Are humans meat eaters or vegetarians by nature?

[JZesbaugh]

@Blake

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.

That pretty strongly dismisses my point, and may cover about a 2.5 million year period.

“although most wild anthropoids eat little animal matter, its digestion, at least to some point, does not pose a problem”

It’s my dissenting opinion there is something to that, and that the role of technology should not be dismissed from classification. Which is present in my OP. This does fairly conclusively point to a wide span where meat may indeed have been the dominant food. It is interesting the article names it a paradox, I think for the reasons I was eluding to. It doesn’t make evolutionary sense, that we cannot gorge on meat all day with no effect. The article even suggests that. Which means I cannot fully put my stamp on it. You must see that.

But I think that closes the case on the Paleolithic period, for now. I may look into how they arrived at these conclusions later, but they seem pretty solid.

One final dissent is many species died out, many similar to man and along the same line, their biological niche did not work out. Can we 100% positively conclude that the hunters lived and formed the basis of the neolithic revolution, no and there is some weight to a plant dieting culture being more inclined. For all we know these men were well adapted to meat, and could gorge it raw, maybe and its a big maybe that gene never made it.

I hope this is not testimony to my ignorance, but the complexity of the question. And the stated paradox named in the article.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@JZesbaugh

Omnivore - Wikipedia

From that page:

Humans are regarded as omnivores.

Wait. Hark. What is it that I spy with my little eye? It’s a footnote! Something your quote doesn’t have.

Adapted from a talk by John McArdle, Ph.D. “Humans are Omnivores”. Vegetarian Resource Group. Humans are Omnivores -- The Vegetarian Resource Group. Retrieved 2007-12-29.

The Vegetarian Resource Group! Wow, I’ll bet that Wiki got it totally wrong, because they would be totally biased in favor of saying that humans are naturally herbivores. Let’s see what they quote Dr. McArdle as saying.

Omnivorism
The key category in the discussion of human diet is omnivores, which are defined as generalized feeders, with neither carnivore nor herbivore specializations for acquiring or processing food, and who are capable of consuming and do consume both animal protein and vegetation. They are basically opportunistic feeders (survive by eating what is available) with more generalized anatomical and physiological traits, especially the dentition (teeth). All the available evidence indicates that the natural human diet is omnivorous and would include meat. We are not, however, required to consume animal protein. We have a choice.

The Great Apes
There are very few frugivores amongst the mammals in general, and primates in particular. The only apes that are predominantly fruit eaters (gibbons and siamangs) are atypical for apes in many behavioral and ecological respects and eat substantial amounts of vegetation. Orangutans are similar, with no observations in the wild of eating meat.

Gorillas are more typically vegetarian, with less emphasis on fruit. Several years ago a very elegant study was done on the relationship between body size and diet in primates (and some other mammal groups). The only primates on the list with pure diets were the very small species (which are entirely insectivorous) and the largest (which specialize in vegetarian diet). However, the spectrum of dietary preferences reflect the daily food intake needs of each body size and the relative availability of food resources in a tropical forest. Our closest relatives among the apes are the chimpanzees (i.e., anatomically, behaviorally, genetically, and evolutionarily), who frequently kill and eat other mammals (including other primates).

Evidence of Humans as Omnivores
Archeological Record
As far back as it can be traced, clearly the archeological record indicates an omnivorous diet for humans that included meat. Our ancestry is among the hunter/gatherers from the beginning. Once domestication of food sources began, it included both animals and plants.

…

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.

Oh noes! It’s a choice. I’m sorry, perhaps you didn’t hear me. IT’S A CHOICE. We are not naturally herbivores or avoiders of meat. We can choose to do so, but there is nothing in human history that says that it was ever anything other than a choice.

Choice.

Choice.

Choice.

Read your cites.

Read all your cites.

Read the footnotes that back up your cites.

Know what you’re talking about before your fingers hit the keyboard.

Humans are omnivores.
ETA: This is testament to your ignorance. As have every other one of your posts been.

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

. One final dissent is many species died out, many similar to man and along the same line, their biological niche did not work out.

Many?

I count Homo Sapien Neanderthalis and the Australopithicenes. Is that who you mean?

If I recall correctly, Neanderthals were in a technological dead end and never developed the tools that H Sapien did in the same time period. They were out competed.

The Australopithicenes, IIRC did eventually evolve into herbivores (Wasn’t Australopithicus Robustus the last of the line and a herbivore?).

Can we 100% positively conclude that the hunters lived and formed the basis of the neolithic revolution, no

Yes, we can.

and there is some weight to a plant dieting culture being more inclined.

No there is no such weight.

For all we know these men were well adapted to meat, and could gorge it raw, maybe and its a big maybe that gene never made it.

Well as far as I know the fossil record says no such thing. But if you want to speculate without any basis, don’t let me stop you.

I hope this is not testimony to my ignorance

Your ignorance isn’t the problem. Many, many people come to these boards ignorant. Your refusal to admit that you are in error, to argue logically, to learn from the many sources offered, these are the problem.

[Blake]

@JZesbaugh

It’s my dissenting opinion there is something to that, and that the role of technology should not be dismissed from classification. Which is present in my OP. This does fairly conclusively point to a wide span where meat may indeed have been the dominant food. It is interesting the article names it a paradox, I think for the reasons I was eluding to. It doesn’t make evolutionary sense, that we cannot gorge on meat all day with no effect. The article even suggests that. Which means I cannot fully put my stamp on it. You must see that.

This has been explained to you at least five times in this thread. I see no reason to believe that you are either capable of or willing o understand the explanation.

Can we 100% positively conclude that the hunters lived and formed the basis of the neolithic revolution, no

Which is the classic argument from ignorance. "You can’t 100% prove that there isn’t a dragon in my garage, so you’ve got to agree that there is a dragon.

Absolute piffle.

…and there is some weight to a plant dieting culture being more inclined.

No, there is not. No dietary support, no physiological support, no evidential support, no logical support. The position has no weight at all. It is entirely an argument from ignorance.

For all we know these men were well adapted to meat, and could gorge it raw, maybe and its a big maybe that gene never made it.

Wrong.

“Although agriculture is relatively recent, most hunter-gatherer societies appear to have enthusiastically embraced it…Medical examination has found little vidence of diseases of civilization in unacculturated Amazonian hunter-gatherer-agriculturalists, even though such people appear to have obtained a high percentage of their daily energy from a single plant cultivar for hundreds of years.”
Milton, K. “Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective” Am J Clin Nutr 71

I hope this is not testimony to my ignorance, but the complexity of the question. And the stated paradox named in the article.

Sorry, but it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

And your ignorance is already well testified to in the four pages of absolute nonsense that you have already posted.

[JZesbaugh]

@Blake

This has been explained to you at least five times in this thread. I see no reason to believe that you are either capable of or willing o understand the explanation.

Which is the classic argument from ignorance. "You can’t 100% prove that there isn’t a dragon in my garage, so you’ve got to agree that there is a dragon.

Absolute piffle.

No, there is not. No dietary support, no physiological support, no evidential support, no logical support. The position has no weight at all. It is entirely an argument from ignorance.

Wrong.

“Although agriculture is relatively recent, most hunter-gatherer societies appear to have enthusiastically embraced it…Medical examination has found little vidence of diseases of civilization in unacculturated Amazonian hunter-gatherer-agriculturalists, even though such people appear to have obtained a high percentage of their daily energy from a single plant cultivar for hundreds of years.”
Milton, K. “Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective” Am J Clin Nutr 71

Sorry, but it is nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

And your ignorance is already well testified to in the four pages of absolute nonsense that you have already posted.

“Humans come from a fairly generalized line of higher primates, a lineage able to utilize a wide range of plant and animal foods. There is general agreement that the ancestral line (Hominoidea) giving rise to humans was strongly herbivorous (14, 15). Modern human nutritional requirements (eg, the need for a dietary source of vitamin C), features of the modern human gut (haustrated colon), and the modern human pattern of digestive kinetics (similar to that of great apes) suggest an ancestral past in which tropical plant foods formed the basis of the daily diet, with perhaps some opportunistic intake of animal matter.”

“However, because some hunter-gatherer societies obtained most of their dietary energy from wild animal fat and protein does not imply that this is the ideal diet for modern humans, nor does it imply that modern humans have genetic adaptations to such diets. It does, however, indicate that humans can thrive on extreme diets as long as these diets contribute the full range of essential nutrients.”

Milton, K. “Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective” Am J Clin Nutr 71

Some of this actually agrees with my point. Thoughts?

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

Thoughts?

My thoughts are that once again you go off on a tangent rather than admitting your error.

[JZesbaugh]

@DocCathode

My thoughts are that once again you go off on a tangent rather than admitting your error.

Which is?

With cooking, technological preparation any animal regardless of predisposition can thrive on almost any food source? And thus becomes an omnivore.

Ok human nature. You hypothetically in a controlled environment have an unlimited supply of veggie foods, slaughtering tools and a meat source, a dog. When do you eat the dog. Ok now we remove the veggie food source for you, when do you eat the dog? (for the sake of this you cannot eat the dogs food, but it has access to food somehow) or if you like it can be a rat, when do you eat the rat?

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

Which is?

Blake explained it pretty well in his last post.

With cooking, technological preparation any animal regardless of predisposition can thrive on almost any food source? And thus becomes an omnivore.

Again there is a huge difference between mere cutting and cooking, both of which are far older than homo sapiens and the chemistry project needed to get cow protein into a form cows will eat.

Ok human nature. You hypothetically in a controlled environment have an unlimited supply of veggie foods, slaughtering tools and a meat source, a dog. When do you eat the dog. Ok now we remove the veggie food source for you, when do you eat the dog? (for the sake of this you cannot eat the dogs food, but it has access to food somehow) or if you like it can be a rat, when do you eat the rat?

I don’t eat dog or rat unless I am starving. They are not kosher. However, folks in many nations eat dog and rat meat. What is the point of this question?

[JZesbaugh]

@DocCathode

Blake explained it pretty well in his last post.

Again there is a huge difference between mere cutting and cooking, both of which are far older than homo sapiens and the chemistry project needed to get cow protein into a form cows will eat.

I don’t eat dog or rat unless I am starving. They are not kosher. However, folks in many nations eat dog and rat meat. What is the point of this question?

1. refuted

2. Cooking=chemistry. Heating is something we do in chemistry. It induces chemical changes.

3. To assess your natural predisposition to various animal food sources.

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

1. refuted

The hell it was.

2. Cooking=chemistry. Heating is something we do in chemistry. It induces chemical changes.

True, if severely anally, enough. Let me rephrase-

Cooking and cutting tools have been on this planet longer than homo sapiens.

The technology and the practice of feeding cows rendered cow protein have been here what, less than a century?

To equate the two is ludicrous.

3. To assess your natural predisposition to various animal food sources.

Then it is a highly flawed question. All you assessed were the prejudices that have been instilled in me by my upbringing and culture.

[JZesbaugh]

@DocCathode

The hell it was.

True, if severely anally, enough. Let me rephrase-

Cooking and cutting tools have been on this planet longer than homo sapiens.

The technology and the practice of feeding cows rendered cow protein have been here what, less than a century?

To equate the two is ludicrous.

Then it is a highly flawed question. All you assessed were the prejudices that have been instilled in me by my upbringing and culture.

1. The hell it wasn’t?

2. They still fall under the veil of the utilization technology. I see the point, but that one is more advanced does not lessen my general point about technology playing a role.
   Unless you are suggesting that a differentiation is needed in how we are to go about classifying this to make the distinction clear.

   If we’re going to do that, why not make clearer distinctions about the human diet while we are at it.

3. That was also a large part of the point.
   “Our food eating system is largely based on technology, and culture. We eat what our culture tells us. One cannot separate a human being from their culture, a child can only live by what it’s parent teaches/gives him/her.” From my OP.

“Man with out any tools is pretty much a vegetarian, unless you count bugs.” OP

Because our biological set would only allow us to obtain fruit, leaves and roots.

“I think ancient men with a natural abundance of veggie food would always choose them, I say that is our nature. We would be driven to hunt only by hunger(should be starvation, misworded), or a tradition derived from being driven to hunger.(starvation)” OP

"The question is, and it’s impossible to answer, are there any built in behaviors?"OP

The above is my opinion and conclusion on the matter. You may draw different ones, and if you like try to continue to tell me why my OPINION is wrong.

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

“Man with out any tools is pretty much a vegetarian, unless you count bugs.” OP

Because our biological set would only allow us to obtain fruit, leaves and roots.

Wrong. You forgot carrion.

Second, you CANNOT separate Homo Sapiens from tool use. The record shows that we evolved to use tools. Humans without tools have not existed for millions of years.

"I think ancient men with a natural abundance of veggie food would always choose them, I say that is our nature.

Then why do we have an omnivore’s dentition and digestive tract?

The above is my opinion and conclusion on the matter. You may draw different ones, and if you like try to continue to tell me why my OPINION is wrong.

We’ve been telling you for five pages or so now. You refuse to listen.

[Blake]

@JZesbaugh

Some of this actually agrees with my point.

No, it doesn’t.

Thoughts?

I think you should learn what Hominoidea means. Hint: it includes gibbons.

@JZesbaugh

With cooking, technological preparation any animal regardless of predisposition can thrive on almost any food source? And thus becomes an omnivore.

And? What tangent are you going off on now?

Ok human nature. You hypothetically in a controlled environment have an unlimited supply of veggie foods, slaughtering tools and a meat source, a dog. When do you eat the dog.

Dude, your own references stated that Romans ate wolves. People around the world have always eaten dogs.

or if you like it can be a rat, when do you eat the rat?

Right away.

I’ve eaten rat. It’s an extremely nice meat. I would eat rat every day if I could get a pre-prepared supply of clean rat flesh. Unfortunately wild rats aren’t clean and breeding and dressing my own rates is way too time consuming. In that respect they are like plant foods, which are also difficult to obtain in edible form from wild stock.

So what was your point?

I’ll now put the same question to him. He hypothetically in a controlled environment has an unlimited supply of hamburgers, grinding tools, running water and a plant source: lichen. When does he eat the lichen. OK now we remove the hamburgers for you, when does he eat the lichen?

To assess your natural predisposition to various animal food sources.

Utter bollocks. How is an adult, westernised Jew’s food preference in any way indicative of “natural predisposition”? I’ll put an Eskimo in a room with a seal and some Jackfruit. Wanna bet which gets eaten first?

Your arguments on this topic get more and more bizarre and less and less coherent.

Still as funny as all get out though.

[JZesbaugh]

@DocCathode

Wrong. You forgot carrion.

Second, you CANNOT separate Homo Sapiens from tool use. The record shows that we evolved to use tools. Humans without tools have not existed for millions of years.

Then why do we have an omnivore’s dentition and digestive tract?

We’ve been telling you for five pages or so now. You refuse to listen.

1. " One cannot separate a human being from their culture, a child can only live by what it’s parent teaches/gives him/her." From my OP."

Are you sure it is only me who is not listening, because technology is considered a part of culture.

2. It is a frugivores digestive track, its a clearer distinction. Omnivore is less distinct, and therefore less accurate. As our evolutionary evidence is pointing to and general scientific opinion points to.

“Humans come from a fairly generalized line of higher primates, a lineage able to utilize a wide range of plant and animal foods. There is general agreement that the ancestral line (Hominoidea) giving rise to humans was strongly herbivorous (14, 15). Modern human nutritional requirements (eg, the need for a dietary source of vitamin C), features of the modern human gut (haustrated colon), and the modern human pattern of digestive kinetics (similar to that of great apes) suggest an ancestral past in which tropical plant foods formed the basis of the daily diet, with perhaps some opportunistic intake of animal matter.” SEE ABOVE

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

Are you sure it is only me who is not listening, because technology is considered a part of culture.

Considered by who? Homo Habilis had technology and no culture. Chimps have tools but no culture

Omnivore is less distinct, and therefore less accurate. As our evolutionary evidence is pointing to and general scientific opinion points to.

Show me the evidence that omnivore is not accurate. You have so far failed to do so.

And from your own cite

"Humans come from a fairly generalized line of higher primates, a lineage able to utilize a wide range of plant and animal foods.

What do you call an species which can utilize a wide range of plant and animal foods? An omnivore.

[JZesbaugh]

@Blake

No, it doesn’t.

I think you should learn what Hominoidea means. Hint: it includes gibbons.

And? What tangent are you going off on now?

Dude, your own references stated that Romans ate wolves. People around the world have always eaten dogs.

Right away.

I’ve eaten rat. It’s an extremely nice meat. I would eat rat every day if I could get a pre-prepared supply of clean rat flesh. Unfortunately wild rats aren’t clean and breeding and dressing my own rates is way too time consuming. In that respect they are like plant foods, which are also difficult to obtain in edible form from wild stock.

So what was your point?

I’ll now put the same question to him. He hypothetically in a controlled environment has an unlimited supply of hamburgers, grinding tools, running water and a plant source: lichen. When does he eat the lichen. OK now we remove the hamburgers for you, when does he eat the lichen?

Utter bollocks. How is an adult, westernised Jew’s food preference in any way indicative of “natural predisposition”? I’ll put an Eskimo in a room with a seal and some Jackfruit. Wanna bet which gets eaten first?

Your arguments on this topic get more and more bizarre and less and less coherent.

Still as funny as all get out though.

Still waiting on those sources, why the delay?

[Blake]

@JZesbaugh

They still fall under the veil of the utilization technology. I see the point, but that one is more advanced does not lessen my general point about technology playing a role.

I can’t even make out what your point is.

We have been telling you for five pages now that humans have had technology since before we *became *human. What is this point about technology that other people here didn’t accept long before you did?

Unless you are suggesting that a differentiation is needed in how we are to go about classifying this to make the distinction clear.

WTF?

You have spent five pages telling us that eating meat is not natural, that large amounts of meat aren’t consumed by pre-agriculural humans.

The only differentiation that needs to be made is whether the technology was available to pre-agricultural people. Since both fire and slaughtering tools were available to these people and the technology to feed meat to cattle was not, your entire point is provably bunkum.

If we’re going to do that, why not make clearer distinctions about the human diet while we are at it.

I have provided 3 references to the premier peer-reviewed journals in the field. I have posted lists that enumerate the distinctions I wish to draw about the human diet.

How much clearer can I make it? Seriously? What else can I do to help you understand these distinctions?

“Our food eating system is largely based on technology, and culture. We eat what our culture tells us. One cannot separate a human being from their culture, a child can only live by what it’s parent teaches/gives him/her.” From my OP.

And how does this indicate that humans aren’t naturally meat eaters?

“Man with out any tools is pretty much a vegetarian, unless you count bugs.” OP

Utter bullshit.

Mussels, fish, rats, possums and even horses are all documented to have captured and killed by human beings using their bare hands.

Because our biological set would only allow us to obtain fruit, leaves and roots.

Please explain why my “biological set” prevents me from pulling a rat out of a hollow log and beating it to death and then eating it? Why I could not tickle trout using my bare hands? Why I could not collect shellfish?

“I think ancient men with a natural abundance of veggie food would always choose them, I say that is our nature. We would be driven to hunt only by hunger(should be starvation, misworded), or a tradition derived from being driven to hunger.(starvation)” OP

Yes, and we have proven over the past 5 pages, this is all utter tripe. Ancient men obtained the vast majority of their food from animal flesh. They ate it in preference to all else.

The above is my opinion and conclusion on the matter.

Despite the fact that you have been shown the evidence that you are wrong on all points, that remains your conclusion?

That is really all that anybody needs to know about you.

You may draw different ones, and if you like try to continue to tell me why my OPINION is wrong.

We’ve told you why it was wrong. We know that humans have been killing and eating animals for at least 2 million years, and that all HGs derive over 1/3 of their diet from animal flesh.

The fact that you continue to argue that ancient men did not derive >1/3 of their diet from animal flesh is simply willful ignorance. Their is no point arguing against ignorance that fights back so ferociously in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[JZesbaugh]

@DocCathode

Considered by who? Homo Habilis had technology and no culture. Chimps have tools but no culture

Show me the evidence that omnivore is not accurate. You have so far failed to do so.

And from your own cite
What do you call an species which can utilize a wide range of plant and animal foods? An omnivore.

"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.”

Which I agree with, and if you do not, then you are correct in calling a human being an omnivore. It is now a question semantics.

In my mind the argument being made to me is it is okay to call all water features on a map a lake. What I’m suggesting is that I would identify the differentiation with different terms, to make the map more useful. If you cannot see the value of that, then yes you are correct.

[Blake]

@JZesbaugh

Still waiting on those sources, why the delay?

The sources that say that all Romans ate meat? You saying that you didn’t see sources that stated that all Romans everywhere ate meat? Is that what you are saying.

Because if that is what you are saying I will mirthfully repost it, and then piss myself laughing.

[DocCathode]

@JZesbaugh

"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.”

Wow! You repeat a cite that Blake successfully refuted the first time you brought it up.

Which I agree with, and if you do not, then you are correct in calling a human being an omnivore. It is now a question semantics.

Scientific classification is NOT just a matter of semantics.

In my mind the argument being made to me is it is okay to call all water features on a map a lake. What I’m suggesting is that I would identify the differentiation with different terms, to make the map more useful. If you cannot see the value of that, then yes you are correct.

No, you see a lake and want to call it something else. I’m content to call a lake a lake.