Blake you are great at making long posts, but they carry little weight with me with out sources. Please make your clear point with evidence if you actually have a point. You don’t even have to quote me, make your point with your sources. Please.
In my mind attacking a position and holding a position are two different things.
Put a man in the woods without tools and he will make tools - because tool use is part of our biology.
I can make a snare or a deadfall or a fishing line without any tools whatsoever, making them from stick and stones and vegetable fibers and hair and basically just stuff I find lying around. So… out in the woods without tools, I’ll still figure out a way to make the tools I need to get meat or dig for roots or carry water or make a shelter or whatever.
:rolleyes:
Two simple questions:
Do you dispute that very single HG group that we have evidence of, since the dawn of the human species, has derived at least 1/3 of their diet from animal flesh?
Do you dispute that a species that derives 1/3 of its diet from animal flesh and 2/3 from vegetable matter is an omnivore?
Because the first has been shown with references of the highest calibre in this thread.
And if your definition of omnivore allows you to exclude a species in which all individuals consume 1/3 animal matter an 2/3 plant matter your definition is worthless
Bwah hah hah hah hah!
First off, all my points have been backed up by two sources: either the most esteemed journals on the subject, or your own references. You know, the ones that you told us were credible and reliable. Which of those sources don;t you credit? The peer reviewed journals? Or your own references?
Secondly, everyone in this thread has been repeatedly calling on you for references for the outrageous claims that you have made, and so far you haven;t provided any at all. When asked for references that humans are designed to eat African fruit, you post a reference that says that African fruit are indigestible and eaten in desperation. When asked for a reference that Romans didn’t regularly eat meat, you posted a reference that says that all Romans in the Empire were regularly eating meat.
This gets funnier and funnier with every post you make. Please keep going. 
Wow that make a great case for their point. Though I would make the case that the term opportunism, and choice do not go hand in hand.
An opportunist takes every opportunity, leaving little choice wouldn’t you say.
But there has been lots of talk of chimps in this whole thing, which doesn’t really sway me over 90% of a chimps diet is vegetation. There is also a cultural link in chimps with meat and mating. Which is worth exploration. I’m compelled to call chimps with in the three prong classification system we seem to be using (we’ve never set ground rules for this debate, or definitions or anything that would make it a functional debate). That chimps are still primarily herbivores. Which is an accurate statement.
When did anyone ask for a cite about romans? Cite that. I thought it made it fairly clear that gladiators were granivores, which you rejected since it didn’t fit your argument.
The only thing you’ve cited so far turned out to be wholly two sided. Your cite.
“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
I forget the percentage that is plant matter.
I wouldn’t call it culture. Off the top of my head, many species of spider also bring a food offering to a potential mate.
The rest of us understand what omnivore and the like mean. You seem to want to change the definitions.
It’s a nonsensical statement. One is not primarily a herbivore. A species is a herbivore, omnivore, or carnivore. An omnivore may eat a primarily plant-based diet. They remain an omnivore.
I think your actually getting close to understanding my point.
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."
If you read carefully my issue is with the term itself, and it’s general misleading nature.
I’ve been gracious in offering evidence as to why I have this opinion. But if you read my posts carefully you will find, that I keep continually saying this, and stating evidence for this fact, which is being misconstrued. This fact with this reasoning applied should be evident to you in my very first post.
While I’m happy to argue on tangents, none have done anything to allay my opinion that the term is misleading, and should be further evident by the number of discussions like this populating internet forums.
But if the term is an appropriate classification(all classifications being man made), then why is the term itself subject to such debate.
Further, when asked about my “point”. I continue to say.
"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." (The resulting debate is also kinda fun, and it’s interesting to see what people come up with)
So anyone actually wishing to stay on track with this… can see the actual point I’m making tangents aside.
“I think its more accurate then just saying omnivore.” Doc what does this statement imply to you, what admission am I making, have made for oh… the past 3 pages of this?
No, I wouldn’t, because it’s patent nonsense. If I give you the *opportunity * to have either a five course banquet at your favourite restaurant or a plate of boiled rice, are you telling us you won’t make a choice? That you will decide at random, and thus choose the rice 50% of the time?
Do you even think about what you write before you post it?
Not a lot of talk, no. You said that basedon classification humans don;t eat meat. I pointed out that all those species classified as closest to us are all predatory omnivores. That’ not a lot.
And?
Are chimps predators or are they not? Do chimps regularly eat animal flesh, or do they not?
WTF has proportion got to do with this? Let’s assume that primitive humans only ate the same amount of meat as chimps. That still means that they ate animals every single day. Get it?
Oh another tangent. You don;t have enough of those in this thread. :rolleyes:
Call them primarily whatever you like. The fact is that they go to great lengths to kill and eat animals every single day of their adult lives. As such, based on “classification”, humans naturally are designed to kill and eat animals every single day of our lives.
Once again, you completely miss the point. The debate isn’t how much meat humans should eat. The debate is about what is a natural diet for humans. You claimed that we could determine natural diet based on classification. Great. Let’s accept that. Based on classification a natural diet for humans includes a daily input of freshly killed animal protein.
Maybe the ideal, natural human flesh intake is ~10%. Who knows? Who cares. The salient point is that the ideal dietary intake does include a daily ration of freshly killed animal flesh.
Blake
“The fact is that they go to great lengths to kill and eat animals every single day of their adult lives.”
I need to hear more about this. Tell me about your research on this, you make it sound as if they may eat me, or any researcher who gets to close…
And it only took you five pages.
I disagree. The teeth and digestive tract length tell the story.
As a kosher-keeping Jew, I say “well, duh!”
This quote seems familiar. Did Blake already refute it?
You’re the only one who finds it misleading in this debate. The rest of us understand it.
Oooh, argumentum ad populum plus “the lurkers support me”. You make an assertion (and don’t bother to back it up) that others are debating the meaning of omnivore. Then assert that just because a bunch of people are doing something, that behavior is valid.
It isn’t subject to debate. You insist on omnivore meaning something it doesn’t mean.
Wow, I finally had to quickly scan over the last couple of pages. And still I have to ask; y’all know you are being “played” right?
I have no idea what reference you are asking for. That is why I requested clarification.
You postings here are so rambling and incoherent and you go off onsom many tangents that when you say “where are those sources” nobody can tell what the heck youare talking about.
Oh, so it didn’t say that humans have been butchering animals for two million years? And it didn’t dsay that even the !Kung obtain 1/3 of their food from animal sources?
Because if we accept those facts it isn’t in any way two sided. Humans have always eaten meat and all known HGs obtain at least 1/3 of their diet from meat.
There is nothing even slightly two sided about it. Nobody is arguing about how much meat humans should eat. We are arguing about what humans always have eaten. The reference leaves no doubt that humans always have eaten large amounts of meat.
Or do you dispute that?
I ask again:
**
Do you dispute that very single HG group that we have evidence of, since the dawn of the human species, has derived at least 1/3 of their diet from animal flesh?
Do you dispute that a species that derives 1/3 of its diet from animal flesh and 2/3 from vegetable matter is an omnivore?
Because the first has been shown with references of the highest calibre in this thread.
And if your definition of omnivore allows you to exclude a species in which all individuals consume 1/3 animal matter an 2/3 plant matter your definition is worthless
**
And when asked WHY you think that, you give cites we’ve demolished.
You don’t understand the meaning of the term omnivore. We see that.
Cite that it’s not up to date with “modern thinking on the issue”?
We get it. You’re mislead by a term the rest of us understand quite clearly.
You admit you don’t understand the term omnivore and refuse to accept that it means what it does.
shhhhh…
Just want to get the citations straight.
One is Hunter-gatherer diets—a different perspective, by Katharine Milton, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 3, 665-667, March 2000. This is an editorial.
The main article is referenced in that editorial. It is Plant-animal subsistence ratios and macronutrient energy estimations in worldwide hunter-gatherer diets, by Loren Cordain, Janette Brand Miller, S Boyd Eaton, Neil Mann, Susanne HA Holt and John D Speth. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 71, No. 3, 682-692, March 2000. This article is one of those previously cited by Blake.
Both are worth reading in full and not to cherrypick for a line that seems, however loosely, to back an argument. They give a better understanding of how science works, what conclusions are based upon, and what statements may be made that are acknowledged as needed more development. Very different from the glittering generalities being thrown about this thread.
And they are also important because they concentrate on human cultures that can be evaluated and are therefore relevant.
We’ve swing around to another whirl on the shifting goalposts. I don’t see anything to continue. We seemed to have sucked all the marrow and are left with the crunching of dry bones. That may give us a lecture on calcium and its role in abundency disease but doesn’t seem worth the bother.
Do you think the typical hunter-gatherer diet is unnatural?
Or do you think the typical hunter-gatherer diet is not >50% animal flesh?
Or do you think that the hunter-gatherers are subhuman?
Or do you think that a diet composed of >50% slaughtered animals is “primarily herbivorous”?
These are simple questions. Why are you unable to answer them?
It has also been proven time and again to be ignorant nonsense.
The typical hunter-gatherer diet is natural.
The typical hunter-gatherer diet is >50% animal flesh.
Hunter-gatherers are human.
So the natural diet of a human being is primarily carnivore, if it can be said to be primarily anything.
It would be nice if you showed some sign of actually reading and understanding the science posted.
It has been conclusively shown that the typical hunter-gatherer diet is >50% animal flesh. Thus the natural human diet is primarily carnivore.
We can *all *see the point. We could all see the point in the OP. We also all see that it is provably ignorant nonsense.
The typical hunter-gatherer diet is natural.
The typical hunter-gatherer diet is >50% animal flesh.
Hunter-gatherers are human.
So the natural diet of a human being is primarily carnivore, if it can be said to be primarily anything.
But it isn’t more accurate. It is provably more inaccurate. >75% of all humans for >99% of the history of our species have obtained <50% of their food from slaughtered animals.
Saying that these people were primarily herbivores is obviously wrong. They were primarily carnivores.
I totally understand. Of late I have been forced to go in search of cheap hobbies myself.
To all involved, carry on and enjoy.
I’ll go with that.