This data is consistent with a more recent, comprehensive review of the entire ethnographic data (n =229HG societies) that showed the mean subsistence dependence upon gathered plant foods was 32%, whereas it was 68% for animal foods. Other evidence, including isotopic analyses of Paleolithic hominid collagen tissue, reductions in hominid gut size, low activity levels of certain enzymes, and optimal foraging data all point toward a long history of meat-based diets in our species.”
Cordain. L et al. 2002 “The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56
“Stone tools and cut marks on bones dating back more than 2 million years are evidence that animal carcasses were butchered…. Although most wild anthropoids eat little animal matter, its digestion, at least to some point, does not pose a problem …. The barrier to greater meat eating in anthropoids appears to be the high cost of prey acquisition in the natural environment. If they could circumvent this cost routinely, many wild anthropoids would surely eat more animal foods. means…… …… Alaskan Eskimos, for example, had an estimated total daily energy intake of 12 552 kJ (3000 kcal): <50% from fat, <30–35% from protein, and <15–20% from carbohydrates, largely glycogen from meat…… What do the !Kung eat? Animal foods are estimated to contribute 33% and plant foods 67% of their daily energy intakes”
Milton, K. “Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective” Am J Clin Nutr 71
Put quite simply, this idea that humans are herbivores is nonsense.
Humans have been eating meat since our species evolved.
All other anthropoids can and do eat meat when they can get it easily.
For the vast majority of HGs, meat makes up over half their diet.
Some HG groups consume >95% meat.
The !Kung have the lowest meat diet of any HG group, and meat still make sup over 1/3 of their diet. Far more than any modern western diet
People the world over have always eaten meat on a regular basis. The one exception being those small areas of India populated by vegetarians, and they substitute dairy for meat. Dairy is the most unnatural food I can think of.
Bingo denotes the primary food source, more befitting mammals. Does not mean they do not eat meat, are are not classifiable as omnivores. It’s an ignorant misleading classification.
"While the goal of scientific classification is to promote communication and analysis of various differences and similarities between species, the concept of an ‘omnivore’ is broad and could be applied to virtually any mammal since disease risks and the quality of digestion are often not considered. There are social, psychological and non-nutritive factors that influence diet behavior. “[T]he behavioral basis of omnivory has not been thoroughly explored… and food selection behavior is central to understanding the causes and consequences of omnivory. However, few studies have actually addressed this issue through rigorous tests of multiple hypotheses.”
FROM
For those who were curious as to my perceived definition of omnivore.
Wrong.
All the evidence shows that most (73%) humans derived >50% (56–65% of energy) of their subsistence from animal foods for >97% of our history.
Meat only became a minor item in human diets after the invention of agriculture. Even the !Kung, living in the most marginal hunting lands, obtain over 1/3 of their diets form animal flesh. That is far more than in any typical, modern western diet.
I’m always interested in science. Haven’t you seen my lab coat with “Scientists Don’t Just Do It In Labs!” printed on the back?
The exclamation point represents a click of the tongue.
Actually both the “!” and the “K” represent the click. “!K” is different to the “!T” click of the “!M” click. So it’s “click-ung”, not “click-kung”.
Pointless piece of trivia.
Is there such a thing?